Environmental heterogeneity as a bridge between ecosystem service and visual quality objectives in management, planning and design

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 163, Issue , 2017, Pages 90-106

  Dronova, Iryna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

complexity; ecosystem services; heterogeneity; multi functional landscapes; resilience; visual quality

Indexed keywords

BIOHAZARDS; BRIDGES; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY;

COMPLEXITY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; HETEROGENEITY; MULTI-FUNCTIONAL; RESILIENCE; VISUAL QUALITIES;

ECOSYSTEMS;

COMPLEXITY; DISTURBANCE; ECOSYSTEM RESILIENCE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ESTHETICS; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE CHANGE; URBAN DESIGN; URBAN PLANNING;

EID: 85016238392     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.005     Document Type: Review

References (213)

1. Abkar, M., Mustafa, K.M.S., Maulan, S., Davoodi, S.R., Determining the visual preference of urban landscapes. Scientific Research and Essays 6:9 (2014), 1991–1997.
2. Acar, C., Kurdoglu, B.C., Kurdoglu, O., Acar, H., Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 13:6 (2006), 499–512.
3. Acar, C., Sakici, C., Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environment 43:6 (2008), 1153–1170.
4. Acreman, M., Arthington, A.H., Colloff, M.J., Couch, C., Crossman, N.D., Dyer, F., Young, W., Environmental flows for natural, hybrid, and novel riverine ecosystems in a changing world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:8 (2014), 466–473.
5. Allan, J.D., Smith, S.D.P., McIntyre, P.B., Joseph, C.A., Dickinson, C.E., Marino, A.L.,.. Adeyemo, A.O., Using cultural ecosystem services to inform restoration priorities in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13:8 (2015), 418–424.
6. Aminzadeh, B., Ghorashi, S., Scenic landscape quality and recreational activities in natural forest parks, Iran. International Journal of Environmental Research 1:1 (2007), 5–13.
7. Appleton, J.E., The experience of landscape. 1975, Wiley, London.
8. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:1 (2004), 115–125.
9. Baker, J., French, K., Whelan, R.J., The edge effect and ecotonal species: Bird communities across a natural edge in southeastern Australia. Ecology 83:11 (2002), 3048–3059.
10. Bakermans, M.H., Rodewald, A.D., Vitz, A.C., Influence of forest structure on density and nest success of mature forest birds in managed landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:6 (2012), 1225–1234.
11. Balvanera, P., Siddique, I., Dee, L., et al. Linking biodiversity and ecosystems services: Current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. Bioscience 64:1 (2014), 49–57.
12. Barnes, B.V., Zak, D.R., Denton, S.R., Spurr, S.H., Forest ecology. 4th ed., 1997, Wiley.
13. Benson, M.H., Garmestani, A.S., Can We Manage for Resilience? The Integration of Resilience Thinking into Natural Resource Management in the United States. Environmental Management 48:3 (2011), 392–399.
14. Betts, S., Multi-use rain gardens: Best practice case studies of the financially challenged and creatively rich. Journal of Green Building 10:4 (2015), 1–27.
15. Bias, M.A., Morrison, M.L., Habitat selection of the salt marsh harvest mouse and sympatric rodent species. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:3 (2006), 732–742.
16. Blicharska, M., Mikusinski, G., Incorporating social and cultural significance of large old trees in conservation policy. Conservation Biology 28:6 (2014), 1558–1567.
17. Boisramé, G., Thompson, S., Collins, B., Stephens, S., Managed wildfire effects on forest resilience and water in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems, 2016, 10.1007/s10021-016-0048-1.
18. Bond, N., Costelloe, J., King, A., Warfe, D., Reich, P., Balcombe, S., Ecological risks and opportunities from engineered artificial flooding as a means of achieving environmental flow objectives. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:7 (2014), 386–394.
19. Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning 97:3 (2010), 147–155.
20. Brown, T., Daniel, T., Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science 32:2 (1986), 471–487.
21. Buhyoff, G., Wellman, J., Daniel, T., Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine-beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science 28:4 (1982), 827–838.
22. Buma, B., Wessman, C.A., Differential species responses to compounded perturbations and implications for landscape heterogeneity and resilience. Forest Ecology and Management 266 (2012), 25–33.
