Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:E:Environmental Management and Health:Vol09.Issue2.1998:
Ecological landscape planning techniques for
biodiversity and sustainability
Daryl W. Cowell
Ge o matic s Inte rnatio nal Inc ., Burlingto n, ON, Canada
Approaches to land use planning have gone through
considerable evolution during
the past 30 years. Western
nations have learned hard
lessons about the consequences of not considering
ecological process and structures when undertaking land
use planning, development,
and when harvesting
resources. As a result, modern concepts of conservation
biology and landscape level
planning have developed and
are beginning to be implemented in North America,
Europe, Australia and portions of South America. An
approach to ecological based
landscape planning, as developed through several applications in Canada, is discussed.
The approach incorporates
principles of conservation
biology and relies heavily on
abiotic landscape components for mapping and interpretation. Landscape planning is defi ned and discussed
according to three key components: (1) the planning
framework; (2) ecological
analysis; and (3) implementation of the whole. The planning framework includes the
goals and objectives of the
plan which is based on prevailing socio-cultural values.
The analysis attempts to
determine full landscape
representivity then maximize
ecological integrity.
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [ 1998] 7 2 –7 8
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0956-6163]
[ 72 ]
Introduction
La n d u se pla n n in g in developed cou n tr ies h a s
evolved exten sively over th e pa st 30 yea r s.
E a r ly settlem en t pa tter n s, pa r ticu la r ly th ose
in a gr icu ltu r a l a r ea s, r efl ect a n over a ll la ck of
pla n n in g wh ich h a s been r efer r ed to a s “fla t
ea r th pla n n in g”. In oth er wor ds, th e sh a pe of
th e la n d ba se a n d its in h er en t ecologica l
pr ocesses wer e con sider ed ir r eleva n t to la n d
u se. Th is, of cou r se, r esu lted in sign ifi ca n t
da m a ge to h om es, bu sin esses a n d a gr icu ltu r a l la n ds du e to floodin g, er osion , n a tu r a l
fir es, a n d so on . In fa ct, th e u se of fir e-gen er a ted ecosystem s for r esiden tia l com m u n ities,
su ch a s th e Ch a pa r r a l of sou th er n Ca lifor n ia
a n d gr a ssla n ds in pa r ts of Au str a lia , con tin u e
to r esu lt in sign ifi ca n t da m a ge to h om es a n d
th e loss of life.
Heavy da m a ge to h om es loca ted on du n e
ecosystem s on th e US ea st coa st led Ia n
McHa r g (1969) to pr opose a n ew ba sis for
pla n n in g in h is la n dm a r k book Design w ith
N a tu re. As a r esu lt, pla n n in g took on m or e of
a con str a in t ba sed a ppr oa ch wh er eby so
ca lled “h a za r d la n ds” wer e eith er left in a
n a tu r a l sta te or u tilized by developm en ts
wh ich wer e ca r efu lly design ed a n d
en gin eer ed to m in im ize poten tia l da m a ge.
On e con sequ en ce of con str a in t ba sed pla n n in g in N or th Am er ica w a s th e con ser va tion
of va lley la n ds, fl oodpla in s a n d wetla n ds bu t
th e vir tu a l tota l elim in a tion of ta blela n d
ecosystem s. An ecosystem equ iva len t to eth n ic clea n sin g.
Con sider a tion of ecosystem pr ocesses a n d
str u ctu r e in u n der ta k in g la n d u se pla n n in g is
n ow be gin n in g to r epla ce con str a in t ba sed
pla n n in g in N or th Am er ica a n d is well
a dva n ced in th e UK a n d pa r ts of wester n
E u r ope. Th e idea l of wor k in g w ith ecosystem s in pla n n in g a n d deter m in in g la n d pr odu ctive ca pa bilities goes ba ck to th e 1940s
w ith Aldo Leopold’s A S a n d Cou n ty A lm a n a c.
In Ca n a da , th e fi r st pr a ctica l a pplica tion of
th e con cept w a s pr oposed in th e 1950s by
An gu s Hills (1959, 1961, 1976) a n d evolved
th r ou gh a ser ies of fr a m ewor k s wh ich
in clu ded Hill’s “ph ysiogr a ph ic site”
a ppr oa ch , Bioph ysica l La n d Cla ssifi ca tion
(La ca te, 1969), E cologica l La n d Cla ssifica tion
(CCE LC, 1977; Wik en a n d Ir on side, 1977), a n d,
cu r r en tly, th e La n dsca pe Appr oa ch (Ru bec
1992).
Landscape planning
La n dsca pe pla n n in g is ba sed on th e la n dsca pe a ppr oa ch . Th is a ppr oa ch to pla n n in g
involves th e dir ect a pplica tion of ecosystem
con cepts wh er eby th e pr im a cy of th e ecosystem for m s th e ba sis of a ssign in g a ppr opr ia te
la n d u se design a tion s su ch th a t n a tu r a l ecologica l fu n ction s a r e m a in ta in ed or r estor ed
to th e m a xim u m exten t possible. Ru bec (1992)
n otes th a t th e La n dsca pe Appr oa ch :
…view s con figu r a tion s of pr otected a r ea s a s
open a n d dyn a m ic system s over n a tu r a lly
defin ed distr icts a n d r e gion s [E codistr icts
a n d E cor e gion s]. Alon g w ith a n u n der sta n din g of th e va r iou s sca les a n d tem por a l
a spects of in ter ven tion s th a t a r e n ecessa r y
for th e con ser va tion of h a bita t a n d biologica l diver sity, a la n dsca pe a ppr oa ch pr ovides
a n in te gr a tin g fr a m ewor k for differ en t
disciplin es, sca les a n d n a tu r a l a n d h u m a n
in flu en ces...Su ch a fr a m ewor k h a s two cr u cia l u ses: (i) a ba sis for la n d u se pla n n in g
a n d h a bita t m a n a gem en t, a n d (ii) a ba sis for
in ven tor y, m on itor in g a n d oth er types of
a pplied r esea r ch for h a bita t pr otection
La n dsca pe pla n n in g a pplies a n ecologica l
a ppr oa ch to la n d u se pla n n in g a n d
la n d/ w a ter m a n a gem en t. In oth er wor ds, th e
la n dsca pe (biotic a n d a biotic con stitu en ts)
a r e viewed in th e fr a m ewor k of ecosystem
fu n ction a n d str u ctu r e in or der to iden tify
a r ea s wh ich h ave ecologica l in te gr ity. E cologica l in te gr ity h a s been defin ed a s:
Th e ca pa bility of su ppor tin g a n d m a in ta in in g a ba la n ced, in te gr a ted, a da ptive com m u n ity of or ga n ism s h avin g a species com position com pa r a ble to th a t of th e n a tu r a l h a bita t of th e r e gion (Ka r r a n d Du dley, 1981).
Th is th en becom es th e dr ivin g for ce in defin in g th e la n dsca pe in a m a n n er th a t a llow s it
to best be in te gr a ted w ith th e oth er, som etim es, com petin g la n d u se dem a n ds. F r om a
pla n n in g per spective, th e ecosystem becom es
on e of sever a l “u ses” wh ich m u st be fu lly
con sider ed, pla n n ed a n d, to va r iou s de gr ees,
officia lly design a ted. Th e oth er u ses a r e th e
m or e tr a dition a l h u m a n or ien ted u ses su ch
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
a s r esiden tia l, in du str ia l, a gr icu ltu r e a n d
h a za r d la n ds.
Th e con cept of h a za r d la n ds a n d even en vir on m en ta l pr otection a r ea s m u st be distin gu ish ed fr om th e la n dsca pe pla n n in g pa r a digm . Th e la tter is ba sed on a n ecosystem
per spective (Wh a t is it m a de of ? How does it
wor k ?) wh er ea s th e for m er a r e h u m a n va lu ed
con cepts (we ca n n ot bu ild in fl oodpla in s; th is
a r ea con ta in s a r a r e pla n t). Tr a dition a l m eth ods of pr otectin g n a tu r a l a r ea s a s r eser ves,
n a tion a l pa r k s, sen sitive a r ea s, etc. sh ou ld
n ot be u n der va lu ed, h owever, th ese a r e 1970s
con cepts wh ich a ttem pted to en su r e th a t we
wou ld n ot lose a ll n a tu r a l a r ea s w ith in a
pla n n in g/ le ga l fr a m ewor k th a t dem a n ded
h igh va lu e a s a ba sis for pr otection . In oth er
wor ds, to be pr otected fr om developm en t a n
a r ea h a d to be th e best, th e on ly, pa r ticu la r ly
edu ca tion a l, h igh ly a esth etic, etc. Alth ou gh it
wor k ed for th e tim e, its pen u ltim a te fa ilu r e
wou ld be th e esta blish m en t of n on - fu n ction a l
“isla n ds of gr een ” w ith in u r ba n / a gr icu ltu r a l
dom in a ted envir on m en ts. We wer e on ou r
w ay to savin g th e pa r ts bu t n e glected to deter m in e wh eth er th e pa r ts cou ld con tin u e to
fu n ction .
