Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

Proceedings of the first international seminar of the international association of landscape ecology (iale) organized at roskilde university centre, roskilde, denmark, october 15-19, 1984, by international seminar on methodology in ....

  • 0 Want to read
  • 0 Currently reading
  • 0 Have read

My Reading Lists:

Use this Work

Create a new list

My book notes.

My private notes about this edition:

Check nearby libraries

  • Library.link

Buy this book

  • Better World Books
  • Bookshop.org

When you buy books using these links the Internet Archive may earn a small commission .

This edition doesn't have a description yet. Can you add one ?

Showing 6 featured editions. View all 6 editions?

Add another edition?

Book Details

Published in.

Roskilde, Denmark

The Physical Object

Community reviews (0).

  • Created October 25, 2008
  • 2 revisions

Wikipedia citation

Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help ?

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Int J Environ Res Public Health

Logo of ijerph

Applying Landscape Ecology in Local Planning, Some Experiences

Inger-lill eikaas.

1 Asplan Viak, 1337 Sandvika, Norway

Helene Roussel

2 Nordplan, 6771 Nordfjordeid, Norway

Anne-Karine H. Thorén

3 Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, The Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003 NMBU, 1432 Ås, Norway

Wenche E. Dramstad

4 Department of Landscape Monitoring, Survey and Statistics Division, P.O. Box 115 NIBIO, 1431 Ås, Norway

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Landscape ecology is repeatedly described as an applied science that can help reduce the negative effects of land-use and land-use changes on biodiversity. However, the extent to which landscape ecology is in fact contributing to planning and design processes is questioned. The aim of this paper is to investigate if and how landscape ecology can be integrated in a planning and design process, and to uncover possible problems that, e.g., landscape architects and planners, may face in such processes. Our conclusion, based on a case study from Asker municipality, Norway, is that such a landscape ecological approach has a lot to offer. However, it is difficult to exploit the potential fully for different reasons, e.g., biodiversity information tends to be specialized, and not easily used by planners and designers, and landscape ecological principles need an adaptation process to be applicable in a real-world situation. We conclude that for the situation to improve, landscape ecologists need to ease this process. In addition, we recommend collaboration across disciplinary boundaries, preferably with a common design concept as a foundation.

1. Introduction

The world’s population is expected to reach 9.6 billion people by 2050, an increase of 1.6 billion from the present 8 billion [ 1 ]. Combined with climate change and a range of other environmental challenges, an obvious result is an increasing pressure on land resources [ 2 ], a pressure also being an important driver of species loss and ecosystem degradation [ 3 ]. Furthermore, the land area being a finite resource underlines the need to manage it in a sustainable way [ 4 ]. In particular, urban areas are expected to face continued population growth [ 5 ]. To accommodate this increased population an increase in built infrastructure is a common approach, often leading to reduced green space [ 6 , 7 ]. However, it is well-documented that urban green infrastructure has numerous positive effects on the urban population [ 7 ] and represent habitat to many species [ 8 ].

Landscape architects and land-use planners are among the professional practitioners often dedicated to planning land-use change, and therefore may be considered key professions in the quest to ensure the availability of urban green spaces while meeting the challenge outlined by Forman and Wu [ 9 ], Where to put the next billion people. As for the role of landscape architects and land-use planners, a relevant question then is whether they have the information and planning tools needed to consider and integrate ecology and the conservation of biodiversity as an aspect of planning land-use.

Landscape ecology is rooted both in geography and ecology. Within landscape ecology, a model has been developed where any part of any landscape can be assessed as representing patches, corridors, or the matrix (the background ecological system), to the species in focus [ 10 ]. In brief, the combination of these landscape elements and their configuration into different spatial patterns, are considered important to the ecology of the landscape, e.g., to whether species successfully colonize new areas, to the interaction between species, and ultimately their continued survival [ 10 ].

Some authors have pointed to the potential of landscape ecology to contribute to sustainable development [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. At the same time, several authors have commented on the lack of practical application of scientific findings in real world changes, e.g., to ensure species conservation or a continued delivery of ecosystem services [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. This critique is relevant also to landscape ecology, a science claiming to have a focus on real-world applications [ 10 , 11 ]. Transferring knowledge from theory to practice is difficult, however, as theoretical and general principles need to be ‘translated’ or placed in a spatially explicit context to be applicable in real-world designs [ 11 , 14 , 17 ]. Furthermore, biologists may not know how their knowledge can be made more useful in a planning context. This is where we believe landscape ecology can be used as a “meeting point” based on the shared concern about spatial patterns, landscape composition, and configuration.

Landscape ecology focuses on landscape content and composition. The agencies that one would suppose were able to apply landscape ecological theory and findings to real-world situations are often public or privately employed professional practitioners, not scientists. Accordingly, landscape ecology has produced several examples of principles and recommendations intended to aid this process [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. The most common recommendations are to prioritize larger areas, ensure connectivity, minimize distances and contrast where possible, and create heterogeneous environments. However, it is uncertain to which extent the principles have gained acceptance [ 25 , 26 , 27 ]. This is supported by Van Damme [ 28 ], who underlines the need to strengthen the implementation of concepts, principles, and methods of landscape ecology in planning, management, policy, and design. Similarly, Trammell, Carter, Haby, and Taylor [ 27 ], p. 2, outlined how “…calls for increased integration are numerous and longstanding”. Additionally, Hersperger, Grădinaru, Pierri Daunt, Imhof, and Fan [ 26 ] in their recent extensive review found that while several landscape ecological concepts were frequently used, they conclude that “… landscape ecological concepts have not achieved deep integration into the planning process” (p. 2342).

Several possible explanations have been forwarded to explain what is known as the “science-practice gap” [ 29 ], and they can probably be relevant for the topics in focus here. Lack of communication between ecologists and landscape planners is one candidate, lack of knowledge, training, or familiarity may be the other, or maybe ‘ecological interests’ have a lower priority compared to other interests represented in a landscape [ 11 , 16 ], a concern also outlined by Forman and Wu [ 9 ]. Additionally, relevant in this context is whether professional practitioners indeed perceive scientific principles and findings as practically applicable. Previous studies have considered a lack of knowledge transfer considered of real use for professional practitioners a main obstacle [ 15 , 30 , 31 ]. A Norwegian study of planning practices related to biodiversity reported similar results [ 32 ]. In this study, landscape ecological principles, such as those developed by Agger [ 24 ], were referred to as an important theoretical foundation in their land-use planning. There was also extensive documentation of nature types, habitats, red-listed species, etc. However, the study contained no information about how the municipalities translated the landscape ecological principles to management in the planning processes, making it difficult to conclude regarding the actual transformation from theory to practice. Our concern is thus that even when information and knowledge are available, information is not used to its full potential.

A recommendation forwarded in several studies has been to focus on species conservation also outside protected areas [ 33 ]. Urban areas are no exception. The UN states, ‘Cities are rethinking urban space, not only from the perspective of health, but also ecology. They are recognizing the need to promote inclusive planning and to take regional dimensions into account’ [ 34 ]. The EU underlines how green infrastructure in urban areas “… plays a critical and increasingly important role in biodiversity conservation efforts.” [ 35 ]. Natural areas tend to be small and fragmented in urban settings, however, as has been documented in international [ 36 ] and Norwegian studies since the 1990s [ 37 ]. This does not imply they are of no value to biodiversity; however, due to their smaller size, they provide merely a limited range of niches and a limited number of habitats to a limited number of species. We hypothesize that applying principles developed within the framework of landscape ecology can help mitigate some of the negative effects of this.

The approach we describe originated from work related to a landscape architecture master thesis project [ 38 ], which has been further elaborated. Our research objective was to describe and test how landscape ecology can be integrated more explicitly with all stages of a planning and design process, as discussed by Hersperger, Grădinaru, Pierri Daunt, Imhof, and Fan [ 26 ]. In addition, we wanted to identify possible problems that, e.g., landscape architects and planners may face in such processes.

Specifically, our research questions were:

  • How can landscape ecological knowledge be integrated with a planning and design process?
  • Do planners and designers have the knowledge they need for a “landscape ecological approach”?