23. Bureau of Land Management, Visual Resource Management, BLM Manual Handbook H-8400. 1984, United States Department of Internal Affairs, Washington, DC.
24. Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A., Effect of edge structure on the flux of species into forest interiors. Conservation Biology 15:1 (2001), 91–97.
25. Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A., Schwarz, K., Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:2 (2007), 80–88.
26. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P.,.. Naeem, S., Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:7401 (2012), 59–67.
27. Cardinale, B.J., Srivastava, D.S., Duffy, J.E., Wright, J.P., Downing, A.L., Sankaran, M., Jouseau, C., Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443:7114 (2006), 989–992.
28. Carlson, A., Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W., (eds.) Forests and landsacpes—Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics, 2001, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 31–41.
29. Cassatella, C., Assessing visual and social perceptions of landscape. Cassatella, C., Peano, A., (eds.) Landscape indicators. Assessing and monitoring landscape quality, 2011, Springer, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York, 104–105.
30. Chen, J., Cihlar, J., Quantifying the effect of canopy architecture on optical measurements of leaf area indec using two gap size analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 33:3 (1995), 777–787.
31. Chen, Z., Xu, B., Enhancing urban landscape configurations by integrating 3D landscape pattern analysis with people's landscape preferences. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(12), 2016, 1018.
32. Chen, Z., Xua, B., Gao, B., Assessing visual green effects of individual urban trees using airborne Lidar data. Science of the Total Environment 536 (2015), 232–244.
33. Clay, G.R., Daniel, T.C., Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning 49:1–2 (2000), 1–13.
34. Clay, G.R., Smidt, R.K., Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 66:4 (2004), 239–255.
35. Cleland, E.E., Chuine, I., Menzel, A., Mooney, H.A., Schwartz, M.D., Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22:7 (2007), 357–365.
36. Coeterier, J.F., Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 34:1 (1996), 27–44.
37. Collins, B.M., Lydersen, J.M., Everett, R.G., Fry, D.L., Stephens, S.L., Novel characterization of landscape-level variability in historical vegetation structure. Ecological Applications 25:5 (2015), 1167–1174.
38. Colwell, R.K., Lees, D.C., The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15:2 (2000), 70–76.
39. Cook, E.M., Hall, S.J., Larson, K.L., Residential landscapes as social-ecological systems: A synthesis of multi-scalar interactions between people and their home environment. Urban Ecosystems 15:1 (2012), 19–52.
40. Daniel, T.C., Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54:1–4 (2001), 267–281.
41. D'Antonio, C.M., Thomsen, M., Ecological resistance in theory and practice. Weed Technology 18:1 (2004), 1572–1577.
42. Davies-Colley, R.J., Payne, G.W., van Elswijk, M., Microclimate gradients across a forest edge. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24:2 (2000), 111–121.
43. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7:3 (2010), 260–272.
44. de la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A., de Lucio, J.V., Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:4 (2006), 393–407.
45. Deng, S., Yin, N., Guan, Q., Katoh, M., Dynamic response of the scenic beauty value of different forests to various thinning intensities in central eastern China. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 186 (2014), 7413–7429.
46. Ding, Y., Tang, D., Dai, H., Wei, Y., Human-water harmony index: A new approach to assess the human water relationship. Water Resources Management 28 (2014), 1061–1077.
47. Dombrow, J., Rodriguez, M., Sirmans, C.F., The market value of mature trees in single-family housing market. Appraisal Journal 68:1 (2000), 39–43.
48. Dramstad, W.E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W.J., Skar, B., Helliksen, W., Sollund, M.L.B.,.. Framstad, E., Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:3–4 (2001), 257–268.
49. Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:4 (2006), 465–474.
50. Dronova, I., Bergen, K.M., Ellsworth, D.S., Forest canopy properties and variation in aboveground net primary production over upper great lakes landscapes. Ecosystems 14:6 (2011), 865–879.
51. Dunbar-Irwin, M., Safford, H., Climatic and structural comparison of yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests in northern Baja California (Mexico) and the eastern Sierra Nevada (California, USA). Forest Ecology and Management 363 (2016), 252–266.
