2004
Volume 3 Number 3
  • E-ISSN: 2452-1051

Abstract

Abstract

Humans and human communities influence—and are influenced by—the landscapes or ecosystems of which they are a part. The contemporary landscape which much of the world’s population inhabits is a complex matrix of interrelated human and natural systems. The European Landscape Convention’s comprehensive definition recognizes the importance of landscape but is deficient in classification frameworks and cohesive approaches to planning, particularly sustainable development. This paper provides a critical literature review for the term ‘landscape’; it’s evolving and iterative procedure synthesizes interdisciplinary perspectives of literature’s varied theories, paradigms, frameworks and concepts. Results indicate the disciplines of Social Science and Environmental Science transcend the literature and current paradigms for the concept of ‘landscape’ still lack interrelated perspective and are generally poorly understood among disciplines. This literature review concludes that sustainable development within the European landscape requires an integrated spatial approach for applying the concept of ‘landscape’. The context of the human-nature relationship within a socio-ecological production landscape (SEPL) allows the interactions of its interdependent components to be viewed comprehensively. This critical analysis grounds perspectives of landscape and assist students, practitioners, and researchers to interpret concepts of the term ‘landscape’ within multiple frameworks. This paper fills interdisciplinary gaps and provides the structural, spatial, and contextual considerations for further integrated research, theory, and planning in thinking about sustainable development within Europe’s rapidly changing landscapes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2022.3.65331
2022-11-01
2023-02-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/24521051/3/3/JEL.2022.3.65331.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2022.3.65331&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Moffatt, Sebastian, and NiklausKohler. “Conceptualizing the built environment as a social–ecological system.”Building research & information36, no. 3 (2008): 248–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210801928131
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Liu, Jianguo, ThomasDietz, Stephen R.Carpenter, CarlFolke, MarinaAlberti, Charles L.Redman, Stephen H.Schneider et al. “Coupled human and natural systems.”AMBIO: a journal of the human environment36, no. 8 (2007): 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Scharlemann, Jörn PW, Rebecca C.Brock, NicholasBalfour, ClaireBrown, Neil D.Burgess, Miriam K.Guth, Daniel J.Ingram et al. “Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: The role of environment–human linkages.”Sustainability science15, no. 6 (2020): 1573–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00799-6
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alberti, Marina, John M.Marzluff, EricShulenberger, GordonBradley, ClareRyan, and CraigZumbrunnen. “Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems.”BioScience53, no. 12 (2003): 1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[1169:IHIEOA]2.0.CO;2
    [Google Scholar]
  5. McDonnell, Mark J., and Stewart TAPickett. “Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology.”Ecology71.4 (1990): 1232–1237. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938259
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Du Plessis, Chrisna, and PeterBrandon. “An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment.”Journal of Cleaner Production109 (2015): 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.098
    [Google Scholar]
  7. leBrasseur, Richard. “Reconnecting Urbanisations: Achieving Sustainable Development through the Integration of Socio-Ecological Systems.” Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301296095 (2013).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. O’Brien, Catherine, and PatrickHoward. “The living school: The emergence of a transformative sustainability education paradigm.”Journal of Education for Sustainable Development10, no. 1 (2016): 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215625549
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbons, Leah V.“Regenerative—The new sustainable?.”Sustainability12, no. 13 (2020): 5483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135483
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Díaz-Cuevas, Pilar, and JavierDomínguez-Bravo. “GIS, territory, and landscape in renewable energy management in Spain.”Renewable Energies and European Landscapes. Springer, Dordrecht (2015): 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9843-3_15
    [Google Scholar]
  11. An, Li. “Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models.”Ecological modelling229 (2012): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.07.010
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Koomen, Eric, JasperDekkers, and Terryvan Dijk. “Open-space preservation in the Netherlands: Planning, practice and prospects.”Land use policy25.3 (2008): 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.004