Th e a pplica tion of la n dsca pe pla n n in g a s
we defin e it con sists of th r ee k ey com pon en ts
in clu din g:
1 th e pla n n in g fr a m ewor k ;
2 ecologica l a n a lysis; a n d
3 im plem en ta tion of th e wh ole.
Planning component
Planning: To de ve lo p e c o lo gic al value s,
go als, o bje c tive s and po lic ie s that dire c t
the use o f land within the pre vailing
planning frame wo rk
Th e pla n n in g com pon en t a llow s th e in te gr a tion of th e ecosystem a ppr oa ch w ith in th e
pr eva ilin g societa l con text. Society is defin ed
by th e specific con stitu en cy a n d a dm in istr a tive bou n da r ies wh ich m ay be a m u n icipa lity,
specia l pla n n in g r e gion , a pr ovin ce or sta te,
or a n en tir e n a tion .
Th e pla n n in g goa ls a n d objectives deter m in e th e specific scope for la n dsca pe pla n n in g, bu t, m or e im por ta n tly, w ill defi n e h ow
th e given con stitu en cy w ill u ltim a tely im plem en t a n d gu ide th e system . Th ese goa ls a n d
objectives a r e n ot sta tic bu t, sh ou ld be con sider ed a s a ser ies of a ppr oxim a tion s th r ou gh
tim e wh ich u ltim a tely w ill r esu lt in a fu n ction in g ecosystem a n d h ea lth y society.
Th is la st poin t is ver y im por ta n t. An ecologica lly ba sed la n dsca pe pla n is n ot design ed
a n d im plem en ted w ith in a n existin g la n d u se
pla n n in g pr ocess wh ich gen er a lly oper a tes in
five to ten yea r cycles. On ce in itia ted, th e
system m u st be con sider ed “livin g” a n d its
fr a m ewor k m u st be su fficien tly fl exible to
a llow m odifica tion a s we lea r n m or e a bou t
ecosystem pr ocess a n d u n der ta k e m ea su r es
to r estor e ecosystem s. Hen ce, ou r tim e sca le
m u st be th ou gh t of in ter m s of h u n dr eds of
yea r s n ot ten s of yea r s.
Ecological analysis component
Ec o lo gic al analysis: To pro vide the
te c hnic al unde rpinning to allo w e c o lo gic al
planning to o c c ur
On ce goa ls a n d objectives a r e defin ed, th e
n ext step is to u n der ta k e th e a n a lysis. Th e
ecologica l a ppr oa ch to pla n n in g m u st in cor por a te r ecogn ition of ecosystem fu n ction a n d
str u ctu r e a s we a r e best a ble to deter m in e
given th e sta te of k n ow ledge a t a n y poin t in
th e pla n n in g cycle. E cosystem s a r e com plex
a n d we gen er a lly h ave m or e qu estion s th a n
a n swer s wh en tr yin g to u n der sta n d th eir
pr ocesses. However, we ca n n ot w a it for a ll th e
a n swer s a s th e n eed to u se la n ds for occu pa tion a n d r esou r ce h a r vestin g is im m edia te
a n d expa n din g. Th e r ela tively n ew scien ce of
con ser va tion biology pr ovides gu ida n ce in
th is r e ga r d a n d ca n be a pplied dir ectly to
la n dsca pe pla n n in g.
Th e field of con ser va tion biology h a s been
descr ibed a s bein g a r ecen t r espon se to th e
biodiver sity “cr isis” cr ea ted by th e pr esen t
h u m a n gen er a tion wh ich is system a tica lly
a n n ih ila tin g species diver sity on ea r th (Meffe
a n d Ca r r oll, 1994). It is defi n ed a s:
…a n ew, syn th etic field th a t a pplies th e
pr in ciples of ecology, biogeogr a ph y, popu la tion gen etics, econ om ics, sociology, a n th r opology, ph ilosoph y, a n d oth er th eor etica lly
ba sed disciplin es to th e m a in ten a n ce of
biologica l diver sity th r ou gh ou t th e wor ld.
(Meffe a n d Ca r r oll, 1994)
In u r ba n a n d a gr icu ltu r a l la n dsca pes, pr in ciples of con ser va tion biology ca n be u tilized to
iden tify, r estor e a n d r econ n ect n a tu r a l la n dsca pes in a m a n n er wh ich a ccou n ts for
ecosystem str u ctu r e a n d fu n ction . In for ested
la n dsca pes, th e pr in ciples ca n be u tilized to
m a in ta in ecologica l str u ctu r e a n d fu n ction
th r ou gh th e u se of a ser ies of pr otected a r ea s
wh ich a r e r epr esen ta tive of th e or igin a l la n dsca pe diver sity a n d wh ich m a xim ize ecologica l in te gr ity. In th e la tter ca se, size, diver sity
a n d ecologica lly ba sed m a n a gem en t pr escr iption s a r e r equ ir ed.
E ssen tia lly, th e pr in ciples of con ser va tion
biology r ela te to ecosystem fu n ction a n d
str u ctu r e. F r om a la n dsca pe pla n n in g per spective, th is r equ ir es th e developm en t of
cr iter ia wh ich a r e ba sed on pr otection a n d
en h a n cem en t of a fu ll r a n ge of r epr esen ta tive
n a tu r a l a r ea s a n d en su r in g th a t n a tu r a l
ecosystem pr ocesses con tin u e to oper a te.
Mea su r es of th is in clu de size of n a tu r a l a r ea s,
in ter con n ectivity, pr esen ce of n a tive species,
[ 73 ]
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
[ 74 ]
pr eser va tion of ve geta tive str u ctu r e a n d
m a in ten a n ce of biotic diver sity (N oss 1990,
1993). As th ese m ea su r es a r e m a xim ized,
n a tu r a l a r ea s a r e better su ited to r ecover
fr om n a tu r a l a n d h u m a n distu r ba n ces a n d,
fu r th er, th e n eed for h u m a n in ter ven tion to
m a n a ge th e ecosystem is m in im ized.
In ter ven in g a r ea s ca n th en be in ten sively
m a n a ged a n d u tilized for h u m a n n eeds on a
su sta in a ble ba sis. However, even in in ter ven in g a r ea s, m ea su r es ca n be ta k en to en h a n ce
ve geta tive str u ctu r e a n d m in im ize
a lter a tion s to th e soil ba se.
In th e ca se of th e la n dsca pe pla n n in g a pplica tion for th e Oa k Ridges Mor a in e in sou th er n On ta r io, Ca n a da (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l, 1993), for exa m ple, cr iter ia wer e
selected ba sed on for est size, pr otection of
wetla n ds, iden tifica tion of existin g a n d poten tia l in ter con n ection s, occu r r en ces of h igh
qu a lity w ildlife a n d fish er ies h a bita t, a n d th e
pr esen ce of r a r e a n d en da n ger ed species. Th e
pla n n in g a r ea is a n exten sive a gr icu ltu r a l,
u r ba n , a n d r u r a l r esiden tia l la n dsca pe
a ppr oxim a tely 1,250 k m 2 in size. Alth ou gh th e
pr ecise con dition s con tr ibu tin g to h igh ecologica l in te gr ity is n ot cer ta in , we iden tifi ed a
n a tu r a l for est size of 30 h a to be essen tia l in
m a in ta in in g ecologica l fu n ction . Th is w a s
ba sed on em pir ica l da ta wh ich su ggested th a t
th is size is pa r ticu la r ly sign ifica n t w ith
r espect to n u m ber s a n d species of n estin g
n eotr opica l in ter ior bir d species (e.g. Bla k e
a n d Ka r r, 1984; Robbin s, 1979). Th u s if we
design a system th a t pr otects th ese existin g
a r ea s, in cor por a tes pr oper en vir on m en ta l
m a n a gem en t tech n iqu es a n d a llow s for
expa n sion , r estor a tion a n d r e-con n ection
w ith oth er a r ea s, th en we a r e con fiden t th a t
ecosystem fu n ction w ill im pr ove. We ca n n ot,
h owever, say by h ow m u ch it w ill im pr ove.
In developin g th is pla n n in g fr a m ewor k , we
cou ld focu s on ly on th ose ecologica l u n its
wh ich cu r r en tly con sist of n a tu r a l ve geta tion
or, a lter n a tively, iden tify a fu ll r a n ge of u n its
r eflectin g th eir distr ibu tion in th e en vir on m en t even if cu r r en tly u n der cu ltiva tion .
Th is obviou sly bu ilds in th e n eed for r estor a tion a n d la n dow n er stew a r dsh ip pr ogr a m s to
m a xim ize biodiver sity. On e cou ld a lso look a t
th e ju xta position of n a tu r a l a n d cu ltiva ted
ecologica l u n its in or der to deter m in e wh ich
com bin a tion (in cor por a tin g con cepts of size
a n d in ter con n ection ) w ill best m a xim ize
ecologica l fu n ction .