52. Eliasson, I., Urban nocturnal temperatures, street geometry and land use. Atmospheric Environment 30:3 (1996), 379–392.
53. Ellsworth, D., Reich, P., Canopy structure and vertical patterns of photosynthesis and related leaf traits in a deciduous forest. Oecologia 96:2 (1993), 169–178.
54. Ellsworth, J.C., Visual assessment of rivers and marshes (M.S. Thesis). 1982, Utah State University, Logan.
55. Elton, C., The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. 1958, Methuen, London 181 p.
56. Ewers, R.M., Thorpe, S., Didham, R.K., Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88:1 (2007), 96–106.
57. Fahrig, L., Baudry, J., Brotons, L., Burel, F.G., Crist, T.O., Fuller, R.J.,.. Martin, J.-L., Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14:2 (2011), 101–112.
58. Fathi, M., Masnavi, M.R., Assessing environmental aesthetics of roadside vegetation and scenic beauty of highway landscape: Preferences and perception of motorists. International Journal of Environmental Research 8:4 (2014), 941–952.
59. Fjellstad, W.J., Dramstad, W.E., Strand, G.-H., Fry, G.L.A., Hheterogeneity as a measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapes. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian Journal of Geography 55:2 (2001), 71–76.
60. Ford, H., Garbutt, A., Ladd, C., Malarkey, J., Skov, M.W., Soil stabilization linked to plant diversity and environmental context in coastal wetlands. Journal of Vegetation Science 27:2 (2016), 259–268.
61. Forestry Commission, Forest landscape design guidelines. 1994, HMSO, London.
62. Forman, R.T.T., Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
63. Frank, S., Fuerst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A., Makeschin, F., Assessment of landscape aesthetics-Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators 32 (2013), 222–231.
64. Frederick, P., Gawlik, D.E., Ogden, J.C., Cook, M.I., Lusk, M., The White Ibis and Wood Stork as indicators for restoration of the everglades ecosystem. Ecological Indicators 9 (2009), S83–S95.
65. Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Ode, A., Velarde, M.D., The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9:5 (2009), 933–947.
66. Galindo, M.P., Hidalgo, M.C., Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology 40:1 (2005), 19–26.
67. Gallagher, T., Visual preference for alternative natural landscapes (PhD Dissertation). 1977, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
68. Germino, M.J., Reiners, W.A., Blasko, B.J., McLeod, D., Bastian, C.T., Estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 53:1–4 (2001), 71–83.
69. Gimblett, H.R., Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 7:3 (1990), 222–234.
70. Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C., Fry, G., The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 22:7 (2007), 959–972.
71. Godfree, R., Lepschi, B., Reside, A., Bolger, T., Robertson, B., Marshall, D., Carnegie, M., Multiscale topoedaphic heterogeneity increases resilience and resistance of a dominant grassland species to extreme drought and climate change. Global Change Biology 17:2 (2011), 943–958.
72. Grinde, B., Patil, G.G., Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6:9 (2009), 2332–2343.
73. Groffman, P.M., Cavender-Bares, J., Bettez, N.D., Grove, J.M., Hall, S.J., Heffernan, J.B.,.. Steele, M.K., Ecological homogenization of urban USA. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:1 (2014), 74–81.
74. Gundersen, V.S., Frivold, L.H., Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Nowray and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008), 241–258.
75. Hammitt, W., Patterson, M., Noe, F., Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning 29:2–3 (1994), 171–183.
76. Hands, D.E., Brown, R.D., Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:1 (2002), 57–70.
77. Hardiman, B.S., Bohrer, G., Gough, C.M., Vogel, C.S., Curtis, P.S., The role of canopy structural complexity in wood net primary production of a maturing northern deciduous forest. Ecology 92:9 (2011), 1818–1827.
78. Hargis, C.D., Bissonette, J.A., David, J.L., The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecology 13:3 (1998), 167–186.
79. Hasund, K.P., Kataria, M., Lagerkvist, C.J., Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54:1 (2011), 31–53 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.502753.
80. Haynes, K.J., Cronin, J.T., Interpatch movement and edge effects: The role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:1 (2006), 43–54.