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Berkes, Fikret, JohanColding, and CarlFolke, eds. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press (2008).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Yang, Wu, ThomasDietz, Daniel BoydKramer, ZhiyunOuyang, and JianguoLiu. “An integrated approach to understanding the linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being.”Ecosystem health and sustainability1, no. 5 (2015): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1890/EHS15-0001.1
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Latour, Bruno, IsabelleStengers, AnnaTsing, and NilsBubandt. “Anthropologists are talking–about capitalism, ecology, and apocalypse.”Ethnos83, no. 3 (2018): 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2018.1457703
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Stone-Jovicich, Samantha, Bruce E.Goldstein, KatrinaBrown, RyanPlummer, and PerOlsson. “Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research.”Ecology and Society23, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10008-230141
    [Google Scholar]
  17. An, Li, AlexZvoleff, JianguoLiu, and WilliamAxinn. “Agent-based modeling in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS): lessons from a comparative analysis.”Annals of the Association of American Geographers104, no. 4 (2014): 723–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.910085
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Filbee-Dexter, Karen, Celia C.Symons, KristalJones, Heather A.Haig, JeremyPittman, Steven M.Alexander, and Matthew J.Burke. “Quantifying ecological and social drivers of ecological surprise.”Journal of Applied Ecology55, no. 5 (2018): 2135–2146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13171
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Wu, Jianguo, and John L.David. “A spatially explicit hierarchical approach to modeling complex ecological systems: theory and applications.”Ecological modelling153.1–2 (2002): 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00499-9
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sijtsma, F. J., Mehnen, N., Angelstam, P., & Muñoz-Rojas, J. (2019). Multi-scale mapping of cultural ecosystem services in a socio-ecological landscape: A case study of the international Wadden Sea Region. Landscape ecology, 34 (7), 1751–1768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00841-8
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haase, Dagmar, NikiFrantzeskaki, and ThomasElmqvist. “Ecosystem services in urban landscapes: practical applications and governance implications.”Ambio43.4 (2014): 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Becker, Egon and Jahn, Thomas. Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-DisciplinaryApproach to Integrating Environmental Consideration into Theoretical Reorientation. London: Zed (1999).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Swart, Rob J., PaulRaskin, and JohnRobinson. “The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis.”Global environmental change14.2 (2004): 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Tisdell, Clem. “Globalisation and sustainability: environmental Kuznets curve and the WTO.”Ecological Economics39.2 (2001): 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00234-8
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Forman, R. T. T., and M.Godron. “Landscape ecology Wiley & Sons.”New York, NY, US (1986).
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Selman, Paul. “What do we mean by sustainable landscape?.”Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy4, no. 2 (2008): 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2008.11908019
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Powell, John, PaulSelman, and AmandaWragg. “Protected areas: reinforcing the virtuous circle.”Planning Practice and Research17, no. 3 (2002): 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/026974502200005643
    [Google Scholar]
  28. N/A
  29. N/A
  30. N/A
  31. N/A
  32. Von der Leyen, Ursula. “A Union that strives for more.”My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the next European Commission2024 (2019): 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention, Report of Council of Europe Conference, 22 and 23 March (2007). T-FLOR, 14. Olwig, Kenneth R.The meanings of landscape: Essays on place, space, environment and justice. Routledge (2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Jørgensen, Karsten, MortenClemetsen, Kine HalvorsenThorén, and TimRichardson, eds. Mainstreaming landscape through the European landscape convention. Vol. 199. London: Routledge, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685922
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Bourassa, Steven C.The aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven press (1991).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Appleton, Jay. The experience of landscape. London: Wiley (1975).