2.1. Research Framework and Selection of Case Study

We wanted to use a case-study approach to examine whether theoretical principles of landscape ecology could be used by landscape architects in a typical planning situation. Our research approach consisted of nine steps:

  • Define case study criteria;
  • Identify case study municipality;
  • Municipality data capture and analysis;
  • Select landscape ecological principle(s);
  • Crude regional analyses;
  • Identify local study area for design;
  • Categorize existing land-use/cover in the local study area;
  • Define aims and design priorities and management regimes for the local study area;
  • Design and visualize.

The steps are described in more detail below.

Our first step was to identify criteria for selecting a suitable case study area, and we agreed on the following:

  • Data on natural conditions, species, nature types, etc., should be available in national databases and have been updated within the last 10 years;
  • There should be diverse natural conditions and species assemblages;
  • The area should be exposed to pressure from population and infrastructure development;
  • The area should be within reach for a one-day visit.

A lot of data in Norway is gathered on the scale of a municipality. In addition, the municipality is responsible for land-use planning. Thus, we decided to search for municipalities meeting the above criteria, and found that Asker municipality ( Figure 1 ) met all of them.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-20-03410-g001.jpg

Asker municipality in south-eastern Norway. The solid lines in the left figure outline the municipality boundary (only land area and water included). The small square mark the center area of the municipality.

Our next step was to gather various types of data on abiotic and biotic aspects of Asker municipality. Thus, we collected thematic maps on geology and soil, landform, and vegetation cover, occurrences of red-listed species and nature types, and built-up land. These maps are available free of charge in Norway. While our inspection could be interpreted to illuminate multiple challenges, it also clearly illustrated how fragmentation due to infrastructure and urban development and agriculture could represent challenges to the movement for most land-living animal species. Several studies have documented how connectivity is important to various species, ranging from butterfly and plant specialists [ 39 ] to grizzly bears [ 40 ] and fish [ 41 ]. Although there are situations where connectivity may be harmful [ 42 ], in general, recommendations have emphasized the need to ensure connectivity between fragmented habitat patches to enable movement, and thus ensure genetically sound populations and species persistence in the long term [ 39 , 43 , 44 ]. Having familiarized ourselves with the municipality through studying these maps, we decided to emphasize design that could help mitigate fragmentation effects and chose connectivity as the landscape ecology principle to work with in our design. While it is possible to calculate fragmentation and various additional aspects of landscape content and composition using tools and indices, such as Fragstats™ and GIS software [ 45 ], this is rarely an approach used by landscape architects and land-use planners in Norway [ 46 ], thus we decided not to include this type of measures.

To make sure we were seeing the potential study area in the context of the surrounding landscape, we also changed our scale and zoomed out. It was outside the scope of this study to conduct regional landscape analysis, as will also be the case in most real-life planning situations. Nevertheless, wanting to make sure our plan would connect to the surrounding landscape, we decided to conduct a crude visual inspection of the readily available regional land cover and land-use maps. We identified areas of forest, water, and agriculture distributed within and around the built-up land. By a visual inspection of the maps, we identified where there were apparent gaps between smaller patches of non-developed land. By doing this, we clearly saw how our case study area had the potential to fill one of these gaps. Our analysis is illustrated in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-20-03410-g002.jpg

An illustration of the outcome of our visual inspection of the area in a more regional context. Arrows mark our assessment of potential movement routes for terrestrial species, and the “gap” we decided to focus on is outlined.

To identify an area suitable for a more detailed design approach focused on connectivity, we looked for a gap with an existing natural linear element, and we identified the river corridor as a potential site ( Figure 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-20-03410-g003.jpg

Our case study area with the river corridor in a densely built-up landscape.

Zooming in on our chosen case study area, we identified all land-use/cover types present. As the land-use/cover typology used for our land cover map was both too much and less suitable for our purpose, we decided we needed to develop a simple typology based on the assessment of human influence on the land. Therefore, we categorized existing land-use into four classes: mainly natural, natural, human, and mainly human. Then, we defined as our design strategy to aim for connecting, to the extent possible, patches of mainly natural land cover along the river, while also acknowledging the great potential for the river corridor for recreation and nature experience for the local population.

2.2. Case Study: Asker Municipality and Asker River Corridor

Asker municipality is located just outside Oslo in south-eastern Norway ( Figure 1 ). Asker municipality covers 189 km 2 , and has a population of ca. 60,000 inhabitants. The population density is 259 people per square km (accessed on 1 January 2022, www.ssb.no ), compared to a national average of 15. Major infrastructure, in terms of roads and railways, traverse the municipality.

Land cover in Asker is heterogeneous. The region is biologically rich, with a wide range of habitat types, including both ocean coastline, hilly forested areas, and calcareous rocks. Calcareous rocks are uncommon in Norway, where acidic bedrock poor in nutrients often dominates. Asker has a considerable population of oak trees ( Quercus spp.) which the Norwegian Environment Agency has designated as a nature type of particular interest [ 47 ]. At the coastal edge of the municipality, there are also a significant proportion of protected calcareous lime forests.

Asker center, the focus area of this study, is a densely populated urbanized area with a heterogeneous land cover, divided by the river Askerelva ( Figure 3 ). The river and surrounding areas contribute to the municipality’s heterogeneity, as do the recreational areas, transport infrastructure, and the commercial center. In addition, there are also elements of parks and gardens that may contribute habitat and ecological functions in this small urban center. Several data sources with biological and land-use/land cover information are freely available in Norway. The most important ones in this context were data on land-use (Land-use/cover map (scale 1:5000)) [ 48 ] and Orthophotos [ 48 ]. We also used data from ‘Naturbase’, containing data on species observations, protected areas, valuable nature types, and recreational areas available from the Norwegian Environment Agency [ 49 ], and we collected data on the presence of red-listed species and nature types present from the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre [ 50 ]. This was complemented by the municipality of Asker’s survey of biological diversity [ 51 ]. In addition, we used planning documents from the municipality and private stakeholders.

The process builds on the familiar landscape planning principles of Ian McHarg [ 52 ] using thematic maps and overlay techniques. Specifically, we used the thematic maps, which showed bedrock, soils, landform, vegetation cover, nature types and protected areas, particularly valued nature types, recordings of red-listed species, habitat areas, and built-up land.

We found that applying a four-stage process, only slightly revised from the one described by Hersperger, Grădinaru, Pierri Daunt, Imhof, and Fan [ 26 ] worked well. In the first stage, knowledge of land-use/cover and characteristics of the study area was important. This introduced us to many biotic and abiotic aspects of the municipal landscape, areas of potentially conflicting interests, and areas with important features, for example, valued nature types and areas with a high density of red-listed species.

Having decided to emphasize connectivity as our landscape ecological principle, we used both a regional and a local map to identify features that contributed to connecting blue-green elements/patches and bridging potential barriers between them, i.e., the potential elements in the blue-green structure or the ‘emerald necklace’ (see emeraldnecklace.org). We found we were able to identify existing and missing links, and land that could function as possible barriers (hinder movement) and corridor (facilitate movement) structures. Thus, our result was that even our merely visual inspection of regional land-use/land cover maps gave us a good overview of the landscape, and in particular key elements fragmenting the remaining more natural sites, i.e., forested and agricultural land, and rivers and lakes. We identified some larger areas of non-developed land, which potentially connect municipal blue-green systems with those at regional levels. From a landscape ecological point of view, these larger non-developed areas are particularly important to map as they provide habitat for species requiring larger habitats or habitats with less influence from the surrounding landscape, and important in our context, provide habitat for some species, which may be able to recolonize new habitat if connected.