81. Herbst, H., Forster, M., Kleinschmit, B., Contribution of landscape metrics to the assessment of scenic quality—The example of the landscape structure plan Havelland/Germany. Landscape Online 10 (2009), 1–17.
82. Herzog, T., A cogntivie analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research 9 (1984), 10–16.
83. Herzog, T., A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 9:1 (1989), 27–43.
84. Herzog, T., Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment 5:1 (1982), 43–59.
85. Herzog, T.R., A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5 (1985), 225–241.
86. Herzog, T.R., Barnes, G.J., Tranquility and preference revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19:2 (1999), 171–181.
87. Hodbod, J., Barreteau, O., Allen, C., Magda, D., Managing adaptively for multifunctionality in agricultural systems. Journal of Environmental Management 183 (2016), 379–388.
88. Holling, C.S., Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1973), 1–23 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
89. Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S., Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 104:1 (2012), 66–74.
90. Hull, R., Buhyoff, G., The scenic beauty temporal distribution method − an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science 32:2 (1986), 271–286.
91. Hunziker, M., The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands—Perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 31:1–3 (1995), 399–410.
92. Ito, H., Ito, S., Matsui, T., Marutani, T., Effect of fluvial and geomorphic disturbances on habitat segregation of tree species in a sedimentation-dominated riparian forest in warm-temperate mountainous region in southern Japan. Journal of Forest Research 11:6 (2006), 405–417.
93. Janssen, M.A., Anderies, J.M., Smith, M.S., Walker, B.H., Implications of spatial heterogeneity of grazing pressure on the resilience of rangelands. Janssen, M.A., (eds.) Complexity and ecosystem management: The theory and practice of multi-agent systems, 2002, Algar, Northampton, MA, 103–123.
94. Jansujwicz, J.S., Calhoun, A.J.K., Leahy, J.E., Lilieholm, R.J., Using mixed methods to develop a frame-based private landowner typology. Society & Natural Resources 26:8 (2013), 945–961.
95. Jenks, G., Back to the future: The incredible functional and aesthetic superiority of New Zealand's native dune plants. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 45(1), 2007 293–293.
96. Jiang, J., Gao, D., DeAngelis, D.L., Towards a theory of ecotone resilience: Coastal vegetation on a salinity gradient. Theoretical Population Biology 82:1 (2012), 29–37.
97. Jones, T.G., Arcese, P., Sharma, T., Coops, N.C., Describing avifaunal richness with functional and structural bioindicators derived from advanced airborne remotely sensed data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34:8 (2013), 2689–2713.
98. Junge, X., Schuepbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B., Lindemann-Matthies, P., Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 133 (2015), 67–77.
99. Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skrivanova, Z., Zahradnik, D., Consensus in landscape preference judgments: the effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management 137 (2014), 36–44.
100. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., The experience of nature. 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
101. Kaplan, S., The restorative benefits of nature − towards an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15:3 (1995), 169–182.
102. Karp, D.S., Rominger, A.J., Zook, J., Ranganathan, J., Ehrlich, P.R., Daily, G.C., Intensive agriculture erodes beta-diversity at large scales. Ecology Letters 15:9 (2012), 963–970.
103. Keller, J.K., Richmond, M.E., Smith, C.R., An explanation of patterns of breeding bird species richness and density following clearcutting in northeastern USA forests. Forest Ecology and Management 174:1–3 (2003), 541–564.
104. Kienast, F., Frick, J., van Strien, M.J., Hunziker, M., The Swiss landscape monitoring program—A comprehensive indicator set to measure landscape change. Ecological Modelling 295 (2015), 136–150.
105. Kondolf, G.M., Setting goals in river restoration: When and where can the river heal itself?. Simon, A., Bennett, S.J., Castro, J.M., (eds.) Stream restoration in dynamic fluvial systems: Scientific approaches, analyses, and tools, Vol. 194, 2011, 29–43.
106. Kremen, C., Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know about their ecology?. Ecology Letters 8:5 (2005), 468–479.
107. Kremen, C., Miles, A., Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 2012, 40.
108. Kuiper, J., Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity—Landscape planning at different planning-levels in the River area of The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:1–3 (1998), 91–104.