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Layton, Robert, and PeterUcko, eds. The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: shaping your landscape. Routledge (2003). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203202449
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wiens, John A.“Toward a unified landscape ecology.”Issues in landscape ecology (1999): 148–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Bastian, Olaf, KarstenGrunewald, Ralf-UweSyrbe, UlrichWalz, and WolfgangWende. “Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance.”Landscape ecology29, no. 9 (2014): 1463–1479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0064-5
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lothian, Andrew. “Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?”Landscape and urban planning44.4 (1999): 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Barker, Roger Garlock. “Ecological psychology; concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior.” (1968).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sauer, Carl. The Morphology of Landscape. Berkeley: University of California Publications in Geography (1925).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. “A Kantian system? Democracy and third-party conflict resolution.”American Journal of Political Science (2002): 749–759. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088431
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Chenoweth, Richard E., and Paul H.Gobster. “The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape.”Landscape journal9.1 (1990): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.9.1.1
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pickering, Catherine, JulienGrignon, RochelleSteven, DanielaGuitart, and JasonByrne. “Publishing not perishing: How research students transition from novice to knowledgeable using systematic quantitative literature reviews.”Studies in Higher Education40, no. 10 (2015): 1756–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.914907
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Li, Habin, and James F.Reynolds. “A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes.”Landscape ecology8.3 (1993): 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00125347
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Parker, J., & Simpson, G. D. (2018). Public green infrastructure contributes to city livability: A systematic quantitative review. Land, 7 (4), 161. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040161
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Di Fazio, S., & Modica, G. (2018). Historic rural landscapes: Sustainable planning strategies and action criteria. The Italian experience in the global and European context. Sustainability, 10(11), 3834. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113834
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Bailly, Antoine, ClaudeRaffestin, and HenriReymond. «Les concepts du paysage: problématique et représentations.»L’espace Géographique (1980): 277–286. https://doi.org/10.3406/spgeo.1980.3575
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Carbonell Carrera, Carlos, and Luis A.Bermejo Asensio. “Landscape interpretation with augmented reality and maps to improve spatial orientation skill.”Journal of Geography in Higher Education41.1 (2017): 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2016.1260530
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Entrikin, J. N.“1991: The betweenness of place: towards a geography of modernity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.” (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21086-2
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Tilley, Christopher. The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Routledge (2020). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003087083
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Berleant, Arnold. Aesthetics and environment: Variations on a theme. Routledge (2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351163361
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Assumma, V., Bottero, M., Monaco, R., & Soares, A. J. (2019). An integrated evaluation methodology to measure ecological and economic landscape states for territorial transformation scenarios: An application in Piedmont (Italy). Ecological Indicators, 105, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.071
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Farina, Almo. “The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics.”BioScience50.4 (2000): 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0313:TCLAAM]2.3.CO;2
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Vasárus, G. L., & Lennert, J. (2022). Suburbanization within City Limits in Hungary—A Challenge for Environmental and Social Sustainability. Sustainability, 14 (14), 8855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14148855
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Westhoff, V.“Man’s attitude towards vegetation.”Geobotany (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7269-8_2
    [Google Scholar]
  58. NPS (National Park Service). National Park Service Overview, U.S.Department of the Interior (2015). Available at http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/NPS-Overview-2015-update-11-16-15-2.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Punter, J. V. (2019). Landscape aesthetics: a synthesis and critique. In Valued environments (pp. 100–123). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199868-6
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mundher, R., Abu Bakar, S., Maulan, S., Mohd Yusof, M. J., Al-Sharaa, A., Aziz, A., & Gao, H. (2022). Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review. Forests, 13 (7), 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13070991
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sullivan, Robert G., and Mark E.Meyer. “Environmental reviews and case studies: The national park service visual resource inventory: Capturing the historic and cultural values of scenic views.”Environmental Practice18.3 (2016): 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046616000260
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (LI/IEMA)“Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment”. London: SPON Press (2002). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994658
  63. Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and behavior, 29 (4), 468–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900402
    [Google Scholar]