When looking for areas that could function as elements in a blue–green structure at the local scale, if subjected to a landscape ecology-based design, we realized that we wanted to keep our analyses on a more general level. Therefore, we did not base the process on any scientific analyses of, for example, resistance of the land cover types to movement by particular species or indicator species. If we had aimed at this level of detail, we would have needed to identify particular species or species groups to investigate and assess their mobility. In our experience, this is rarely done in a typical Norwegian planning situation. Based on our test, we believe an approach that can be applied is to use the available land cover/land-use map (scale 1:5000), accompanied by orthophotos (true color, scale 1:15,000), to provide information about areas of importance from a biodiversity perspective (available in national databases), and plans for future development. We found that locating species observations and nature types on the study site map revealed several important locations. This also provided us with potential ‘bottleneck areas’, i.e., where housing and infrastructure appeared to be about to cut off connectivity between natural areas. We could also identify zones of potential interaction, e.g., boundaries between housing areas and natural areas. The land-use map illustrates how narrow the corridor is, and how close future housing and commercial developments and large infrastructure projects are. We found this to be useful input into our design of the river corridor.

Along the river corridor, we assessed the different land-use/land cover elements present. We found that the existing land-use/land cover classification was not ideal for our purpose, for example, elements were mapped as built-up when it also contained smaller elements with grass and trees. In addition, we wanted a typology that was in line with our design ideas and the main factor we believed to be influencing the perceived structural connectivity of more natural areas, which was the human presence. Thus, we assigned all land to one of four categories of land cover/land-use representing more natural (e.g., forests, wetlands, and lakes), or more human-dominated (e.g., residential and industrial) types. This crude categorization worked as a typology to help us get an overview of where there was human-dominated land, potentially affecting the structural connectivity of the more natural areas. The process also revealed locations where the more human-dominated types of land-use, e.g., residential or commercial, created a gap in the connectedness of more natural types, such as small forests. Based on our aim to increase structural connectivity, we found that it would be useful to focus on four types of land-use elements along the river corridor: private gardens, lawns, road verges, and waterways. These are landscape elements that appear to match the description by Forman [ 36 ], being smaller elements that occur repeatedly within the study area and, thus, are suitable candidates for change by design. However, we realized that it would not be beneficial to apply the same design to all elements of the same type, for example, convert all lawns to mainly natural woodland. This would easily come in conflict with other potential uses of the area, e.g., for recreation. Thus, we found that our design suggestions had to be based on the specific location of each area, and its relation to neighboring areas.

In the more detailed design stage, we wanted to integrate data on vulnerable species and valued nature types in as much detail as possible, by using data from the national biodiversity database “Artsdatabanken”. This was intended to function as a biodiversity knowledge base for the design, and to help us develop principles for design with emphasis on vegetation structure and selection of species, typical tasks within the framework of landscape architecture and land-use planning. However, this turned out to be a difficult process. In total, 555 species have been recorded in Asker municipality. The Norwegian Red List classifies species as belonging to one of four categories: critically threatened (CR), highly threatened (EN), near threatened (NT), or vulnerable (VU) [ 53 ]. In Asker, 4.646 single observations belonged to one of these categories. However, more than a thousand of observations were recorded before 1970. It was also unclear to what extent the quality of the data was ensured and by whom, and the spatial accuracy was variable. Moreover, only to a small extent had the material been systematized and adapted to use for planning purposes. Still, there were several vulnerable species in the area, primarily in and along the river corridor (mussels, birds, and insect species). In addition, we identified nature types subjected to protective guidelines according to the Nature Diversity Act [ 54 ]. These included hollow oaks ( Quercus rubra ) and rich deciduous woodland. Overall, though, the biodiversity data were overwhelming in volume and detail, and we found it very difficult to know how to make the best use of it.

We decided to base our vegetation models on a morphological approach by classifying vegetation according to the variation in the composition of layers inspired by Gustavsson [ 55 ]. Gustavsson developed a novel classification that could be used to conduct empirical studies of forest landscape change, and a tool in landscape planning and design [ 55 ]. His focus was more on the tree layer’s morphology, an approach seemingly suitable also for our purpose. By using Gustavsson’s approach to creating vegetation layers, we wanted to identify plant species that would strengthen the function of the different area categories. For instance, in the ‘mainly natural areas’ category, it was important to use species that would provide a heterogeneous horizontal and vertical structure, as this would ensure a larger diversity of species and provide additional habitat. Multiple vertical layers of vegetation would, for example, provide better cover for ground-moving species, species that prefer to move with a low risk of being detected, e.g., badgers or roe deer. In addition, a heterogeneous horizontal structure would allow more species to find needed resources simply by adding variability in space and time, e.g., a wider range of plant species and species flowering or producing fruit at different times during the season. Furthermore, the chances of succeeding in creating a habitat for a diverse number of species are higher if we give priority to plant species that are beneficial to other species, for example, plants that provide nectar and pollen to insects, or trees suitable for cavity-nesting birds. As a result, vegetation became a tool in both separating and linking the different areas, their uses, and functions. To identify possible species, we decided to look at four criteria; (i) whether they provided resources for other species, (ii) their ecological characteristics (e.g., vulnerability, population status, suitability to the area), (iii) considerations of people (e.g., toxic, smelling, and allergenic), (iv) specific requirements (pH, humidity, and local climate). We found that this worked well.

In our final stage in the process, we brought the different types of information together, aiming to test how one can apply landscape ecological knowledge in a detailed design to meet a more specific objective (e.g., increasing connectivity to benefit biodiversity) in an area. We used our typology and the information about the spatial distribution of the elements described above and found that this approach worked as intended. For example, there was a large total area of lawn surrounding the existing buildings and along the roads, where we suggested developing a less managed and human-influenced land-use type. Assessing the entire river corridor, instead of the “one property at a time” approach, we believe we managed to create a design that met our aim, to increase the structural connectivity of the less human-influenced land-use/land cover along the river corridor. However, we did also keep certain areas as more “cultivated”, i.e., in the “mainly human” category.

Finally, we realized we needed to include information about our design ideas and management advice for our different categories. This is illustrated in Figure 4 . We also made illustrations to visualize our design, such as the one presented in Figure 5 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-20-03410-g004.jpg

An illustration providing an overview of the distribution of the four categories of our typology along the river corridor. Below the map are some ideas regarding the design, and the preferences. At the bottom are images intended as illustrations of management guidelines.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-20-03410-g005.jpg

Example of illustrations. Colors illustrate categories according to the typology.

4. Discussion

Hersperger, Grădinaru, Pierri Daunt, Imhof, and Fan [ 26 ] documented how landscape ecological concepts are often used in the analysis of a study area, but less frequently integrated with the other steps of the planning process. Furthermore, they concluded that a clear link from the concepts to planning remained an exception [ 26 ]. We aimed to establish such as link, and to test how landscape ecology could contribute to the entire planning and design process, and improved integration of ecological data and knowledge about ecological processes in the landscape.

In our test case, we used landscape ecology in the first stage, goal establishment [ 26 ], as we wanted to focus on connectivity. To ensure connectivity in an urban or peri-urban landscape, a potential planning approach includes the establishment of a blue-green network, also sometimes called an “emerald necklace”. Typically, this necklace consists of various blue and green elements (e.g., rivers, parks, ponds, urban woodlands, and even brownfields), and different types of ‘links’ between these [ 36 , 56 ], i.e., patches and corridors using a landscape ecology terminology [ 10 ]. The concept of an “emerald necklace” is well-established within landscape architecture and landscape planning, and thus worked as a unifying concept between the disciplines. This concept also provided a useful base for discussing how both elements and links should have characteristics that may influence and enhance their function, e.g., as a habitat for species of interest, or as corridors for their movement [ 36 ]. Ensuring the connectedness of the network through these links or the land-use matrix itself is important from an ecological perspective [ 11 , 57 ]. From our experience, we consider finding a useful unifying concept or idea to have potential when aiming to make ecological knowledge better integrated into a planning and design process. Furthermore, we found it useful to place the design area in a larger landscape ecological context through a crude regional assessment even though it was based only on a visual map inspection. We are concerned this regional perspective often may be given a low priority in many planning processes. This is probably due to the commonly tight economic and time constraints in municipal planning, where all emphasis is directed to a clearly outlined designated planning area [ 36 ].