109. Kuiper, J., A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 77:1–2 (2000), 143–156.
110. Kumar, S., Stohlgren, T.J., Chong, G.W., Spatial heterogeneity influences native and nonnative plant species richness. Ecology 87:12 (2006), 3186–3199.
111. Larkin, D.J., Hipp, A.L., Kattge, J., Prescott, W., Tonietto, R.K., Jacobi, S.K., Bowles, M.L., Phylogenetic measures of plant communities show long-term change and impacts of fire management in tallgrass prairie remnants. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:6 (2015), 1638–1648.
112. Larsen, L.G., Harvey, J.W., How vegetation and sediment transport feedbacks drive landscape change in the everglades and wetlands worldwide. American Naturalist 176:3 (2010), E66–E79.
113. Larson, K.L., Nelson, K.C., Samples, S.R., Hall, S.J., Bettez, N., Cavender-Bares, J.,.. Trammell, T.L.E., Ecosystem services in managing residential landscapes: priorities, value dimensions, and cross-regional patterns. Urban Ecosystems 19:1 (2016), 95–113.
114. Leitao, A.B., Ahern, J., Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:2 (2002), 65–93.
115. Levine, N.M., Zhang, K., Longo, M., Baccini, A., Phillips, O.L., Lewis, S.L.,.. Moorcroft, P.R., Ecosystem heterogeneity determines the ecological resilience of the Amazon to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113:3 (2016), 793–797.
116. Lidicker, W.Z., Responses of mammals to habitat edges: an overview. Landscape Ecology 14:4 (1999), 333–343.
117. Lim, S.S., Innes, J.L., Meitner, M., Public awareness of aesthetic and other forest values associated with sustainable forest management: A cross-cultural comparison among the public in four countries. Journal of Environmental Management 150 (2015), 243–249.
118. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schupbach, B., Junge, X., Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 98:2 (2010), 99–109.
119. Lindenmayer, D.B., Barton, P.S., Lane, P.W., Westgate, M.J., McBurney, L., Blair, D.,.. Likens, G.E., An empirical assessment and comparison of species-based and habitat-based surrogates: A case study of forest vertebrates and large old trees. PLoS One, 9(2), 2014, e89807.
120. Llausas, A., Nogue, J., Indicators of landscape fragmentation: The case for combining ecological indices and the perceptive approach. Ecological Indicators 15:1 (2012), 85–91.
121. Loreau, M., Mouquet, N., Holt, R.D., Meta-ecosystems: A theoretical framework for a spatial ecosystem ecology. Ecology Letters 6:8 (2003), 673–679.
122. Lothian, A., Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning 44:4 (1999), 177–198.
123. Lothian, A., The Science of Scenery: How we see scenic beauty, what it is, why we love it, and how to measure and map it. 2017, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform 492 p.
124. MA, Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005, Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
125. Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:1 (2012), 19–26.
126. Manson, R.H., Ostfeld, R.S., Canham, C.D., Responses of a small mammal community to heterogeneity along forest-old-field edges. Landscape Ecology 14:4 (1999), 355–367.
127. Martin, B., Ortega, E., Otero, I., Arce, R.M., Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. Journal of Environmental Management 180 (2016), 324–334.
128. McBride, J., Strahan, J., Establishment and survival of woody riparian species on gravel bars of an intermittent stream. American Midland Naturalist 112:2 (1984), 235–245.
129. McGarigal, K., McComb, W., Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Monographs 65:3 (1995), 235–260.
130. Morandin, L.A., Kremen, C., Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecological Applications 23:4 (2013), 829–839.
131. Morandin, L.A., Long, R.F., Kremen, C., Pest control and pollination cost-benefit analysis of hedgerow restoration in a simplified agricultural landscape. Journal of Economic Entomology 109:3 (2016), 1020–1027.
132. Mozingo, L.A., The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape Journal 16:1 (1997), 46–59.
133. Nassauer, J., Caring for the countryside—A guide to seeing and maintaining rural landscape quality. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 3017 (1986), 1–48.
134. Nassauer, J.I., Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. Nassauer, J.I., (eds.) Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology, 1997, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
135. Nassauer, J.I., Opdam, P., Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23:6 (2008), 633–644.
136. Natori, Y., Chenoweth, R., Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28:3 (2008), 250–267.
137. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., Miller, D., Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1 (2009), 375–383.