  64. De Groot, Rudolf S.Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff BV (1992).
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Gomes, Eduardo, ArnaudBanos, PatríciaAbrantes, and JorgeRocha. “Assessing the effect of spatial proximity on urban growth.”Sustainability10, no. 5 (2018): 1308. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051308
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Troll, Carl. “A paisagem geográfica e sua investigação.”Espaço e cultura4 (1997): 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Liu, Jianguo, and William W.Taylor. “Coupling landscape ecology with natural resource management: Paradigm shifts and.”Integrating Landscape Ecology into Natural Resource
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Grifoni, Roberta Cocci, RosalbaD’Onofrio, and MassimoSargolini. “State of the Art on the Search for Sustainability and Quality of Life in Cities.”Quality of Life in Urban Landscapes. Springer, Cham (2018): 3–9. Management1 (2002): 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65581-9_1
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Laszlo, Alexander, and StanleyKrippner. “Systems theories: Their origins, foundations, and development.”Advances in psychology Amsterdam – 126 (1998): 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(98)80017-4
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Haase, G.„Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturpotetialen.“Petermann’s (1978).
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Crutzen, Paul J., and Eugene F.Stoermer. “Global change newsletter.”The Anthropocene41 (2000): 17–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Odum, Eugene Pleasants, and Gary W.Barrett. Fundamentals of ecology. Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Saunders (1971).
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Pickett, StewardTA, Mary L.Cadenasso, J. MorganGrove, Charles H.Nilon, Richard V.Pouyat, Wayne C.Zipperer, and RobertCostanza. “Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas.”Annual review of ecology and systematics32, no. 1 (2001): 127–157. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114012
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Turner, Ian M., and Richard T.Corlett. “The conservation value of small, isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest.”Trends in ecology & evolution11.8 (1996): 330–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10046-X
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Council of Europe – Cultural heritage, Landscape and Spatial planning Division and Swedish National Heritage Board (2012). “Eighth Council of Europe Workshops for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention.” (PDF). Malmö, Sweden.
  76. Oudes, Dirk, and SvenStremke. “Spatial transition analysis: Spatially explicit and evidence-based targets for sustainable energy transition at the local and regional scale.”Landscape and Urban Planning169 (2018): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.07.018
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Allen, T. F. H., and T.Hoekstra. “Toward a unified ecology New York (NY) Columbia University Press.” (1992).
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Angelstam, Per, MichaelGrodzynskyi, KjellAndersson, RobertAxelsson, MarineElbakidze, AlexanderKhoroshev, IvanKruhlov, and VladimirNaumov. “Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory.”Ambio42, no. 2 (2013): 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Field, Donald R., Paul R.Voss, Tracy K.Kuczenski, Roger B.Hammer, and Volker C.Radeloff. “Reaffirming social landscape analysis in landscape ecology: a conceptual framework.”Society & Natural Resources16, no. 4 (2003): 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920390178900
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Gobster, Paul H., Joan I.Nassauer, Terry C.Daniel, and GaryFry. “The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?.”Landscape ecology22, no. 7 (2007): 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. “The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy.”Landscape Ecology6.4 (1992): 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129702
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Reed, James, KoenKusters, JosBarlow, MichaelBalinga, Joli RumiBorah, RachelCarmenta, ColasChervier et al. “Re-integrating ecology into integrated landscape approaches.”Landscape Ecology36, no. 8 (2021): 2395–2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01268-w
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Selman, Paul. “Planning for landscape multifunctionality.”Sustainability: Science, practice and policy5.2 (2009): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2009.11908035
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Corner, James. The agency of mapping: speculation, critique and invention. na, (1999).
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Pedroza-Arceo, N. M., Weber, N., & Ortega-Argueta, A. (2022). A Knowledge Review on Integrated Landscape Approaches. Forests, 13 (2), 312. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020312
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Déjeant-Pons, Maguelonne. “The European landscape convention.”Landscape Research31.4 (2006): 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390601004343
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Resilience Alliance. “Assessing resilience in social-ecological systems: a workbook for scientists.”Resilience Alliance, Wolfville (2007).