Th e deter m in a tion of ecosystem r epr esen tivity is ver y im por ta n t for la n d u se pla n n in g
a s it h a s dir ect im plica tion s on issu es r ela ted
to biodiver sity. F igu r e 1 illu str a tes a m eth odology developed by th e a u th or (Cowell et a l.,
1994) to u n der ta k e ga p a n a lysis of existin g
pr otected a r ea s a n d delin ea te n ew ecologica l
r eser ves.
Alth ou gh geom or ph ology a n d su r fi cia l
m a ter ia ls wer e n ot specifi ca lly m en tion ed by
Meffe a n d Ca r r oll (1994), th ey play a sign ifica n t r ole in deter m in in g biodiver sity a n d a r e
a fu n da m en ta l elem en t of ecology a n d biogeogr a ph y. For ecologica l a n a lysis in su ppor t
of pla n n in g, a biotic fa ctor s ca n be u sed a s
su r r oga tes to defi n e ecosystem s. Th ey h ave
th e a dva n ta ge of bein g m or e “en du r in g” th a n
pla n ts or a n im a ls wh ich a r e m or e su sceptible
to n a tu r a l a n d h u m a n in du ced distu r ba n ces.
Also, a biotic da ta a r e m or e r ea dily ava ila ble
for m a n y r e gion s a n d a r e m or e a m en a ble to
in ter pr eta tion u sin g th em a tic a n d r a da r
sa tellite da ta .
Specifica lly, th e con cept of species a n d la n dsca pe diver sity, a lth ou gh often th ou gh t of
on ly in biologica l ter m s, ca n be dir ectly
r ela ted to a biotic fa ctor s. Th e pr in cipa l a biotic con tr ols r ela te to m oistu r e r e gim e, n u tr ien t sta tu s, a n d m icr o-clim a te a s r ela ted to
topogr a ph ic position a n d a spect (Hills, 1976).
Th ese fa ctor s ca n be dir ectly r ela ted to “a lph a
diver sity” (Wh itta k er, 1965). Alph a diver sity
is defi n ed by Wh itta k er (Wh itta k er, 1965, a s
r efer en ced in N aveh , 1994) a s species diver sity occu r r in g w ith in a specific h a bita t. F r om
a sca le per spective th is in cor por a tes th e
la r gest, m ost deta iled level of in ter a ction
a m on g th e biotic a n d a biotic fa ctor s.
Wh itta k er (1965) a lso r efer r ed to “beta
diver sity” a n d “ga m m a diver sity”. Beta diver sity is defi n ed a s species diver sity occu r r in g
between a n d a m on g h a bita ts, in clu din g gr a dien ts of ch a n ge (la r ge to m ediu m sca les of
or ga n iza tion ). Ga m m a diver sity, on th e oth er
h a n d, is defin ed a s la n dsca pe diver sity ba sed
on geogr a ph ica lly or ecologica lly defin ed
r e gion s or la n dsca pes (m ediu m to sm a ll
sca les of or ga n iza tion ).
In th e a bsen ce of deta iled da ta on species
diver sity, wh ich is a pa r ticu la r pr oblem for
m ediu m to sm a ll sca les of a pplica tion in pla n n in g (Cowell et a l., 1994), ea r th scien ce da ta
ca n be su ccessfu lly u tilized a s su r r oga tes to
ve geta tion a n d w ildlife da ta . A pa r ticu la r ly
str ik in g exa m ple is th e E n da n ger ed Spa ces
Ca m pa ign cu r r en tly bein g con du cted by th e
Wor ld Wildlife F u n d (Ca n a da ). Th is pr ogr a m
is a ttem ptin g to iden tify a sign ifica n t por tion
of th e Ca n a dia n la n dsca pe a s bein g r epr esen ta tive of n a tu r a l ecosystem s (flor a l a n d fa u n a l
diver sity) by u n der ta k in g ga p a n a lysis a n d
delin ea tion in ea ch E cor e gion .
Th e la ck of w idespr ea d ve geta tion a n d
fa u n a l da ta (sm a ll- to m ediu m -sca les) w ith
wh ich to u n der ta k e n a tu r a l a r ea s pla n n in g,
h a s led to th e a doption of th e con cept of
en du r in g fea tu r es a s th e ba sis of ga p a n a lysis
a n d delin ea tion of r epr esen ta tive a r ea s for
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
pr otection of n a tu r a l la n dsca pes (Cowell et
a l., 1994; Kava n a gh a n d Ia cobelli, 1995).
E n du r in g fea tu r es a r e th e sta ble la n dfor m s
a n d sea for m s on wh ich pla n t a n d a n im a l
com m u n ities exist a n d fu n ction . Th e u se of
la n dfor m s a s th e ba sis for r epr esen ta tion is
ba sed on th e a ck n ow ledgem en t of a la ck of
w idespr ea d, con sisten t biotic da ta a n d is
scien tifica lly fou n ded in th e a ppr oa ch u n der ta k en by Bioph ysica l a n d E cologica l La n d
Cla ssifica tion (E LC) tech n iqu es sin ce th e
ea r ly 1960s. Th is a ppr oa ch is ele ga n tly su m m a r ized by Rowe (1992) a s follow s:
…geom or ph ology – la n dfor m , its com position a n d str u ctu r e – is gen etic for la n dsca pe
ecosystem s th r ou gh its in flu en ce on loca l
clim a te, dr a in a ge, soil for m a tion a n d th e
r ecr u itm en t of pla n ts a n d a n im a ls...is th e
in dispen sa ble fou n da tion of ter r a in a n a lysis
wor ld-w ide.
In th e E LC a ppr oa ch , clim a te is th e m ost
im por ta n t deter m in a n t of ecosystem ch a r a cter istics a t coa r ser sca les of delin ea tion a n d
la n dfor m a n d soils becom e m or e im por ta n t a t
fin er sca les. Differ en ces in ve geta tion com m u n ities on sim ila r la n dfor m s, bu t in differ en t la n d cla ssifica tion u n its, expr ess m a cr oclim a tic differ en ces. With in u n its, differ en ces
in ve geta tion com m u n ities r efl ect differ en ces
in ph ysiogr a ph ic site, pa r ticu la r ly w ith
r espect to su bstr a te textu r e, m oistu r e, a n d
m icr oclim a te (slope position a n d a spect).
Alth ou gh w ildlife is n ot dir ectly u tilized in
developin g m a ppin g u n its, clim a te a n d ve geta tion com m u n ities a ffect a n d con tr ol th e
distr ibu tion a n d a bu n da n ce of w ildlife.
Th er e is a n im plicit a ssu m ption in th e E LC
fr a m ewor k th a t r epr esen ta tive la n dfor m /
Figure 1
Sc he matic o f me tho do lo gy to asse ss re pre se ntative ne ss and e c o lo gic al
inte grity
Determination of
Representativeness
Assesment and
Selection
Step 1
Step 4
Charac te rizatio n o f
Ec o re gio n
Adequac y of Existing
Protec ted Areas
Step 2
Step 5
Charac te rizatio n o f
Physio graphy
Se le c t Ne w
Ec o lo gic al Are as
Step 3
De te rminatio n o f
Landsc ape Units
Determine Area
Requirements
ve geta tion u n its w ill a lso su ppor t r epr esen ta tive fa u n a .
Th e m ech a n ics of la n dsca pe pla n n in g u su a lly in volves a n h ier a r ch ica l m a ppin g system
wh ich is a fu n da m en ta l com pon en t to E LC
tech n iqu es. Th is system ca n be a pplied in
eith er a “top-dow n ” fa sh ion , a “bottom -u p”
fa sh ion , or, pr efer a bly a com bin a tion of th e
two.
Th e top-dow n a ppr oa ch is on e of th e m ost
com m on a n d is pa r ticu la r ly su ited for pla n n in g la r ge a r ea s (pr ovin cia l/ sta te/ n a tion a l)
u sin g r em ote sen sin g tech n iqu es in com bin a tion w ith existin g da ta . In th is a ppr oa ch , on e
wor k s th r ou gh a h ier a r ch y be gin n in g w ith
sm a ll sca le da ta (1:500,000 to 1:1 m illion
sca les) a n d pr ogr essin g th r ou gh la r ger sca les
depen din g on ava ila ble in for m a tion a n d
in ven tor y ca pa bilities. Sm a ll-sca le da ta ba sed
on m a cr o-clim a te, geom or ph ology, su r ficia l
m a ter ia ls, a n d geology ca n be u sed to defi n e
br oa d r e gion s (E cor e gion s) a n d distr icts
(E codistr icts) wh ich a r e th en fu r th er su bdivided on th e ba sis of soils a n d ve geta tion
in for m a tion . Th e a u th or r ecen tly u n der took
th is a ppr oa ch for n a tu r a l a r ea s pla n n in g in a
2.7 m illion h a for ested la n dsca pe of n or th er n
On ta r io (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c., 1994)
a s well a s for th e en tir e P r ovin ce of N ew
Br u n sw ick (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c.,
1995a ).