138. Ode, A., Hagerhall, C.M., Sang, N., Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research 35:1 (2010), 111–131.
139. Ode, A., Miller, D., Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design 38:1 (2011), 24–40.
140. Oliver, T.H., Heard, M.S., Isaac, N.J.B., Roy, D.B., Procter, D., Eigenbrod, F.,.. Bullock, J.M., Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:11 (2015), 673–684.
141. Ong, B.L., Green plot ratio: An ecological measure for architecture and urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 63:4 (2003), 197–211.
142. Orians, G.H., An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. Penning-Rowsell, E.C., Lowethal, D., (eds.) Landscape meanings and values, 1986, Allen and Unwin, London, 3–5.
143. Orlowski, G., Nowak, L., The importance of marginal habitats for the conservation of old trees in agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:1 (2007), 77–83.
144. Ostman, O., Ekbom, B., Bengtsson, J., Landscape heterogeneity and farming practice influence biological control. Basic and Applied Ecology 2:4 (2001), 365–371.
145. Ozkan, U.Y., Assessment of visual landscape quality using IKONOS imagery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186:7 (2014), 4067–4080.
146. Palmer, J.F., Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:2–3 (2004), 201–218.
147. Palmer, J.F., Sena, K.D., Seasonal scenic value and forest structure in northeastern hardwood stands. Proceedings of the Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, 1993, 115–121.
148. Palmquist, K.A., Peet, R.K., Weakley, A.S., Changes in plant species richness following reduced fire frequency and drought in one of the most species-rich savannas in North America. Journal of Vegetation Science 25:6 (2014), 1426–1437.
149. Parrott, L., Meyer, W.S., Future landscapes: managing within complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:7 (2012), 382–389.
150. Pardo-Garcia, S., Merida-Rodriguez, M., Measurement of visual parameters of landscape using projections of photographs in GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 61 (2017), 56–65.
151. Pastor, J., Bockheim, J., Distribution and cycling of nutrients in an aspen-mixed-hardwood-Spodosol ecosystem in northern Wisconsin. Ecology 65:2 (1984), 339–353 https://doi.org/10.2307/1941398.
152. Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning 69:4 (2004), 369–384.
153. Piha, H., Luoto, M., Piha, M., Merila, J., Anuran abundance and persistence in agricultural landscapes during a climatic extreme. Global Change Biology 13:1 (2007), 300–311.
154. Pinto-Correia, T., Barroso, F., Surova, D., Menezes, H., The fuzziness of Montado landscapes: Progress in assessing user preferences through photo-based surveys. Agroforestry Systems 82:2 (2011), 209–224.
155. Polat, A.T., Akay, A., Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14:3 (2015), 573–582.
156. Ponisio, L.C., M'Gonigle, L.K., Kremen, C., On-farm habitat restoration counters biotic homogenization in intensively managed agriculture. Global Change Biology 22:2 (2016), 704–715.
157. Ponisio, L.C., Wilkin, K., M'Gonigle, L.K., Kulhanek, K., Cook, L., Thorp, R.,.. Kremen, C., Pyrodiversity begets plant-pollinator community diversity. Global Change Biology 22:5 (2016), 1794–1808.
158. Povilanskas, R., Baziuke, D., Ducinskas, K., Urbis, A., Can visitors visually distinguish successive coastal landscapes? A case study from the Curonian Spit (Lithuania). Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016), 109–118.
159. Pries, A.J., Miller, D.L., Branch, L.C., Identification of structural and spatial features that influence storm-related dune erosion along a barrier-island ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Coastal Research 24:4C (2008), 168–175.
160. Reich, P.B., Key canopy traits drive forest productivity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 279:1736 (2012), 2128–2134.
161. Ries, L., Sisk, T.D., What is an edge species? The implications of sensitivity to habitat edges. Oikos 119:10 (2010), 1636–1642.
162. Rivera-Huerta, H., Safford, H.D., Miller, J.D., Patterns and trends in burned area and fire severity from 1984 to 2010. Fire Ecology 12:1 (2016), 52–72.