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Anderies, John M., Marco A.Janssen, and ElinorOstrom. “A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective.”Ecology and society9.1 (2004). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00610-090118
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Cote, Muriel, and Andrea J.Nightingale. “Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research.”Progress in human geography36.4 (2012): 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Turner, Billie Lee. “Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences100.14 (2003): 8080–8085. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231334100
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Becker, Egon. “Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects.”Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of social-ecological systems analysis (2012): 37–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Ziyaee, Maryam. “Assessment of urban identity through a matrix of cultural landscapes.”Cities74 (2018): 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.021
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Tress, Bärbel, and GuntherTress. “Capitalising on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research.”Landscape and urban planning. 57.3–4 (2001): 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00200-6
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Harden, Carol P., AnneChin, Mary R.English, RongFu, Kathleen A.Galvin, Andrea K.Gerlak, Patricia F.McDowell et al. “Understanding human–landscape interactions in the “Anthropocene”.”Environmental management53, no. 1 (2014): 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0082-0
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Folke, Carl, LowellPritchard Jr, FikretBerkes, JohanColding, and UnoSvedin. “The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later.”Ecology and society12, no. 1 (2007). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02064-120130
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Cilliers, Paul. “Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems.”International Journal of Innovation Management5.02 (2001): 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919601000312
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Teixeira, CatarinaPatoilo, CláudiaOliveiraFernandes, and JackAhern. “Novel Urban Ecosystems: Opportunities from and to Landscape Architecture.”Land10.8 (2021): 844. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080844
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Roggema, Rob. “The future of sustainable urbanism: Society-based, complexity-led, and landscape-driven.”Sustainability9.8 (2017): 1442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081442
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Lavrenova, Olga. Spaces and meanings: Semantics of the cultural landscape. Vol. 8. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15168-3
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Daniels, Thomas L.“A trail across time: American environmental planning from city beautiful to sustainability.”Journal of the American Planning Association75.2 (2009): 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360902748206
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Potschin, Marion, and RoyHaines-Young. ““Rio+ 10”, sustainability science and Landscape Ecology.”Landscape and urban planning75.3-4 (2006): 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.03.005
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Xu, H., Peng, M., Pittock, J., & Xu, J. (2021). Managing Rather Than Avoiding “Difficulties” in Building Landscape Resilience. Sustainability, 13 (5), 2629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052629
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Agrawal, Arun, and Clark C.Gibson. “Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation.”World development27.4 (1999): 629–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Gu, Yexuan, BrianDeal, and LindaLarsen. “Geodesign processes and ecological systems thinking in a coupled human-environment context: an integrated framework for landscape architecture.”Sustainability10.9 (2018): 3306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093306
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Heslinga, Jasper Hessel, PeterGroote, and FrankVanclay. “Using a social-ecological systems perspective to understand tourism and landscape interactions in coastal areas.”Journal of Tourism Futures (2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-10-2015-0047
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Liu, C., Deng, C., Li, Z., Liu, Y., & Wang, S. (2022). Optimization of Spatial Pattern of Land Use: Progress, Frontiers, and Prospects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19 (10), 5805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105805
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Mele, Cristina, JacquelinePels, and FrancescoPolese. “A brief review of systems theories and their managerial applications.”Service science2.1-2 (2010): 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2.1_2.126
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Pietta, Antonella, and MarcoTononi. “Re-naturing the city: Linking urban political ecology and cultural ecosystem services.”Sustainability13, no. 4 (2021): 1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041786
    [Google Scholar]
  109. leBrasseur, Richard. Transitional landscapes: examining landscape fragmentation within peri urban green spaces and its impacts upon human wellbeing. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Edinburgh Research Archive (2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Miola, Apollonia, and FritzSchiltz. “Measuring sustainable development goals performance: How to monitor policy action in the 2030 Agenda implementation?.”Ecological economics164 (2019): 106373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106373
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Abel, Tom. “Complex adaptive systems, evolutionism, and ecology within anthropology: interdisciplinary research for understanding cultural and ecological dynamics.”Journal of Ecological Anthropology2.1 (1998): 6–29. https://doi.org/10.5038/2162-4593.2.1.1
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Finnegan, David J., and Wendy L.Currie. “A multi-layered approach to CRM implementation: An integration perspective.”European Management Journal28, no. 2 (2010): 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.04.010
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Hansen, Rieke, and StephanPauleit. “From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas.”Ambio43.4 (2014): 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Hjorland, Birger. “Knowledge organization.”. Knowledge Organization43 (2016): 475–84. Also available in ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, eds. BirgerHjørland and ClaudioGnoli, https://www.isko.org/cyclo/knowledge_organization. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2016-6-475
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Danziger, Kurt. 1997. Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found its Language. London: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221815
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Krishnan, Armin. “What are Academic Disciplines”., NCRM Working paper series (2009): 03/09. University of Southampton. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/1/what_are_academic_disciplines.pdf (accessed: 2021-11-12).