It was not possible within the scope of this project to do a field-based mapping of species diversity. This was neither an aim nor is it likely to be so in real planning situations. Rather, we aimed to use available information to capture as much relevant biological information as possible, and to do a crude assessment on the spatial pattern. Our experience from this rather restricted test is in line with several other studies, such as the one from Stockholm, and from Thorén and Saglie’s study from Oslo [ 32 , 58 ]. The task immediately became overwhelming. Most professional practitioners will not have the training required to assess and analyze large amounts of ecological or species data, or to judge the importance of managing an area for one species over the other. Planning processes are usually speedy, and biodiversity is an issue that may be omitted or randomly treated.

While vegetation, land cover and land-use maps may provide useful information in a planning situation, it is not necessarily information that is easy to apply directly in a design process. Our four categories of desired land-use intensity, where we assigned each land parcel to one of these to operationalize this background information for further planning, worked well in our context. As connectivity was in focus at the landscape scale, it seemed appropriate to aim for a continuous ‘mainly natural’ category, under the assumption that ‘mainly natural’ would maximize that function for the largest number of species. In general, we found this a very useful simplification of the original land-use/cover typology that also reduced the need for specialized ecological knowledge.

In contrast to maps of existing land-use/land cover, these categories also represent a prioritization of objectives for each parcel of land, not only a description of the current state. The prioritization was based on the importance to safeguard biodiversity and planning for human needs. The main considerations in this process were analyses of biodiversity in the river corridor, in terms of records of red-listed and other species and vulnerable nature types, and assumptions concerning needs related to recreation.

We aimed to focus on multifunctionality [ 59 ] in the study areas, while at the same time spatially separating the least compatible functions. To achieve this, we also developed a set of guidelines for each category. For instance, category A (‘mainly natural’ areas) would have a total ban on introduced species, dead trees were to be left alone, and heterogeneity of vegetation and habitat was a priority. In contrast, in the ‘mainly human’ category (D), we allowed exotic species, and we gave aesthetics and accessibility priority. Figure 4 gives an overview of the distribution of the categories along the river corridor. To use the different categories along the gradient from ‘mainly natural’ areas to ‘mainly human’ areas, while keeping the landscape ecological perspective, it was necessary to work both at a local scale and a larger scale. This implied balancing the occurrence and distribution of the different spatial categories.

From our perspective, the process we described and tested with the stages, including assessment, selection, and application of relevant and applicable principles prior to design and decision-making, functioned as intended. It did contribute to a useful work trajectory, ensuring that important perspectives were included at the right stage in the process. It also demonstrated that using principles and ideas based on landscape ecology could guide a planning and design process on multiple spatial scales from the wider landscape to the local analyses. This is not to say there is no room for improvement. For instance, deciding on the best range of scales to include is something that needs further testing and refinement. This is also a theme that should be further elaborated in a next step which would be testing the approach described in a real-world planning situation. A real-world situation would also involve various stakeholders and a gathering of feedback and experiences from these. In addition, monitoring the functioning of the area over time would be important, as input in a potential later refinement of the design.

In a real planning situation, managing biodiversity and blue–green structures in urban areas is the result of management on a range of scales, and by an array of institutions. This includes the individual gardeners’ day-to-day urban park management, and the more general regional and national regulations and laws. According to Ernstson [ 30 ], there is little awareness of the fact that consideration on a range of scales is necessary for ensuring the ecological functions of green areas. This implies that there is a need for more detailed and general strategies. Löfvenhaft has demonstrated how this can be approached, with the National Urban Park in Stockholm as an example [ 60 ]. There, the initial step was to develop a classification system to map the urban vegetation both on public and private land and to use the information to manage selected indicator species. This would allow for a detailed and targeted approach to hopefully strengthen the populations of these species. However, a complicating factor is the complexity involved, as well as the frequent lack of transdisciplinarity [ 61 ], which could hinder the success of the approach.

Working transdisciplinary may be exactly what is needed in future urban planning though, as was demonstrated in Oslo [ 62 ]. In particular, we hope to see a closer collaboration between biologists, landscape ecologists, landscape architects, architects, and planners in the future. This is in line with what was also outlined by Hersperger, Grădinaru, Pierri Daunt, Imhof, and Fan [ 26 ] calling for more dialogue and Trammell, Carter, Haby, and Taylor [ 27 ] suggesting to have more landscape ecologists present in large agencies involved in landscape planning and management. Based on our experience, we would argue that to manage an area in the best way from a biodiversity perspective, ecological data should be interpreted by an ecologist. This would contribute to ascertaining how to assign priorities, when necessary, the validity of the data (for example based on the number, observer, and age of observations), and what are the relative importance (for example based on rarity). We thus consider there to be an urgent need for ecologists to contribute to the information flow in planning processes and the transdisciplinary process needed to face the current challenges.

In general, our answer to our second research question is indeed that we suspect that neither landscape architects and planners nor ecologists alone have the knowledge needed for a “landscape ecological approach” to planning. In a process of changing land-use, the amount of input information and the decision-making involved is demanding and complex. Therefore, we fully support the suggestion by Trammell, Carter, Haby, and Taylor [ 27 ], and believe this to be the best way forward.

It is rather obvious that when we interfere with and change a landscape, some species may benefit from the planned changes, while others are likely to suffer. To ensure the best possible outcome from an ecological perspective, it is important to have clearly defined aims. The result is likely to be different if you plan for maximizing species diversity in the area, rather than aiming to protect a particular species. In our study, we decided to emphasize improved connectivity as an overall strategy to improve the habitats for a range of species. We believe multiple species will benefit from our resulting plan for the river corridor as it defines different categories of land-use and strengthens their individual spatial connectedness. This is based on the well-documented positive effects of improved connectivity when habitats are fragmented [ 44 ], as is the case in our study area.

Based on this study, we suggest that the design process needs to be broadened, to better integrate knowledge from, e.g., ecological disciplines into land-use planning and design. We did not specifically consider Nature-based solution (see, e.g., [ 63 ]), but this is also something that we anticipate could be a useful future approach for ensuring cross-disciplinarity [ 64 ]. For this to happen, available knowledge generated in biology or ecology must be translated into something more applicable in planning and design, in line with the points made by Carter, Pilliod, Haby, Prentice, Aldridge, Anderson, Bowen, Bradford, Cushman, DeVivo, Duniway, Hathaway, Nelson, Schultz, Schuster, Trammell, and Weltzin [ 17 ]. Here, in particular, landscape ecology can be a tool, but landscape architects and planners may also need to broaden their knowledge of biology and ecological processes. If we are to meet the challenge of protecting biodiversity, cross-disciplinarity must be moved from rhetoric to reality. We also recommend always swapping between different spatial scales and bringing landscape ecology thinking into the process on all relevant scales.

Finally, design based on ecological principles may be considered unattractive and even un-aesthetic [ 65 ]. Thus, the visualization of design proposals is an important part of the project to show that such principles can indeed help create beautiful and diverse outdoor environments. This is again a task where cross-disciplinarity can be helpful, as this is typically a task for which designers and landscape architects are well-trained.

5. Conclusions

Landscape ecology has a lot to contribute ensuring better integration of ecology in land-use planning and design, and can aid in multiple stages of the processes. With the land, allocation of land to different uses and spatial patterns as common denominators, landscape architects, land-use planners, and landscape ecologists should have a solid foundation for collaboration. In this project, we decided to emphasize a major challenge in this case study landscape, connectivity. This is not to say that we did not also keep other principles, e.g., heterogeneity, in mind. In another landscape type, the situation may be different, and, e.g., establishment of new patches may be the key objective. However, it is important to be aware that these principles are not simply applicable in their “existing format”. Rather, there is an adaptation process required where theory needs to be matched with local situations and relevant data gathered and applied. For landscape ecology to achieve a wider application, it may be that landscape ecologists should focus on how to ease this process.

A major finding from our study is that the step from landscape ecological theory to practical application is challenging. A range of factors influences this. Among the more important in our perspective is the lack of municipal or regional landscape analysis based on landscape ecological principles. Such an analysis could be used to prioritize landscape elements important to a blue–green infrastructure on a wider spatial scale, and to identify areas that could, or should, be given priority as addition to this. Furthermore, much biodiversity information, e.g., species occurrences, is not available in a way that makes it useful for professional practitioners.