In th e “bottom -u p” a ppr oa ch , a s r ecen tly
em ployed Re gion a l Mu n icipa lity of Ottaw a Ca r leton , Ca n a da ’s ca pita l (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l, 1995b), th e fu ll r a n ge of biotic a n d
a biotic con dition s a r e deter m in ed fir st. Th is
in volves th e developm en t of deta iled (1:10,000
or la r ger sca le) ecologica l u n its wh ich defin e
th e fu ll com plem en t of con dition s in a n y
given pla n n in g a r ea . Th u s, n on -ve geta ted clay
soils m igh t be a u n it wh ich r epr esen ts a gr icu ltu r e wh er ea s for ested dr y coa r se u n its
wou ld r epr esen t con ifer or m ixed for est on
sa n dy soils. For a n y given clim a te a n d m icr oclim a te, th e u ltim a te expr ession of ve geta tion
(in clu din g a ll ser a l sta ges) ca n be
deter m in ed. A N a tu r a l Her ita ge System is
con str u cted by a ssem blin g ecologica l u n its in
a n y of a va r iety of w ays depen din g on ecologica l a n d pla n n in g goa ls r esu ltin g in m a xim u m
flexibility.
Implementation component
Imple me ntatio n: To apply the po lic ie s o f
landsc ape planning fo r the lo ng-te rm
mainte nanc e o f e c o lo gic al func tio n and fo r
the maximizatio n o f e c o lo gic al inte grity
Th e da ta collected a n d a ssem bled to u n der ta k e th e ecologica l a n a lysis a r e a lso vita l to
th e im plem en ta tion of th e la n dsca pe pla n .
F ir st, a s n oted a bove, th e la n dsca pe pla n is
n ot sta tic bu t evolves w ith pla n n in g n eeds
[ 75 ]
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
a n d w ith im pr ovem en ts in ou r k n ow ledge of
ecologica l pr ocesses. Hen ce th e da ta ba se,
w ith con tin u a l u pda tin g, ca n be u tilized to
ea sily u pda te or r e-visit th e pla n by sim ply
a dju stin g th e cr iter ia . Th e u se of a
Geogr a ph ic In for m a tion System (GIS) to
stor e, a n a lyse a n d u pda te th e in for m a tion
gr ea tly en h a n ces th e flexibility to im plem en t
la n dsca pe pla n s.
Secon d, on ce th e la n dsca pe pla n is
design ed, th er e is a n eed to u n der ta k e ecosystem m a n a gem en t. Gen er a lly, th e lowest level
of m a n a gem en t possible is pr efer r ed. If
ecosystem s a r e per m itted to fu n ction n a tu r a lly, th en h u m a n in ter ven tion is m in im ized
or n ot r equ ir ed. However, th is r ela tes to ecologica l in te gr ity a n d in m ost u r ba n a n d a gr icu ltu r a l pla n n in g en vir on m en ts, som e de gr ee
of ecosystem m a n a gem en t is r equ ir ed. Th u s,
th e da ta ba se esta blish ed to design th e system
ca n a lso be u sed a s a ba sis for design in g a n d
u n der ta k in g ecologica l m a n a gem en t. In m ost
ca ses a ddition a l, site specific da ta w ill be
r equ ir ed a n d th is ca n be obta in ed a s tim e a n d
bu dgets a llow.
At th e ver y lea st, th e pla n n in g a gen cies
h ave a power fu l tool to pr otect a r ea s fr om
distu r ba n ce by fin e-tu n in g th e developm en t
a ppr ova l pr ocess. Ra th er th a n r equ ir in g a
sta n da r d en vir on m en ta l im pa ct a ssessm en t
(E IA), a ppr ova l a gen cies ca n specify th e
n a tu r e of th e poten tia l im pa ct(s) a n d clea r ly
iden tify th e ecologica l com pon en ts wh ich
m ay be im pa cted. Ra th er th a n follow in g a
sta n da r d off-th e-sh elf a ppr oa ch to u n der ta k in g th e E IA (e.g. sta n da r d species lists), pr opon en ts w ill be gu ided in to a ddr essin g fu n da m en ta l a spects of ecosystem pr ocess a n d
str u ctu r e r ela tin g dir ectly to th e site a n d
a dja cen t a r ea s.
Oth er com pon en ts wh ich m ay for m a pa r t
of th e on -goin g im plem en ta tion of th e la n dsca pe pla n a n d for wh ich th e da ta ba se ca n be
u sed in clu de th e follow in g:
• cu m u la tive effects a ssessm en t;
• effects m on itor in g/ str ess-r espon se;
• developm en t of per for m a n ce sta n da r ds for
im pa ct a ssessm en t;
• la n dsca pe r epr esen ta tiven ess;
• ecologica l in te gr ity a n a lysis;
• en h a n cem en t of biodiver sity; a n d
• ecologica l r estor a tion .
Im plem en ta tion ca pa bilities va r y w idely
fr om ju r isdiction to ju r isdiction . Th e k ey
fu n da m en ta ls a r e to en su r e th a t ecosystem
va lu es a r e fu lly con sider ed in developin g th e
pla n wh ich th en m u st be im plem en ted w ith
du e con sider a tion to socio-cu ltu r a l cir cu m sta n ces. Th e str en gth en in g of gover n m en t,
cor por a te, a n d pu blic in stitu tion s m ay be a s
cr itica l to im plem en ta tion a s th e design of
[ 76 ]
th e pla n itself. N owh er e is th is m or e eviden t
th a n in th e Am a zon ba sin sta tes of Br a zil,
su ch a s Ron dôn ia a n d Ma to Gr osso, wh ich
a r e cu r r en tly developin g deta iled la n dsca pe
pla n s (Zon ea m ien to Socio-E con óm icoE cológico – secon d a ppr oxim a tion ) (Beck er
a n d E gler, 1996). Tr em en dou s la n d u se pr essu r es exist a n d th e cu r r en t le ga l a n d in stitu tion a l in fr a str u ctu r es a r e lik ely n ot su fficien t
to en su r e a dequ a te im plem en ta tion .
N u m er ou s a r ea s w ith in N or th Am er ica
h ave a lso u n der gon e la n dsca pe type pla n n in g
bu t th ese too a r e su bject to n u m er ou s difficu lties in im plem en ta tion . Th ese difficu lties
r ela te to con cer n s for th e loss of la n ds for
for est h a r vestin g (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l
In c., 1994) a n d/ or th e per ception of a loss of
in dividu a l r igh ts on beh a lf of la n dow n er s. To
da te th er e a r e n o exa m ples of tr u e ecologica lly-ba sed la n dsca pe pla n s bein g fu lly im plem en ted.
Role of GIS and remote sensing
Th e fu ll developm en t a n d im plem en ta tion of
a la n dsca pe pla n ca n on ly be a ch ieved by
u tilizin g sta te-of-th e-a r t tech n ologies in GIS
a n d r em ote sen sin g. E edy (1995) deta ils som e
of th e a dva n ta ges of GIS tech n ologies a s
r ela ted to E n vir on m en ta l Im pa ct
Assessm en ts. Th ese a dva n ta ges r ela te to th e
follow in g ca pa bilities of GIS (m odified fr om
E edy, 1995):
• m a n a gem en t of la r ge da ta sets;
• da ta over lay tech n iqu es;
• tr en d a n a lysis;
• m a th em a tica l m odellin g ca pa bilities;
• h a bita t a n a lysis;
• 3-D view in g a n d a n a lysin g ca pa bilities;
• pr esen ta tion gr a ph ics for pu blic con su lta tion .
Th ese ca pa bilities a r e even m or e su ited for
la n dsca pe pla n n in g w ith th e dir ect in te gr a tion of sa tellite der ived r a ster da ta sets
in clu din g both spectr a l a n d r a da r type
im a ger y. Th e va lu e of r em ote sen sin g da ta
lies in its u se to in ter pr et la r ge a r ea s a t r ela tively low cost. In ter pr eta tion s of th e exten t
of n a tu r a l ve geta tion , ba sic types of ve geta tion (for ested, gr a ssla n d, sava n n a ), m a jor
la n d u se ca te gor ies (in ten sive a gr icu ltu r e,
n on -in ten sive a gr icu ltu r e, u r ba n , for est h a r vestin g), a n d m a jor la n dfor m ca te gor ies
(flood pla in s, m ou n ta in s, in ter ior a n d coa sta l
pla in s, pla tea u x, delta s, bea ch es, a n d so on )
a r e pa r ticu la r ly u sefu l for la n dsca pe pla n n in g pu r poses.