163. Rodewald, P.G., Smith, K.G., Short-term effects of understory and overstory management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:4 (1998), 1411–1417 https://doi.org/10.2307/3802007.
164. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:4 (2007), 159–174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006.
165. Rothstein, D.E., Zak, D.R., Photosynthetic adaptation and acclimation to exploit seasonal periods of direct irradiance in three temperate, deciduous-forest herbs. Functional Ecology 15:6 (2001), 722–731.
166. Sahraoui, Y., Clauzel, C., Foltete, J.-C., Spatial modelling of landscape aesthetic potential in urban-rural fringes. Journal of Environmental Management 181 (2016), 623–636.
167. Schirpke, U., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U., Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 111 (2013), 1–12.
168. Schuepbach, B., Junge, X., Lindemann-Matthies, P., Walter, T., Seasonality, diversity and aesthetic valuation of landscape plots: An integrative approach to assess landscape quality on different scales. Land Use Policy 53 (2016), 27–35.
169. Schulze, C.H., Linsenmair, K.E., Fiedler, K., Understorey versus canopy: Patterns of vertical stratification and diversity among Lepidoptera in a Bornean rain forest. Plant Ecology 153:1–2 (2001), 133–152.
170. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 90:9 (2009), 2889–2899.
171. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 27:3 (2010), 827–842.
172. Sietman, B., Fothergill, W., Finck, E., Effects of haying and old-field succession on small mammals in tallgrass prairie. American Midland Naturalist 131:1 (1994), 1–8.
173. Sonnentag, O., Hufkens, K., Teshera-Sterne, C., Richardson, A.D., Digital repeat photography for phenological research in forest ecosystems. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 152 (2012), 159–177.
174. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.N., Index of Landscape Disharmony (ILDH) as a new tool combining the aesthetic and ecological approach to landscape assessment. Ecological Indicators 70 (2016), 166–180.
175. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., Chmielewski, T.J., A new approach of the identification of landscape quality objectives (LQOs) as a set of indicators. Journal of Environmental Management 184 (2016), 596–608.
176. Spasojevic, M.J., Bahlai, C.A., Bradley, B.A., Butterfield, B.J., Tuanmu, M.-N., Sistla, S.,.. Suding, K.N., Scaling up the diversity-resilience relationship with traitdatabases and remote sensing data: The recovery ofproductivity after wildfire. Global Change Biology 22:4 (2016), 1421–1432 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13174.
177. Stamps, A.E., Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24:1 (2004), 1–16.
178. Stein, A., Gerstner, K., Kreft, H., Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecology Letters 17:7 (2014), 866–880.
179. Stein, A., Kreft, H., Terminology and quantification of environmental heterogeneity in species-richness research. Biological Reviews 24 (2015), 1072–1083.
180. Steven, R., Morrison, C., Castley, J.G., Birdwatching and avitourism: a global review of research into its participant markets, distribution and impacts, highlighting future research priorities to inform sustainable avitourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23:8–9 (2015), 1257–1276 https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.924955.
181. Su, J.C., Woods, S.A., Importance of sampling along a vertical gradient to compare the insect fauna in managed forests. Environmental Entomology 30:2 (2001), 400–408 https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-30.2.400.
182. Thiere, G., Milenkovski, S., Lindgren, P.-E., Sahlen, G., Berglund, O., Weisner, S.E.B., Wetland creation in agricultural landscapes: Biodiversity benefits on local and regional scales. Biological Conservation 142:5 (2009), 964–973 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.006.
183. Tilman, D., Wedin, D., Knops, J., Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:6567 (1996), 718–720 https://doi.org/10.1038/379718a0.
184. Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J.M., Rand, T.A., Didham, R.K., Fahrig, L., Batary, P.,.. Westphal, C., Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—Eight hypotheses. Biological Reviews 87:3 (2012), 661–685.
185. Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., O'Neill, R.V., Landscape ecology in theory and practice. 2001, Springer-Verlag, New York.
186. Turner, M.G., Donato, D.C., Romme, W.H., Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: Priorities for future research. Landscape Ecology 28 (2013), 1081–1097.