Another recommendation is to increase the degree of participation in each stage of the planning and design process. We anticipate that planning and design with stronger integration of ecological considerations, may both require trade-offs (e.g., between species habitat and aesthetics) and lead to novel visual expressions. We believe that wide participation can ensure acceptance of the potentially involved tradeoffs and end results.

The approach described in this paper is not that different from what is commonly used in landscape architecture. However, what is novel in our approach is the way landscape ecology and ecological knowledge is integrated into every step in the planning and design process and on all spatial scales, from regional assessments to the selection of plant species on a detailed design level. We hope that this can be an example of an approach to be further developed, adapted, and applied in other projects, and act as inspiration for further collaboration between landscape ecologists, landscape architects, and land-use planners, as we believe this could be a way forward.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to S.N. Dramstad who translated and finalized the illustrations, and U. Bayr who redesigned the maps. We are also grateful to four anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Funding Statement

The contribution by WED was funded by The Norwegian Research Council, grant number 194051.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.-L.E. and H.R.; methodology, I.-L.E. and H.R.; software, I.-L.E. and H.R.; writing—original draft preparation, I.-L.E. and H.R.; writing—review and editing, A.-K.H.T. and W.E.D.; visualization, I.-L.E. and H.R.; supervision, A.-K.H.T. and W.E.D.; funding acquisition, W.E.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

College of Agricultural, Consumer & Environmental Sciences

Illinois Extension

  • Beef Cattle
  • Community Planning
  • Environment
  • Houseplants
  • Local Government Education
  • Rainfall Management
  • Fruit Trees
  • Vegetable Gardening
  • Newsletters
  • Online Courses
  • Fall Gardening Resources
  • Fall Home and Family Resources
  • Winter Gardening Tips
  • Winter Health Tips
  • Winter Holiday Edition
  • Winter Weather Tips
  • Summer Resources
  • Publications
  • Contact Staff
  • Find an Office
  • Social Media
  • Administration and Educator Teams
  • Geographic Organizational Leadership
  • Communications and Information Technology
  • Planning, Reporting, and Evaluation
  • Volunteer and Career Development
  • Energy Education Council
  • Illini Science Policy Program
  • Illinois Indiana Sea Grant
  • Master Gardeners
  • Master Naturalists
  • Plant Clinic
  • Research and Education Centers
  • Home and Community Education
  • 2024 Extension Collaboration Grants
  • Economic and Functional Impact
  • Agriculture and AgriBusiness Impact
  • Community and Economic Development Impact
  • Family and Consumer Sciences Impact
  • Integrated Health Disparities Impact
  • Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy Impact
  • SNAP-Education Impact
  • Extension Funded Research Projects
  • FYI Internal Communications
  • Strategic Planning
  • Extension Councils
  • Professional Associations

Choose native plants for ecological benefits and wildlife resources

bee on sedum

Are you looking to select plants that support local wildlife, conserve water, and enhance the overall ecosystem in Central Illinois? Here are some steps to assist you: 

Research Local Native Plants

Begin by researching native plant species that are indigenous to Central Illinois. Find resources, plant lists, and guides from local extension offices or other conservation focused organizations. Extension’s new Illinois Pollinator website has a plant selection tool to help you find just the right plant for your location. 

Consider Plant Diversity

Choose a diverse range of plant species that bloom at different times of the year. Aim to have three different plants blooming in each part of the growing season. Having a variety of colors and floral forms is important to support a diverse number of species. This guarantees a continuous supply of resources for wildlife throughout the seasons. 

Include plants that attract pollinators like bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds. Excellent choices are native wildflowers such as coneflowers, milkweeds, and bee balm for summer blooms. Add spring and autumn bloomers also to provide pollinator resources all season. 

Select Native Trees and Shrubs

Trees and shrubs provide essential habitat, shelter, and food for varied wildlife. Consider species like oak, maple, hickory, and dogwood, which are native to Illinois. Plants that produce berries, like serviceberries, elderberries, and raspberries, provide food for birds and other wildlife. Seed and nuts are also good sources of food for wildlife. 

Think About Host Plants

Some butterflies and moths require specific host plants for their caterpillars. Host plants include:  

  • Milkweed for monarch butterflies,  
  • Echinacea and rudbeckia for silvery checkerspot butterflies 
  • Parsley, dill, or fennel for black swallowtail butterflies 
  • Aster for painted lady and pearl crescent butterflies 

Make sure to include host plants in your garden to provide for all stages of the pollinator’s lifecycle.  

Be careful about planting invasive species that can harm local ecosystems. Check with local conservation organizations or your extension office for lists of invasive species to avoid. 

Create Habitat Features

Native grasses and sedges can provide shelter and nesting materials for birds and small mammals. Species like little bluestem and prairie dropseed can be good choices for providing habitat building resources. Enhance habitat diversity by adding birdhouses, bat boxes, and pollinator hotels. Providing water sources, like birdbaths or a small pond, can also attract wildlife. 

Use Sustainable Practices

Regularly maintain your garden by removing invasive species, pruning, and weeding. Keep an eye on the health of your plants and adjust your garden plan as needed. Employ sustainable gardening practices, such as mulching with native materials, reducing pesticide and herbicide use, and conserving water through efficient irrigation methods. 

By choosing native plants that provide food, shelter, and habitat for local wildlife, you can create a garden that not only looks beautiful but also contributes to the ecological health of your landscape. 

ILRiverHort

Related content.

Integrated assessment and prediction of ecological security in typical ecologically fragile areas

  • Published: 20 February 2024
  • Volume 196 , article number  286 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

  • Ling Lv 1 ,
  • Wei Guo 1 ,
  • Xuesheng Zhao 1 ,
  • Jing Li 1 ,
  • Xianglin Ji 1 &
  • Mengjun Chao 1  

In order to safeguard and restore ecological security in ecologically fragile regions, a regionally appropriate land use structure and ecological security pattern should be constructed. Previous ecological security research models for ecologically fragile areas are relatively homogenous, and it is necessary to establish a multi-modeling framework to consider integrated ecological issues. This study proposes a coupled “PLUS-ESI-Circuit Theory” framework for multi-scenario ecological security assessment of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (NHAR). Firstly, the PLUS model was used to complete the simulation of four future development scenarios. Secondly, a new ecological security index (ESI) is constructed by synthesizing ecological service function, ecological health, and ecological risk. Finally, the Circuit Theory is applied to construct the ecological security pattern under multiple scenarios, and the optimization strategy of ecological security zoning is proposed. The results show that (1) from 2000 to 2030, the NHAR has about 80% of grassland and farmland. The built-up area is consistently growing. (2) Between 2000 and 2030, high ecological security areas are primarily located in Helan Mountain, Liupan Mountain, and the central part of NHAR, while the low ecological security areas are dominated by Shapotou District and Yinchuan City. (3) After 2010, the aggregation of high-security areas decreases, and the fragmentation of patches is obvious. Landscape fragmentation would increase under the economic development (ED) scenario and would be somewhat ameliorated by the ecological protection (EP) and balanced development (BD) scenarios. (4) The number of sources increases but the area decreases from 2000 to 2020. The quantity of ecological elements is on the rise. Ecological restoration and protection of this part of the country will improve its ecological security.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article

Abbreviations

Balanced development

Cellular automata model

Connectivity composite score

Conservation priority area

Carbon storage

Economic development

Ecological function

Ecological health

Ecological priority

Ecological risk

Ecological security

Ecological security index

Ecological security pattern

Ecosystem service value

General ecological corridor

Habitat quality

Important ecological corridor

Integrated valuation of ecosystem services model

Key ecological corridor

Least-cost distance

Landscape ecological risk

Land use change

Minimum cumulative resistance model

Monitoring and warning area

Natural development

Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region

Principal component analysis

Patch-generating land use simulation model

Coupled model of PLUS, ESI, and Circuit Theory

Protection transition area

Restoration core area

Random forest

Soil conservation

Vigor-organization-resilience model

Water yield

Ai, J.-W., Yu, K.-Y., Zeng, Z., Yang, L.-Q., Liu, Y.-F., & Liu, J. (2022). Assessing the dynamic landscape ecological risk and its driving forces in an island city based on optimal spatial scales: Haitan Island, China. Ecological Indicators, 137 , 108771.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alhamad, M. N., Alrababah, M. A., Feagin, R. A., & Gharaibeh, A. (2011). Mediterranean drylands: The effect of grain size and domain of scale on landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 11 (2), 611–621.