Rem ote sen sin g im a ger y is a lso u sefu l for
r e gu la r or per iodic u pda tin g of la n dsca pe
pla n s a n d for u n der ta k in g ecologica l m on itor in g a s im a ges m ay be a cqu ir ed on a n on -
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
goin g ba sis. La n dsa t Th em a tic Da ta , for
exa m ple, m ay be a cqu ir ed for vir tu a lly a n y
loca tion on ea r th ever y 18 days if r equ ir ed.
Alth ou gh th e a cqu isition of GIS a n d r em ote
sen sin g tech n ologies a s well a s th e esta blish m en t of a ppr opr ia te da ta ba ses r equ ir e su bsta n tia l u p-fr on t costs, th ese a r e qu ick ly pa id
ba ck by efficien cies in a n a lysis, u pda tin g a n d
r epor tin g.
Summary and conclusion
Th e a pplica tion of ecologica lly-ba sed la n dsca pe pla n n in g r equ ir es a deta iled k n ow ledge
of ph ysica l a n d biologica l system s, a n h ier a r ch ica l pla n n in g fr a m ewor k , a n d th e a pplica tion of con ser va tion biology pr in ciples. La n dsca pe level pla n n in g m u st be u n der ta k en in
both developed a n d developin g cou n tr ies
im m edia tely in or der to en su r e th e m a in ten a n ce, pr eser va tion a n d en h a n cem en t of
biodiver sity wh ile a t th e sa m e tim e en su r in g
th e su sta in a ble u se of r esou r ces for bu r geon in g popu la tion s. By ign or in g ecologica l
pr ocess a n d str u ctu r e in pla n n in g th e in ten sity, m a n a gem en t style a n d type of la n d u ses,
ir r evoca ble ecologica l disa ster s w ill r esu lt.
Ou r sta te of k n ow ledge is con tin u a lly
a dva n cin g a n d th e fi eld of con ser va tion biology is qu ite you n g. In som e r espects pla n n in g
r equ ir em en ts a r e pu sh in g scien ce beyon d its
ca pa bilities to pr edict wh a t wor k s best in a n y
la n dsca pe. However, if we u tilize th e m ost
m oder n em pir ica l eviden ce a n d a llow for
flexibility, ecologica l r estor a tion , a n d ecosystem m a n a gem en t, th en a t th e ver y lea st we
w ill be goin g in th e r igh t dir ection if n ot a ll
th e w ay a t a n y m om en t in tim e.
Th e r a pid developm en t of r em ote sen sin g
a n d geogr a ph ic in for m a tion system tech n ologies in th e la st twen ty yea r s pr ovide th e tools
to in ven tor y, m ea su r e a n d eva lu a te th e ph ysica l a n d biologica l system s. Th ese tech n ologies per m it r a pid, h igh qu a lity, low cost da ta
collection m ost su ita ble for a r ea s wh er e
k n ow ledge is la ck in g or wea k a n d wh er e th e
existin g in fr a str u ctu r e m ay be u n r elia ble a n d
logistica lly difficu lt to oper a te. Th ey a r e a lso
pa r ticu la r ly su ited to a pplica tion w ith in
m oder n a ppr oa ch es to la n dsca pe pla n n in g.
References
Beck er, B.K. a n d E gler, C.A.G. (1996),
“Deta lh a m en to da m etodologia pa r a execu çã o
do zon ea m en to ecológico-econ ôm ico pelos
esta dos da Am a zôn ia le ga l”, Un pu blish ed
P a per, LAGE T/ UF RJ La ba or a tór io de Gestã o
do Ter r itór io, SAE – MMA, Br a silia , Br a zil,
43pp.
Bla k e, J .G. a n d Ka r r, J .R. (1984), “Species com position of bir d com m u n ities a n d th e con ser va -
tion ben efi t of la r ge ver su s sm a ll for ests”,
B iologica l Con ser va tion , Vol. 0006 N o. 3207,
pp. 173-87.
Ca n a da Com m ittee on E cologica l La n d Cla ssifica tion (CCE LC) (1977), “E cologica l (bioph ysica l)
la n d cla ssifi ca tion in Ca n a da ”, Th ie, J . a n d
Ir on side, G. (E ds), La n ds Dir ector a te, E n vir on m en t Ca n a da , Ottaw a , E LC Ser ies N o. 1,
269pp.
Cowell, D.W., Sh a r p, M.J . a n d Taylor, M.E . (1994),
Ecoregion Ga p A n a lysis: Pa r t 2 – Fra m ew ork
for Dev elopin g a N a tion -Wid e S ystem of Protected Ecologica l A rea s, Repor t pr epa r ed for
th e Ca n a dia n Cou n cil on E cologica l Ar ea s by
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c., 26p. + a ppen dices.
Cowell, D.W., Sh a r p, M.J . a n d Taylor, M.E . (1995),
“A n a tu r a l h er ita ge system for th e N ia ga r a
esca r pm en t pla n a r ea ”, in P r oceedin gs of th e
Lea din g E dge ‘95 Con fer en ce, Ca r ly, S.,
Wh itelaw, G. a n d Powell, S. (E ds), Collin gwood, On ta r io, Ca n a da , pp. 242-51.
E edy, W. (1995), “Th e u se of GIS in en vir on m en ta l
a ssessm en t”, Im pa ct A ssessm en t, Vol. 13 N o. 2,
pp. 199-206.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1993), N a tu ra l
Her ita ge S ystem for th e Oa k R id ges M ora in e
A rea : GT A Por tion , Ba ck gr ou n d Stu dy N o. 4 to
th e Oa k Ridges Mor a in e P la n n in g Stu dy,
P r epa r ed for th e Oa k Ridges Mor a in e Tech n ica l Wor k in g Com m ittee by Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c., 55p. plu s 1:10,000 a n d 1:50,000
sca le m a ps.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1994), Ga p A n a lysis
a n d Ca n d id a te A rea S election for L ife S cien ce
R epresen ta tion in S ite Distr ict 4E-3, P r epa r ed
for On ta r io Min istr y of N a tu r a l Resou r ces,
Cen tr a l Re gion , Hu n tsville, On ta r io, Ca n a da ,
86p.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1995a ), A n a lysis of
R epresen ta tiv e N a tu ra l A rea s in N ew
B ru n sw ick , N ew Br u n sw ick Depa r tm en t of
N a tu r a l Resou r ces a n d E n er gy, F r eder icton ,
N ew Br u n sw ick , Ca n a da , 32p. + a ppen dices.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1995b), N a tu ra l
En viron m en t S ystem s S tra teg y for th e
R egion a l M u n icipa lity of Ottaw a -Ca rleton :
S ta ge 1 R egion a l In for m a tion B a se a n d Ecologica l Profi le, P r epa r ed for Re gion a l Mu n icipa lity of Ottaw a -Ca r leton , P la n n in g a n d P r oper ty
Depa r tm en t, Ottaw a , On ta r io, Ca n a da , 79p. +
a ppen dices.
Hills, G.A. (1959), A R ea d y R eferen ce to th e Descr iption of th e L a n d of On ta r io a n d its prod u ctivity,
Resea r ch Division , On ta r io Depa r tm en t of
La n ds a n d For ests, Tor on to, On ta r io, Ca n a da ,
142p. w ith m a ps.
Hills, G.A. (1961), T h e Ecologica l B a sis of L a n d Use
Pla n n in g, Res. Rept. 46, On ta r io Depa r tm en t
of La n ds a n d For ests, Tor on to, 210p.
Hills, G.A. (1976), A n In tegra ted Itera tiv e Holistic
A pproa ch to Ecosystem Cla ssifi ca tion . Ecologica l (B ioph ysica l) L a n d Cla ssifi ca tion in
Ca n a d a , P r oceedin gs of th e 1st Meetin g,
Ca n a da Com m ittee on E cologica l La n d
[ 77 ]
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
[ 78 ]
Cla ssifi ca tion , Petaw aw a , On ta r io, Ca n a da ,
May, 1976, pp. 73-98.
Ka r r, J .R. a n d Du dley, D.R. (1981), “E cologica l
per spective on w a ter qu a lity goa ls”, En viron m en ta l M a n a gem en t, Vol 5 N o. 1, pp. 55-68.
Kava n a gh , K. a n d Ia cobelli, T. (1995), “P r otected
a r ea s ga p a n a lysis m eth odology”, in N oss, R.
(E d.), A Protected A rea s Ga p A n a lysis M eth od olog y: Pla n n in g for th e Con ser va tion of B iod iv ersity, Wor ld Wildlife F u n d, E n da n ger ed
Spa ces Ca m pa ign , Discu ssion P a per, pp. 10-25.
La ca te, D.S. (1969), “Gu idelin es for bioph ysica l
la n d cla ssifi ca tion ”, Su bcom m ittee on Bioph ysica l La n d Cla ssifi ca tion , N a tion a l Com m ittee on For est La n d, P u b. N o. 1264, Ca n a dia n For estr y Ser vice, Ca n a da Depa r tm en t of
F ish er ies a n d For estr y, Ottaw a , On ta r io, 61p.