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Simon, Josep. Communicating Physics: The Production, Circulation and Appropriation of Ganot’s Textbooks in France and England, 1851–1887. (2011). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. acobs, Jerry. In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. (2013). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Shulman, L. S.“Making differences: A table of learning”. Change, Vol:34(6) (2002), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380209605567
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Strayer, D. L., Pickett, S. T., Weathers, K. C., & Likens, G. E.Ecosystem Science: The Continuing Evolution of Our Discipline. In Fundamentals of Ecosystem Science. (2021) (pp. 323–334). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812762-9.00019-8
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Trevisani, M., & Tuzzi, A.Learning the evolution of disciplines from scientific literature: a functional clustering approach to normalized keyword count trajectories. Knowledge-based systems, 146 (2018): 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.01.035
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Lawrence, R. J.Advances in transdisciplinarity: Epistemologies, methodologies and processes. Futures, 65, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.007
    [Google Scholar]
  123. AndersenHanne. 2016. “Collaboration, Interdisciplinarity, and the Epistemology of Contemporary Science”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (2015): 56: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Hammarfelt, Björn. “What is a Discipline? The Conceptualization of Research Areas and their Operationalization in Bibliometric Research”. In 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI 2018) September 12–14, (2018), Leiden, Edited by RodrigoCostas, ThomasFranssen, and AlfredoYegros-Yegros. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), 197–203.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Sugimoto, Cassidy and ScottWeingart. “The Kaleidoscope of Disciplinarity”. Journal of Documentation71 (2021): 775–794. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2014-0082
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Dushkova, D., & Ignatieva, M.New trends in urban environmental health research: from geography of diseases to therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens. Geography, Environment, Sustainability (2020): 13 (1), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2019-99
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Rapport, D. J., Costanza, R., & McMichael, A. J.Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in ecology & evolution (1998): 13 (10), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01449-9
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Kolen, Jan, and JohannesRenes. “Landscape biographies: Key issues.”Landscape biographies: Geographical, historical and archaeological perspectives on the production and transmission of landscapes (2015): 21–47. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089644725
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention. CETS No. 176. Council of Europe, Strasbourg (2000). http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Coperation/Environment/Landscape/. (accessed 12December2019).
  130. Redek, Tjaša, PolonaDomadenik, and MatjažKoman. “Sustainable Development Goals in the EU and the Challenges in Their Implementation.” In Challenges on the Path Toward Sustainability in Europe. (2020). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-972-620201003
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Spangenberg, Joachim H.“A European methodology for sustainable development strategy reviews.”Environmental Policy and Governance20, no. 2 (2010): 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.536
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Kelly, Rachel, MaryMackay, Kirsty L.Nash, ChristopherCvitanovic, Edward H.Allison, DerekArmitage, AlettaBonn et al. “Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers.”Socio-Ecological Practice Research1, no. 2 (2019): 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2022.3.65331
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/JEL.2022.3.65331
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error