Cao, X.-F., Liu, Z.-S., Li, S.-J., & Gao, Z.-J. (2022). Integrating the ecological security pattern and the PLUS model to assess the effects of regional ecological restoration: A case study of Hefei City, Anhui Province. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (11), 6640.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen, C.-H., Liu, W.-L., Liaw, S. L., & Yu, C.-H. (2005). Development of a dynamic strategy planning theory and system for sustainable river basin land use management. Science of the Total Environment, 346 (1-3), 17–37.

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chen, Y., Ma, Y.-W., Pan, J.-F., Zhang, S.-L., Zhang, X.-Y., Wu, R., & Li, X.-Y. (2023). Integrating ecosystem health diagnosis into the construction of ecological security network-a case study in Qujing City, China. Ecological Indicators, 146 .

Cheng, H.-R., Zhu, L.-K., & Meng, J.-J. (2021). Fuzzy evaluation of the ecological security of land resources in mainland China based on the pressure-state-response framework. Science of the Total Environment, 804 , 150053.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Costanza, R. (2012). Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, 45 , 4–29.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387 (6630), 253–260.

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cui, X.-F., Deng, W., Yang, J.-X., Huang, W., & de Vries, W. T. (2022). Construction and optimization of ecological security patterns based on social equity perspective: A case study in Wuhan, China. Ecological Indicators, 136 , 108714.

Deepakshi, B.,. G.,. A., Mehebub, S., Kiranmay, S., Krishna, R., & Akhil, S. (2021). Assessment and prediction of carbon sequestration using Markov chain and InVEST model in Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278 .

Elinor, O. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325 (5939), 419–422.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Fu, F.-J., Liu, Z.-H., & Liu, H. (2021). Identifying key areas of ecosystem restoration for territorial space based on ecological security pattern: A case study in Hezhou City. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41 (9), 3406–3414.

Google Scholar  

Guo, W., Teng, Y.-J., Yan, Y.-G., Zhao, C.-W., Zhang, W.-Q., & Ji, X.-L. (2022). Simulation of land use and carbon storage evolution in multi-scenario: A case study in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Urban Agglomeration, China. Sustainability, 14 (20), 13436.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Huang, J.-M., Hu, Y.-C., & Zheng, F.-Y. (2020). Research on recognition and protection of ecological security patterns based on circuit theory: A case study of Jinan City. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 27 (11).

Huang, L., Wang, D.-R., & He, C.-L. (2022). Ecological security assessment and ecological pattern optimization for Lhasa city (Tibet) based on the minimum cumulative resistance model. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 29 (55), 83437–83451.

Huang, X.-Y., Ye, Y.-C., Zhao, X.-M., Guo, X., & Ding, H. (2022). Identification and stability analysis of critical ecological land: Case study of a hilly county in southern China. Ecological Indicators, 141 , 109091.

Jiang, H., Peng, J., Dong, J.-Q., Zhang, Z.-M., Xu, Z.-H., & Meersmans, J. (2021). Linking ecological background and demand to identify ecological security patterns across the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in China. Landscape Ecology, 36 (7), 2135–2150.

Ju, H.-R., Niu, C.-Y., Zhang, S.-R., Jiang, W., Zhang, Z.-H., Yang, Z.-Y., & Cui, Y.-R. (2021). Spatiotemporal patterns and modifiable areal unit problems of the landscape ecological risk in coastal areas: A case study of the Shandong Peninsula, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 310 , 127522.

Kang, P., Chen, W.-P., Hou, Y., & Li, Y.-Z. (2018). Linking ecosystem services and ecosystem health to ecological risk assessment: A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. Science of the Total Environment, 636 , 1442–1454.

Ke, S., Pan, H., & Jin, B. (2023). Identification of priority areas for ecological restoration based on human disturbance and ecological security patterns: A case study of Fuzhou City, China. Sustainability, 15 (3), 2842.

Li, J.-C., Shan, R., & Yuan, W.-H. (2023). Constructing the landscape ecological security pattern in the Dawen River Basin in China: A framework based on the circuit principle. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (6), 5181.

Li, J.-L., Xu, J.-G., & Chu, J.-L. (2019). The construction of a regional ecological security pattern based on circuit theory. Sustainability, 11 (22), 6343.

Li, K., Hou, Y., Fu, Q., Randall, M. T., Andersen, P. S., Qiu, M.-K., & Skov-Petersen, H. (2023). Integrating decision-making preferences into ecosystem service conservation area identification: A case study of water-related ecosystem services in the Dawen River watershed, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 340 , 117972.

Li, R., Han, R., Yu, Q.-R., Qi, S., & Guo, L. (2020). Spatial heterogeneous of ecological vulnerability in arid and semi-arid area: A case of the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China. Sustainability, 12 (11), 4401.

Li, S.-C., Zhao, Y.-L., Xiao, W., Yue, W.-Z., & Wu, T. (2021). Optimizing ecological security pattern in the coal resource-based city: A case study in Shuozhou City, China. Ecological Indicators, 130 , 108026.

Li, X., Fu, J.-Y., Jiang, D., Lin, G., & Cao, C.-L. (2022). Land use optimization in Ningbo City with a coupled GA and PLUS model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 375 , 134004.

Li, Y.-N., Duo, L.-H., Zhang, M., Yang, J.-Y., & Guo, X.-F. (2022). Habitat quality assessment of mining cities based on InVEST model—a case study of Yanshan County, Jiangxi Province. International Journal of Coal Science & Technology, 9 (1), 28.

Liang, X., Guan, Q.-F., Clarke, K. C., Liu, S.-S., Wang, B.-Y., & Yao, Y. (2021). Understanding the drivers of sustainable land expansion using a patch-generating land use simulation (PLUS) model: A case study in Wuhan, China. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 85 , 101569.

Lin, W.-B., Sun, Y.-W., Nijhuis, S., & Wang, Z.-L. (2020). Scenario-based flood risk assessment for urbanizing deltas using future land-use simulation (FLUS): Guangzhou Metropolitan Area as a case study. Science of the Total Environment, 739 , 139899.

Lin, Y.-M., Nan, X.-X., Hu, Z.-R., Li, X.-Q., & Wang, F. (2021). Fractional vegetation cover change and its evaluation of ecological security in the typical vulnerable ecological region of Northwest China: Helan Mountains in Ningxia. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 38 (5), 599–608.

Liu, J.-R., Schlünzen, K. H., Frisius, T., & Tian, Z. (2021). Effects of urbanization on precipitation in Beijing. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 122 , 103005.

Liu, Y., Xu, W.-H., Hong, Z.-H., Wang, L.-G., Ou, G.-L., & Lu, N. (2022). Assessment of spatial-temporal changes of landscape ecological risk in Xishuangbanna, China from 1990 to 2019. Sustainability, 14 (17), 10645.

Liu, Y.-Y., Liu, X.-Y., Zhang, B., & Li, M.-Y. (2020). Spatial features analysis of water conservation function in the hilly areas of the Loess Plateau based on InVEST model. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40 (17), 6161–6170.

Lu, Y., She, J.-Y., Chen, C.-H., She, Y.-C., & Luo, G.-G. (2015). Landscape ecological security pattern optimization based on the granularity inverse method: A case study in Xiuying District,Haikou. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 35 (19), 6384–6393.

Nie, W.-B., Xu, B., Yang, F., Shi, Y., Liu, B.-T., Wu, R.-W., Lin, W., Pei, H., & Bao, Z.-Y. (2022). Simulating future land use by coupling ecological security patterns and multiple scenarios. Science of the Total Environment, 859 (1), 160262.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pan, Z.-Z., He, J.-H., Liu, D.-F., Wang, J.-W., & Guo, X.-N. (2021). Ecosystem health assessment based on ecological integrity and ecosystem services demand in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Science of the Total Environment, 774 , 144837.