McHa r g, I.L. (1969), Design w ith N a tu re, Dou bleday N a tu r a l Histor y P r ess, Lon don .
Meffe, G.K. a n d Ca r r oll, C.R. (a n d con tr ibu tor s),
(1994), Pr in ciples of Con ser va tion B iolog y,
Sin a u er Associa tes In c., Su n der la n d, MA.
N aveh , Z. (1994), “F r om biodiver sity to ecodiver sity: a la n dsca pe-ecology a ppr oa ch to con ser va tion a n d r estor a tion ”, R estora tion Ecolog y,
Vol. 2 N o. 3, pp. 180-189.
N oss, R.F. (1990), “Ca n we m a in ta in biologica l a n d
ecologica l in te gr ity?”, Con ser va tion B iolog y,
Vol. 4 N o. 3, pp. 241-43.
N oss, R.F. (1993), “Th e w ildla n ds pr oject – la n d
con ser va tion str a te gy”, Wild Ea r th , Specia l
Issu e, Vol 10 N o. 25.
Robbin s, C.S. (1979), “E ffect of for est fr a gm en ta tion on bir d popu la tion s”, in P r oceedin gs of
Wor k sh op on Ma n a gem en t of N or th Cen tr a l
a n d N or th E a ster n For ests for N on ga m e
Bir ds, 23-25 J a n u a r y, Min n ea polis, MIN, N or th
Cen tr a l E xper im en ta l Sta tion , F ish a n d
Wildlife Ser vice, U.S.D.A., pp. 198-212.
Rowe, J .S. (1992), “P r ologu e: site cla ssifica tion
r esea r ch pr ior ities for est a n d cu ltu r e”,
Forestr y Ch ron icle, Vol. 68 N o. 1, pp. 22-44.
Ru bec, C.D.A. (1992), “La n dsca pe a ppr oa ch es to
w ildlife a n d ecosystem m a n a gem en t: su m m a r y of wor k sh op r ecom m en da tion s”, in
In gr a m , G.B. a n d Moss, M.R. (E ds), L a n d sca pe
A pproa ch es to Wild life a n d Ecosystem M a n a gem en t, P r oceedin gs of th e Secon d Sym posiu m
of th e Ca n a dia n Society for La n dsca pe E cology a n d Ma n a gem en t, Un iver sity of Br itish
Colu m bia , May 1990, Polyscien ce P u blica tion s
In c., Mor in Heigh ts, Ca n a da , pp. 259-267.
Wh itta k er, R.H. (1965), “Dom in a n ce a n d diver sity
in la n d pla n t com m u n ities”, S cien ce, Vol. 147,
pp. 250-60.
Wik en , E .B. a n d Ir on side, G. (1977), “Th e developm en t of ecologica l (bioph ysica l) la n d cla ssifica tion in Ca n a da ”, L a n d sca pe Pla n n in g, Vol. 4
N o. 4, pp. 273-5.
biodiversity and sustainability
Daryl W. Cowell
Ge o matic s Inte rnatio nal Inc ., Burlingto n, ON, Canada
Approaches to land use planning have gone through
considerable evolution during
the past 30 years. Western
nations have learned hard
lessons about the consequences of not considering
ecological process and structures when undertaking land
use planning, development,
and when harvesting
resources. As a result, modern concepts of conservation
biology and landscape level
planning have developed and
are beginning to be implemented in North America,
Europe, Australia and portions of South America. An
approach to ecological based
landscape planning, as developed through several applications in Canada, is discussed.
The approach incorporates
principles of conservation
biology and relies heavily on
abiotic landscape components for mapping and interpretation. Landscape planning is defi ned and discussed
according to three key components: (1) the planning
framework; (2) ecological
analysis; and (3) implementation of the whole. The planning framework includes the
goals and objectives of the
plan which is based on prevailing socio-cultural values.
The analysis attempts to
determine full landscape
representivity then maximize
ecological integrity.
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [ 1998] 7 2 –7 8
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0956-6163]
[ 72 ]
Introduction
La n d u se pla n n in g in developed cou n tr ies h a s
evolved exten sively over th e pa st 30 yea r s.
E a r ly settlem en t pa tter n s, pa r ticu la r ly th ose
in a gr icu ltu r a l a r ea s, r efl ect a n over a ll la ck of
pla n n in g wh ich h a s been r efer r ed to a s “fla t
ea r th pla n n in g”. In oth er wor ds, th e sh a pe of
th e la n d ba se a n d its in h er en t ecologica l
pr ocesses wer e con sider ed ir r eleva n t to la n d
u se. Th is, of cou r se, r esu lted in sign ifi ca n t
da m a ge to h om es, bu sin esses a n d a gr icu ltu r a l la n ds du e to floodin g, er osion , n a tu r a l
fir es, a n d so on . In fa ct, th e u se of fir e-gen er a ted ecosystem s for r esiden tia l com m u n ities,
su ch a s th e Ch a pa r r a l of sou th er n Ca lifor n ia
a n d gr a ssla n ds in pa r ts of Au str a lia , con tin u e
to r esu lt in sign ifi ca n t da m a ge to h om es a n d
th e loss of life.
Heavy da m a ge to h om es loca ted on du n e
ecosystem s on th e US ea st coa st led Ia n
McHa r g (1969) to pr opose a n ew ba sis for
pla n n in g in h is la n dm a r k book Design w ith
N a tu re. As a r esu lt, pla n n in g took on m or e of
a con str a in t ba sed a ppr oa ch wh er eby so
ca lled “h a za r d la n ds” wer e eith er left in a
n a tu r a l sta te or u tilized by developm en ts
wh ich wer e ca r efu lly design ed a n d
en gin eer ed to m in im ize poten tia l da m a ge.
On e con sequ en ce of con str a in t ba sed pla n n in g in N or th Am er ica w a s th e con ser va tion
of va lley la n ds, fl oodpla in s a n d wetla n ds bu t
th e vir tu a l tota l elim in a tion of ta blela n d
ecosystem s. An ecosystem equ iva len t to eth n ic clea n sin g.
Con sider a tion of ecosystem pr ocesses a n d
str u ctu r e in u n der ta k in g la n d u se pla n n in g is
n ow be gin n in g to r epla ce con str a in t ba sed
pla n n in g in N or th Am er ica a n d is well
a dva n ced in th e UK a n d pa r ts of wester n
E u r ope. Th e idea l of wor k in g w ith ecosystem s in pla n n in g a n d deter m in in g la n d pr odu ctive ca pa bilities goes ba ck to th e 1940s
w ith Aldo Leopold’s A S a n d Cou n ty A lm a n a c.
In Ca n a da , th e fi r st pr a ctica l a pplica tion of
th e con cept w a s pr oposed in th e 1950s by
An gu s Hills (1959, 1961, 1976) a n d evolved
th r ou gh a ser ies of fr a m ewor k s wh ich
in clu ded Hill’s “ph ysiogr a ph ic site”
a ppr oa ch , Bioph ysica l La n d Cla ssifi ca tion
(La ca te, 1969), E cologica l La n d Cla ssifica tion
(CCE LC, 1977; Wik en a n d Ir on side, 1977), a n d,
cu r r en tly, th e La n dsca pe Appr oa ch (Ru bec
1992).
Landscape planning
La n dsca pe pla n n in g is ba sed on th e la n dsca pe a ppr oa ch . Th is a ppr oa ch to pla n n in g
involves th e dir ect a pplica tion of ecosystem
con cepts wh er eby th e pr im a cy of th e ecosystem for m s th e ba sis of a ssign in g a ppr opr ia te
la n d u se design a tion s su ch th a t n a tu r a l ecologica l fu n ction s a r e m a in ta in ed or r estor ed
to th e m a xim u m exten t possible. Ru bec (1992)
n otes th a t th e La n dsca pe Appr oa ch :
…view s con figu r a tion s of pr otected a r ea s a s
open a n d dyn a m ic system s over n a tu r a lly
defin ed distr icts a n d r e gion s [E codistr icts
a n d E cor e gion s]. Alon g w ith a n u n der sta n din g of th e va r iou s sca les a n d tem por a l
a spects of in ter ven tion s th a t a r e n ecessa r y
for th e con ser va tion of h a bita t a n d biologica l diver sity, a la n dsca pe a ppr oa ch pr ovides
a n in te gr a tin g fr a m ewor k for differ en t
disciplin es, sca les a n d n a tu r a l a n d h u m a n
in flu en ces...Su ch a fr a m ewor k h a s two cr u cia l u ses: (i) a ba sis for la n d u se pla n n in g
a n d h a bita t m a n a gem en t, a n d (ii) a ba sis for
in ven tor y, m on itor in g a n d oth er types of
a pplied r esea r ch for h a bita t pr otection
La n dsca pe pla n n in g a pplies a n ecologica l
a ppr oa ch to la n d u se pla n n in g a n d
la n d/ w a ter m a n a gem en t. In oth er wor ds, th e
la n dsca pe (biotic a n d a biotic con stitu en ts)
a r e viewed in th e fr a m ewor k of ecosystem
fu n ction a n d str u ctu r e in or der to iden tify
a r ea s wh ich h ave ecologica l in te gr ity. E cologica l in te gr ity h a s been defin ed a s:
Th e ca pa bility of su ppor tin g a n d m a in ta in in g a ba la n ced, in te gr a ted, a da ptive com m u n ity of or ga n ism s h avin g a species com position com pa r a ble to th a t of th e n a tu r a l h a bita t of th e r e gion (Ka r r a n d Du dley, 1981).