187. Tveit, M.S., Ode, A., Fry, G., Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31:3 (2006), 229–255.
188. Ulrich, R., Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13:1 (1986), 29–44.
189. Ungaro, F., Haefner, K., Zasada, I., Piorr, A., Mapping cultural ecosystem services: Connecting visual landscape quality to cost estimations for enhanced services provision. Land Use Policy 54 (2016), 399–412.
190. USDA, Landscape aesthetics—A handbook for scenery management, Agriculture Handbook Number 701. 1995, USDA, Washington, DC.
191. Uuemaa, E., Mander, U., Marja, R., Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review. Ecological Indicators 28 (2013), 100–106.
192. Uzun, O., Müderrisoglu, H., Visual landscape quality in landscape planning: Examples of Kars and Ardahan cities in Turkey?. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6:6 (2011), 1627–1638.
193. van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A.J., Coeterier, J.F., Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18:2 (1998), 141–157.
194. Van Den Born, R.J.G., Lenders, R.H.J., De Groot, W., Huijsman, E., The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation 28:1 (2001), 65–75.
195. Van Zanten, B.T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M.J., Ungaro, F., Hafner, K., Verburg, P.H., A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services 17 (2016), 87–98.
196. Vasseur, C., Joannon, A., Aviron, S., Burel, F., Meynard, J.-M., Baudry, J., The cropping systems mosaic: How does the hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations?. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 166 (2013), 3–14.
197. Vieira, E.M., Monteiro, E.L.A., Vertical stratification of small mammals in the Atlantic rain forest of south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19 (2003), 501–507.
198. Virah-Sawmy, M., Gillson, L., Willis, K.J., How does spatial heterogeneity influence resilience to climatic changes? Ecological dynamics in southeast Madagascar. Ecological Monographs 79:4 (2009), 557–574.
199. Walker, S., Wilson, J.B., Steel, J.B., Rapson, G.L., Smith, B., King, W.M., Cottam, Y.H., Properties of ecotones: Evidence from five ecotones objectively determined from a coastal vegetation gradient. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:4 (2003), 579–590.
200. Wang, S., Loreau, M., Ecosystem stability in space: Alpha, beta and gamma variability. Ecology Letters 17:8 (2014), 891–901.
201. Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Schiemer, F., Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: Ecotones and connectivity. Regulated Rivers-Research & Management 15:1–3 (1999), 125–139.
202. Weinstoerffer, J., Girardin, P., Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator. Ecological Modelling 130:1–3 (2000), 95–109.
203. Westoby, M., Falster, D.S., Moles, A.T., Vesk, P.A., Wright, I.J., Plant ecological strategies: Some leading dimensions of variation between species. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 125–159.
204. Wigmosta, M., Vail, L., Lettenmaier, D., A distributed hydrology-vegetation model for complex terrain. Water Resources Research 30:6 (1994), 1665–1679.
205. Wojcik, V.A., Frankie, G.W., Thorp, R.W., Hernandez, J.L., Seasonality in bees and their floral resource plants at a constructed urban bee habitat in Berkeley, California. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 81:1 (2008), 15–28.
206. Wong, K.K., Domroes, M., The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design 32:4 (2005), 617–632.
207. Wu, J.G., Shen, W.J., Sun, W.Z., Tueller, P.T., Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology 17:8 (2002), 761–782.
208. Zhang, K., Qu, J., Niu, Q., Jing, Z., An, Z., Characteristics of wind-blown sand in the region of the Crescent Moon Spring of Dunhuang, China. Environmental Earth Sciences 70:7 (2013), 3107–3113.
209. Ziter, C., Bennett, E.M., Gonzalez, A., Functional diversity and management mediate aboveground carbon stocks in small forest fragments. Ecosphere, 4(7), 2013, 85.
210. Zoderer, B.M., Tasser, E., Erb, K.-H., Stanghellini, P.S.L., Tappeiner, U., Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy 56 (2016), 251–261.
211. Zube, E.H., Scenic resources and the landscape continuum: identification and management (PhD Dissertation). 1973, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA.
212. Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., Anderson, T.W., Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. A report on research supported by Northeast Utilities Service Company Hartford, Connecticut. (No. R-74-1). Institute for Man and His Environment., 1974, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
213. Zube, E., Sell, J., Taylor, J., Landscape perception − research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9:1 (1982), 1–33.