Peng, J., Liu, Y.-X., Wu, J.-S., Lv, H.-L., & Hu, X.-X. (2015). Linking ecosystem services and landscape patterns to assess urban ecosystem health: A case study in Shenzhen City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143 , 56–68.

Peng, J., Yang, Y., Liu, Y.-X., Hu, Y.-N., Du, Y.-Y., Meersmans, J., & Qiu, S.-J. (2018). Linking ecosystem services and circuit theory to identify ecological security patterns. Science of the Total Environment, 644 , 781–790.

Qiu, M., Yang, Z.-L., Zuo, Q.-T., Wu, Q.-S., Jiang, L., Zhang, Z.-Z., & Zhang, J.-W. (2021). Evaluation on the relevance of regional urbanization and ecological security in the nine provinces along the Yellow River, China. Ecological Indicators, 132 , 108346.

Selmy, S. A. H., Kucher, D. E., Mozgeris, G., Moursy, A. R. A., Jimenez-Ballesta, R., Kucher, O. D., Fadl, M. E., & Mustafa, A. R. A. (2023). Detecting, analyzing, and predicting land use/land cover (LULC) changes in arid regions using landsat images, CA-Markov hybrid model, and GIS techniques. Remote Sensing, 15 (23), 5522.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Shen, J.-C., Qin, G., Yu, R.-D., Zhao, Y.-X., Yang, J.-Q., An, S.-Q., Liu, R., Leng, X., & Wan, Y. (2020). Urbanization has changed the distribution pattern of zooplankton species diversity and the structure of functional groups. Ecological Indicators, 120 , 106944.

Sun, K., He, W.-B., Shen, Y.-F., Yan, T.-S., Liu, C., Yang, Z.-Z., Han, J.-M., & Xie, W.-S. (2023). Ecological security evaluation and early warning in the water source area of the Middle Route of South-to-North Water Diversion Project. Science of the Total Environment, 868 , 161561.

Tan, L., Luo, W., Yang, B., Huang, M., Shuai, S., Chen, C.-X., Zhou, X., Li, M.-N., & Hu, C.-W. (2023). Evaluation of landscape ecological risk in key ecological functional zone of South-to-North Water Diversion Project, China. Ecological Indicators, 147 , 109934.

Wang, B.-S., Liao, J.-F., Zhu, W., Qiu, Q.-Y., Wang, L., & Tang, L.-N. (2019). The weight of neighborhood setting of the FLUS model based on a historical scenario: A case study of land use simulation of urban agglomeration of the Golden Triangle of Southern Fujian in 2030. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39 (12), 4284–4298.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Wang, C.-X., Yu, C.-Y., Chen, T.-Q., Feng, Z., Hu, Y.-C., & Wu, K.-N. (2020). Can the establishment of ecological security patterns improve ecological protection? An example of Nanchang, China. Science of the Total Environment, 740 , 140051.

Wang, S.-F., Jiao, X.-Y., Wang, L.-P., Gong, A.-M., Sang, H.-H., Salahou, M. K., & Zhang, L.-D. (2020). Integration of boosted regression trees and cellular automata-Markov model to predict the land use spatial pattern in Hotan Oasis. Sustainability, 12 (4), 1396.

Wang, X.-K., Xie, X.-Q., Wang, Z.-F., Lin, H., Liu, Y., Xie, H.-L., & Liu, X.-Z. (2022). Construction and optimization of an ecological security pattern based on the MCR model: A case study of the Minjiang River Basin in Eastern China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (14), 8370.

Wang, Y.-J., Qu, Z.-Y., Zhong, Q.-C., Zhang, Q.-P., Zhang, L., Zhang, R., Yi, Y., Zhang, G.-L., Li, X.-C., & Liu, J. (2022). Delimitation of ecological corridors in a highly urbanizing region based on circuit theory and MSPA. Ecological Indicators, 142 , 109258.

Wei, H., Zhu, H., Chen, J., Jiao, H.-Y., Li, P.-H., & Xiong, L.-Y. (2022). Construction and optimization of ecological security pattern in the Loess Plateau of China based on the minimum cumulative resistance (MCR) model. Remote Sensing, 14 (22), 5906.

Wei, Q.-Q., Abudureheman, M., Halike, A., Yao, K.-X., Yao, L., Tang, H., & Tuheti, B. (2022). Temporal and spatial variation analysis of habitat quality on the PLUS-InVEST model for Ebinur Lake Basin, China. Ecological Indicators, 145 , 109632.

Xie, H.-L. (2022). Review and the outlook of land use ecological security pattern. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28 (12), 6305–6311.

Xie, X.-Q., Wang, X.-K., Wang, Z.-F., Lin, H., Xie, H.-L., Shi, Z.-Y., Hu, X.-T., & Liu, X.-Z. (2023). Influence of landscape pattern evolution on soil conservation in a red soil hilly watershed of Southern China. Sustainability, 15 (2), 1612.

Xiong, H.-J., Hu, H.-Z., Han, P.-Y., & Wang, M. (2023). Integrating landscape ecological risks and ecosystem service values into the ecological security pattern identification of Wuhan Urban Agglomeration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (4), 2792.

Xu, J., Xu, D.-W., & Qu, C. (2023). Construction of ecological security pattern and identification of ecological restoration zones in the city of Changchun, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (1).

Xu, W.-W., Sun, X., Zhu, X.-D., Zong, Y.-G., & Li, Y.-F. (2012). Recognition of important ecological nodes based on ecological networks analysis: A case study of urban district of Nanjing. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32 , 1264–1272.

Yao, Y., Liu, X.-P., Li, X., Liu, P.-H., Hong, Y., Zhang, Y.-T., & Mai, K. (2017). Simulating urban land-use changes at a large scale by integrating dynamic land parcel subdivision and vector-based cellular automata. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 31 (12), 2452–2479.

Yuan, Z.-Z., Li, W.-J., Wang, Y., Zhu, D.-Y., Wang, Q.-H., Liu, Y., & Zhou, L.-Y. (2023). Ecosystem health evaluation and ecological security patterns construction based on VORSD and circuit theory: A case study in the Three Gorges Reservoir Region in Chongqing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20 (1), 320.

Zhang, F., Yushanjiang, A., & Wang, D.-F. (2018). Ecological risk assessment due to land use/cover changes (LUCC) in Jinghe County, Xinjiang, China from 1990 to 2014 based on landscape patterns and spatial statistics. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77 (13), 1–16.

Zhang, H.-T., Li, J.-L., Tian, P., Pu, R.-L., & Cao, L.-D. (2022). Construction of ecological security patterns and ecological restoration zones in the city of Ningbo, China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 32 (4), 663–681.

Zhang, J.-B., Zhu, H.-R., Zhang, P.-Y., Song, Y.-P., Zhang, Y., Li, Y.-Y., Rong, T.-Q., Liu, Z.-Y., Yang, D., & Lou, Y.-Y. (2022). Construction of GI network based on MSPA and PLUS model in the main urban area of Zhengzhou: A case study. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10 , 878656.

Zhang, Q., Chen, C.-L., Wang, J.-Z., Yang, D.-Y., Zhang, Y.-E., Wang, Z.-F., & Gao, M. (2020). The spatial granularity effect, changing landscape patterns, and suitable landscape metrics in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, 1995-2015. Ecological Indicators, 114 , 106259.

Zhang, S.-H., Zhong, Q.-L., Cheng, D.-L., Xu, C.-B., Chang, Y.-N., Lin, Y.-Y., & Li, B.-Y. (2022). Landscape ecological risk projection based on the PLUS model under the localized shared socioeconomic pathways in the Fujian Delta region. Ecological Indicators, 136 , 108642.