Th is th en becom es th e dr ivin g for ce in defin in g th e la n dsca pe in a m a n n er th a t a llow s it
to best be in te gr a ted w ith th e oth er, som etim es, com petin g la n d u se dem a n ds. F r om a
pla n n in g per spective, th e ecosystem becom es
on e of sever a l “u ses” wh ich m u st be fu lly
con sider ed, pla n n ed a n d, to va r iou s de gr ees,
officia lly design a ted. Th e oth er u ses a r e th e
m or e tr a dition a l h u m a n or ien ted u ses su ch
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
a s r esiden tia l, in du str ia l, a gr icu ltu r e a n d
h a za r d la n ds.
Th e con cept of h a za r d la n ds a n d even en vir on m en ta l pr otection a r ea s m u st be distin gu ish ed fr om th e la n dsca pe pla n n in g pa r a digm . Th e la tter is ba sed on a n ecosystem
per spective (Wh a t is it m a de of ? How does it
wor k ?) wh er ea s th e for m er a r e h u m a n va lu ed
con cepts (we ca n n ot bu ild in fl oodpla in s; th is
a r ea con ta in s a r a r e pla n t). Tr a dition a l m eth ods of pr otectin g n a tu r a l a r ea s a s r eser ves,
n a tion a l pa r k s, sen sitive a r ea s, etc. sh ou ld
n ot be u n der va lu ed, h owever, th ese a r e 1970s
con cepts wh ich a ttem pted to en su r e th a t we
wou ld n ot lose a ll n a tu r a l a r ea s w ith in a
pla n n in g/ le ga l fr a m ewor k th a t dem a n ded
h igh va lu e a s a ba sis for pr otection . In oth er
wor ds, to be pr otected fr om developm en t a n
a r ea h a d to be th e best, th e on ly, pa r ticu la r ly
edu ca tion a l, h igh ly a esth etic, etc. Alth ou gh it
wor k ed for th e tim e, its pen u ltim a te fa ilu r e
wou ld be th e esta blish m en t of n on - fu n ction a l
“isla n ds of gr een ” w ith in u r ba n / a gr icu ltu r a l
dom in a ted envir on m en ts. We wer e on ou r
w ay to savin g th e pa r ts bu t n e glected to deter m in e wh eth er th e pa r ts cou ld con tin u e to
fu n ction .
Th e a pplica tion of la n dsca pe pla n n in g a s
we defin e it con sists of th r ee k ey com pon en ts
in clu din g:
1 th e pla n n in g fr a m ewor k ;
2 ecologica l a n a lysis; a n d
3 im plem en ta tion of th e wh ole.
Planning component
Planning: To de ve lo p e c o lo gic al value s,
go als, o bje c tive s and po lic ie s that dire c t
the use o f land within the pre vailing
planning frame wo rk
Th e pla n n in g com pon en t a llow s th e in te gr a tion of th e ecosystem a ppr oa ch w ith in th e
pr eva ilin g societa l con text. Society is defin ed
by th e specific con stitu en cy a n d a dm in istr a tive bou n da r ies wh ich m ay be a m u n icipa lity,
specia l pla n n in g r e gion , a pr ovin ce or sta te,
or a n en tir e n a tion .
Th e pla n n in g goa ls a n d objectives deter m in e th e specific scope for la n dsca pe pla n n in g, bu t, m or e im por ta n tly, w ill defi n e h ow
th e given con stitu en cy w ill u ltim a tely im plem en t a n d gu ide th e system . Th ese goa ls a n d
objectives a r e n ot sta tic bu t, sh ou ld be con sider ed a s a ser ies of a ppr oxim a tion s th r ou gh
tim e wh ich u ltim a tely w ill r esu lt in a fu n ction in g ecosystem a n d h ea lth y society.
Th is la st poin t is ver y im por ta n t. An ecologica lly ba sed la n dsca pe pla n is n ot design ed
a n d im plem en ted w ith in a n existin g la n d u se
pla n n in g pr ocess wh ich gen er a lly oper a tes in
five to ten yea r cycles. On ce in itia ted, th e
system m u st be con sider ed “livin g” a n d its
fr a m ewor k m u st be su fficien tly fl exible to
a llow m odifica tion a s we lea r n m or e a bou t
ecosystem pr ocess a n d u n der ta k e m ea su r es
to r estor e ecosystem s. Hen ce, ou r tim e sca le
m u st be th ou gh t of in ter m s of h u n dr eds of
yea r s n ot ten s of yea r s.
Ecological analysis component
Ec o lo gic al analysis: To pro vide the
te c hnic al unde rpinning to allo w e c o lo gic al
planning to o c c ur
On ce goa ls a n d objectives a r e defin ed, th e
n ext step is to u n der ta k e th e a n a lysis. Th e
ecologica l a ppr oa ch to pla n n in g m u st in cor por a te r ecogn ition of ecosystem fu n ction a n d
str u ctu r e a s we a r e best a ble to deter m in e
given th e sta te of k n ow ledge a t a n y poin t in
th e pla n n in g cycle. E cosystem s a r e com plex
a n d we gen er a lly h ave m or e qu estion s th a n
a n swer s wh en tr yin g to u n der sta n d th eir
pr ocesses. However, we ca n n ot w a it for a ll th e
a n swer s a s th e n eed to u se la n ds for occu pa tion a n d r esou r ce h a r vestin g is im m edia te
a n d expa n din g. Th e r ela tively n ew scien ce of
con ser va tion biology pr ovides gu ida n ce in
th is r e ga r d a n d ca n be a pplied dir ectly to
la n dsca pe pla n n in g.
Th e field of con ser va tion biology h a s been
descr ibed a s bein g a r ecen t r espon se to th e
biodiver sity “cr isis” cr ea ted by th e pr esen t
h u m a n gen er a tion wh ich is system a tica lly
a n n ih ila tin g species diver sity on ea r th (Meffe
a n d Ca r r oll, 1994). It is defi n ed a s:
…a n ew, syn th etic field th a t a pplies th e
pr in ciples of ecology, biogeogr a ph y, popu la tion gen etics, econ om ics, sociology, a n th r opology, ph ilosoph y, a n d oth er th eor etica lly
ba sed disciplin es to th e m a in ten a n ce of
biologica l diver sity th r ou gh ou t th e wor ld.
(Meffe a n d Ca r r oll, 1994)
In u r ba n a n d a gr icu ltu r a l la n dsca pes, pr in ciples of con ser va tion biology ca n be u tilized to
iden tify, r estor e a n d r econ n ect n a tu r a l la n dsca pes in a m a n n er wh ich a ccou n ts for
ecosystem str u ctu r e a n d fu n ction . In for ested
la n dsca pes, th e pr in ciples ca n be u tilized to
m a in ta in ecologica l str u ctu r e a n d fu n ction
th r ou gh th e u se of a ser ies of pr otected a r ea s
wh ich a r e r epr esen ta tive of th e or igin a l la n dsca pe diver sity a n d wh ich m a xim ize ecologica l in te gr ity. In th e la tter ca se, size, diver sity
a n d ecologica lly ba sed m a n a gem en t pr escr iption s a r e r equ ir ed.
E ssen tia lly, th e pr in ciples of con ser va tion
biology r ela te to ecosystem fu n ction a n d
str u ctu r e. F r om a la n dsca pe pla n n in g per spective, th is r equ ir es th e developm en t of
cr iter ia wh ich a r e ba sed on pr otection a n d
en h a n cem en t of a fu ll r a n ge of r epr esen ta tive
n a tu r a l a r ea s a n d en su r in g th a t n a tu r a l
ecosystem pr ocesses con tin u e to oper a te.
Mea su r es of th is in clu de size of n a tu r a l a r ea s,
in ter con n ectivity, pr esen ce of n a tive species,
[ 73 ]
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
[ 74 ]
pr eser va tion of ve geta tive str u ctu r e a n d
m a in ten a n ce of biotic diver sity (N oss 1990,
1993). As th ese m ea su r es a r e m a xim ized,
n a tu r a l a r ea s a r e better su ited to r ecover
fr om n a tu r a l a n d h u m a n distu r ba n ces a n d,
fu r th er, th e n eed for h u m a n in ter ven tion to
m a n a ge th e ecosystem is m in im ized.
