14 - Integrative landscape research: facts and challenges  pp. 246-268

Integrative landscape research: facts and challenges

By Gary Fry, Bärbel Tress and Gunther Tress

Image View Previous Chapter Next Chapter


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

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

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