Zhang, Z.-M., Peng, J., Xu, Z.-H., Wang, X.-J., & Meersmans, J. (2021). Ecosystem services supply and demand response to urbanization: A case study of the Pearl River Delta, China. Ecosystem Services, 49 , 101274.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Plan (2022YFE0127700); the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41930650); the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Key Research and Development Project (2022BEG03064); and the National Scholarship Fund of China.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Geoscience and Surveying Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, 100083, China

Ling Lv, Wei Guo, Xuesheng Zhao, Jing Li, Xianglin Ji & Mengjun Chao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Ling Lv: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Wei Guo: Writing – review & editing. Xuesheng Zhao: Editing. Jing Li: Resources. Xianglin Ji: Conceptualization. Mengjun Chao: Visualization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Guo .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

All authors have read, understood, and have complied as applicable with the statement on “Ethical responsibilities of Authors” as found in the Instructions for Authors

Consent for publication

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

(1) Land use changes under four scenarios were simulated using the PLUS model.

(2) Combined ecological function, ecological health, and ecological risk to define the ecological security index.

(3) Ecological security patterns were constructed using the Circuit Theory model.

(4) Proposed a multi-model coupling framework for ecological safety research and performed ecological safety zoning.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lv, L., Guo, W., Zhao, X. et al. Integrated assessment and prediction of ecological security in typical ecologically fragile areas. Environ Monit Assess 196 , 286 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12453-0

Download citation

Received : 27 September 2023

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 20 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12453-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • PLUS-ESI-Circuit Theory
  • Ecological security patterns
  • Scenario simulation
  • Ecological zoning optimization
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. Two distinct approaches within landscape ecology. At the left, the

    methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

  2. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice

    methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

  3. Why landscape ecologists should contribute to life cycle sustainability

    methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

  4. The Ecological Landscape Professional : Core Concepts for Integrating

    methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

  5. 1 The framework method for landscape ecological planning: an iterative

    methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

  6. Landscape Performance: Ian McHarg’s ecological planning in The

    methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

COMMENTS

  1. Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent

    The aim of the paper is to identify landscape ecological concepts that are currently receiving attention in the scientific literature, analyze the prevalence of these concepts and understand how these concepts can inform the steps of the planning processes, from goal establishment to monitoring. Methods

  2. PDF Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent ...

    Landscape ecology is an inter-disciplinary scientific discipline that focuses on spatial pattern and heterogeneity, and specifically their char-acterization and description over time, their causes and consequences and how humans manage those (Turner et al. 2001).

  3. Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning

    Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning: Proceedings of the First International Seminar of the International Association of Landscape Ecology (IALE) Organized at Roskilde...

  4. Eighty-year review of the evolution of landscape ecology: from a

    Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments Article Open access 28 January 2021 Theoretical conceptions for a holistic, transdisciplinary approach to contemporary landscape Article Open access 06 December 2023

  5. Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A ...

    Three substantially different methodological approaches or strategies were identified: 1) 'holistic' landscape character assessment approaches, by which visual perception and socio-cultural aspects of the landscape are emphasised; 2) landscape characterisation methods based on selection of geo-ecological and land-use-related properties of the la...

  6. Landscape Ecological Concepts in Planning (LEP): Progress, Hotspots

    The main findings are as follows: (i) There are three phases in LEP research: preparation, rising, and prosperity. LEP research is gradually shifting from concentrated ecological or environmental science to multidisciplinary fields, and there are significant opportunities for LEP research to build global collaborative networks.

  7. Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

    Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning | Semantic Scholar DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046 (86)90022-8 Corpus ID: 87682464 Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning E. Falero Published 1986 Environmental Science, Geography Landscape and Urban Planning View via Publisher Save to Library Create Alert Cite 43 Citations

  8. (PDF) Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent

    Objectives The aim of the paper is to identify landscape ecological concepts that are currently receiving attention in the scientific literature, analyze the prevalence of these concepts and...

  9. PDF Theories, Methods & Strategies for Sustainable Landscape Planning

    dimensions (Hersperger 1994). Finally, landscape ecological planning adopts the landscape as the principle spatial unit of research and planning recommendations. The focus of this chapter is on landscape ecological planning and on planning for sustainability. A Typology for Classifying Sustainable Landscape Planning Methods

  10. Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning: Landscape

    Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning: Landscape ecological concepts. International Association of Landscape Ecology. International Seminar. Roskilde Universitetsforlag GeoRuc, 1984 - Ecology - 118 pages. 0 Reviews. Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified.

  11. Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning

    Landscape-ecological planning is a specialization within landscape planning that focuses on spatial planning, the organization of uses and relationships of land uses to achieve explicit goals (e.g. habitat improvement, sustainability).

  12. 1

    Connectivity: a fundamental ecological characteristic of landscape pattern. Pp. 5-15 in Brandt, J. and Agger, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Seminar on Methodology in Landscape Ecological Research and Planning. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University.Google Scholar

  13. Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and

    Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization Milan Ruzicka & Ladislav Miklos Chapter 425 Accesses 25 Citations Abstract Several key scientific disciplines participate in the research of landscape ecology.

  14. Urban landscape networks: an ecological planning framework

    A framework is described, building upon ecological planning processes and incorporating theory and methodology from landscape ecology. The framework includes an assessment of natural and cultural resources, formulating the spatial structure of the network and examination of network components. Implementation strategies are discussed within the ...

  15. (PDF) Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping ...

    Due to the multidisciplinary nature of landscape research, many different systems and methods for landscape identification and classification exist. This paper provides a systematic review of 54 ...

  16. Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

    An edition of Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning (1900) Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning proceedings of the first international seminar of the International Association of Landscape Ecology (IALE) organized at Roskilde University Centre, Roskilde, Denmark, October 15-19, 1984

  17. Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and

    Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization. Several key scientific disciplines participate in the research of landscape ecology. Yet within the framework of comprehensive landscape research, the need for new theoretical and methodological approaches in each of these disciplines is ever more urgent.

  18. The Principle and Methodology of Landscape Eco-Planning

    This article discusses the concept, the main principles, procedures and methods of landscape eco-planning, and clarifies the GIS technology in the use of landscape planning and design,...

  19. Applying Landscape Ecology in Local Planning, Some Experiences

    Landscape ecology has a lot to contribute ensuring better integration of ecology in land-use planning and design, and can aid in multiple stages of the processes. With the land, allocation of land to different uses and spatial patterns as common denominators, landscape architects, land-use planners, and landscape ecologists should have a solid ...

  20. Landscape-ecological Planning, LANDEP—A Tool for the ...

    The basic principle of the landscape-ecological foundations of the environmental care is the integration of landscape-ecological ideas into the current planning processes—especially to the territorial planning, land-use, agricultural and forest management planning, and projecting.

  21. Proceedings of the first international seminar on methodology in

    T1 - Proceedings of the first international seminar on methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. T2 - V: Supplementary volume. A2 - Brandt, Jesper. A2 - Agger, Peder Winkel. PY - 1984. Y1 - 1984. M3 - Anthology. SN - 87-88183-24-6. VL - V

  22. Land

    In urban ecological development, the effective planning and design of living spaces are crucial. Traditional color plan rendering methods, mainly using generative adversarial networks (GANs), rely heavily on edge extraction. This often leads to the loss of important details from hand-drawn drafts, significantly affecting the portrayal of the designer's key concepts. This issue is especially ...

  23. Scope and Concepts of Landscape Ecology as an Emerging Science

    Before we describe the subject, it is worth explaining why land ecology or landscape ecology is a science, rather than just a "state of mind" or a mix of social activities and attitudes (I. Zonneveld, 1982; Theorie Werkgroep, 1986). Keywords Landscape Ecology Geographic Information System Land Unit Landscape Unit International Congress

  24. Choose native plants for ecological benefits and wildlife resources

    This guarantees a continuous supply of resources for wildlife throughout the seasons. Include plants that attract pollinators like bees, butterflies, and hummingbirds. Excellent choices are native wildflowers such as coneflowers, milkweeds, and bee balm for summer blooms. Add spring and autumn bloomers also to provide pollinator resources all ...

  25. Integrated assessment and prediction of ecological security ...

    In order to safeguard and restore ecological security in ecologically fragile regions, a regionally appropriate land use structure and ecological security pattern should be constructed. Previous ecological security research models for ecologically fragile areas are relatively homogenous, and it is necessary to establish a multi-modeling framework to consider integrated ecological issues. This ...