In ter ven in g a r ea s ca n th en be in ten sively
m a n a ged a n d u tilized for h u m a n n eeds on a
su sta in a ble ba sis. However, even in in ter ven in g a r ea s, m ea su r es ca n be ta k en to en h a n ce
ve geta tive str u ctu r e a n d m in im ize
a lter a tion s to th e soil ba se.
In th e ca se of th e la n dsca pe pla n n in g a pplica tion for th e Oa k Ridges Mor a in e in sou th er n On ta r io, Ca n a da (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l, 1993), for exa m ple, cr iter ia wer e
selected ba sed on for est size, pr otection of
wetla n ds, iden tifica tion of existin g a n d poten tia l in ter con n ection s, occu r r en ces of h igh
qu a lity w ildlife a n d fish er ies h a bita t, a n d th e
pr esen ce of r a r e a n d en da n ger ed species. Th e
pla n n in g a r ea is a n exten sive a gr icu ltu r a l,
u r ba n , a n d r u r a l r esiden tia l la n dsca pe
a ppr oxim a tely 1,250 k m 2 in size. Alth ou gh th e
pr ecise con dition s con tr ibu tin g to h igh ecologica l in te gr ity is n ot cer ta in , we iden tifi ed a
n a tu r a l for est size of 30 h a to be essen tia l in
m a in ta in in g ecologica l fu n ction . Th is w a s
ba sed on em pir ica l da ta wh ich su ggested th a t
th is size is pa r ticu la r ly sign ifica n t w ith
r espect to n u m ber s a n d species of n estin g
n eotr opica l in ter ior bir d species (e.g. Bla k e
a n d Ka r r, 1984; Robbin s, 1979). Th u s if we
design a system th a t pr otects th ese existin g
a r ea s, in cor por a tes pr oper en vir on m en ta l
m a n a gem en t tech n iqu es a n d a llow s for
expa n sion , r estor a tion a n d r e-con n ection
w ith oth er a r ea s, th en we a r e con fiden t th a t
ecosystem fu n ction w ill im pr ove. We ca n n ot,
h owever, say by h ow m u ch it w ill im pr ove.
In developin g th is pla n n in g fr a m ewor k , we
cou ld focu s on ly on th ose ecologica l u n its
wh ich cu r r en tly con sist of n a tu r a l ve geta tion
or, a lter n a tively, iden tify a fu ll r a n ge of u n its
r eflectin g th eir distr ibu tion in th e en vir on m en t even if cu r r en tly u n der cu ltiva tion .
Th is obviou sly bu ilds in th e n eed for r estor a tion a n d la n dow n er stew a r dsh ip pr ogr a m s to
m a xim ize biodiver sity. On e cou ld a lso look a t
th e ju xta position of n a tu r a l a n d cu ltiva ted
ecologica l u n its in or der to deter m in e wh ich
com bin a tion (in cor por a tin g con cepts of size
a n d in ter con n ection ) w ill best m a xim ize
ecologica l fu n ction .
Th e deter m in a tion of ecosystem r epr esen tivity is ver y im por ta n t for la n d u se pla n n in g
a s it h a s dir ect im plica tion s on issu es r ela ted
to biodiver sity. F igu r e 1 illu str a tes a m eth odology developed by th e a u th or (Cowell et a l.,
1994) to u n der ta k e ga p a n a lysis of existin g
pr otected a r ea s a n d delin ea te n ew ecologica l
r eser ves.
Alth ou gh geom or ph ology a n d su r fi cia l
m a ter ia ls wer e n ot specifi ca lly m en tion ed by
Meffe a n d Ca r r oll (1994), th ey play a sign ifica n t r ole in deter m in in g biodiver sity a n d a r e
a fu n da m en ta l elem en t of ecology a n d biogeogr a ph y. For ecologica l a n a lysis in su ppor t
of pla n n in g, a biotic fa ctor s ca n be u sed a s
su r r oga tes to defi n e ecosystem s. Th ey h ave
th e a dva n ta ge of bein g m or e “en du r in g” th a n
pla n ts or a n im a ls wh ich a r e m or e su sceptible
to n a tu r a l a n d h u m a n in du ced distu r ba n ces.
Also, a biotic da ta a r e m or e r ea dily ava ila ble
for m a n y r e gion s a n d a r e m or e a m en a ble to
in ter pr eta tion u sin g th em a tic a n d r a da r
sa tellite da ta .
Specifica lly, th e con cept of species a n d la n dsca pe diver sity, a lth ou gh often th ou gh t of
on ly in biologica l ter m s, ca n be dir ectly
r ela ted to a biotic fa ctor s. Th e pr in cipa l a biotic con tr ols r ela te to m oistu r e r e gim e, n u tr ien t sta tu s, a n d m icr o-clim a te a s r ela ted to
topogr a ph ic position a n d a spect (Hills, 1976).
Th ese fa ctor s ca n be dir ectly r ela ted to “a lph a
diver sity” (Wh itta k er, 1965). Alph a diver sity
is defi n ed by Wh itta k er (Wh itta k er, 1965, a s
r efer en ced in N aveh , 1994) a s species diver sity occu r r in g w ith in a specific h a bita t. F r om
a sca le per spective th is in cor por a tes th e
la r gest, m ost deta iled level of in ter a ction
a m on g th e biotic a n d a biotic fa ctor s.
Wh itta k er (1965) a lso r efer r ed to “beta
diver sity” a n d “ga m m a diver sity”. Beta diver sity is defi n ed a s species diver sity occu r r in g
between a n d a m on g h a bita ts, in clu din g gr a dien ts of ch a n ge (la r ge to m ediu m sca les of
or ga n iza tion ). Ga m m a diver sity, on th e oth er
h a n d, is defin ed a s la n dsca pe diver sity ba sed
on geogr a ph ica lly or ecologica lly defin ed
r e gion s or la n dsca pes (m ediu m to sm a ll
sca les of or ga n iza tion ).
In th e a bsen ce of deta iled da ta on species
diver sity, wh ich is a pa r ticu la r pr oblem for
m ediu m to sm a ll sca les of a pplica tion in pla n n in g (Cowell et a l., 1994), ea r th scien ce da ta
ca n be su ccessfu lly u tilized a s su r r oga tes to
ve geta tion a n d w ildlife da ta . A pa r ticu la r ly
str ik in g exa m ple is th e E n da n ger ed Spa ces
Ca m pa ign cu r r en tly bein g con du cted by th e
Wor ld Wildlife F u n d (Ca n a da ). Th is pr ogr a m
is a ttem ptin g to iden tify a sign ifica n t por tion
of th e Ca n a dia n la n dsca pe a s bein g r epr esen ta tive of n a tu r a l ecosystem s (flor a l a n d fa u n a l
diver sity) by u n der ta k in g ga p a n a lysis a n d
delin ea tion in ea ch E cor e gion .
Th e la ck of w idespr ea d ve geta tion a n d
fa u n a l da ta (sm a ll- to m ediu m -sca les) w ith
wh ich to u n der ta k e n a tu r a l a r ea s pla n n in g,
h a s led to th e a doption of th e con cept of
en du r in g fea tu r es a s th e ba sis of ga p a n a lysis
a n d delin ea tion of r epr esen ta tive a r ea s for
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
pr otection of n a tu r a l la n dsca pes (Cowell et
a l., 1994; Kava n a gh a n d Ia cobelli, 1995).
E n du r in g fea tu r es a r e th e sta ble la n dfor m s
a n d sea for m s on wh ich pla n t a n d a n im a l
com m u n ities exist a n d fu n ction . Th e u se of
la n dfor m s a s th e ba sis for r epr esen ta tion is
ba sed on th e a ck n ow ledgem en t of a la ck of
w idespr ea d, con sisten t biotic da ta a n d is
scien tifica lly fou n ded in th e a ppr oa ch u n der ta k en by Bioph ysica l a n d E cologica l La n d
Cla ssifica tion (E LC) tech n iqu es sin ce th e
ea r ly 1960s. Th is a ppr oa ch is ele ga n tly su m m a r ized by Rowe (1992) a s follow s:
…geom or ph ology – la n dfor m , its com position a n d str u ctu r e – is gen etic for la n dsca pe
ecosystem s th r ou gh its in flu en ce on loca l
clim a te, dr a in a ge, soil for m a tion a n d th e
r ecr u itm en t of pla n ts a n d a n im a ls...is th e
in dispen sa ble fou n da tion of ter r a in a n a lysis
wor ld-w ide.
In th e E LC a ppr oa ch , clim a te is th e m ost
im por ta n t deter m in a n t of ecosystem ch a r a cter istics a t coa r ser sca les of delin ea tion a n d
la n dfor m a n d soils becom e m or e im por ta n t a t
fin er sca les. Differ en ces in ve geta tion com m u n ities on sim ila r la n dfor m s, bu t in differ en t la n d cla ssifica tion u n its, expr ess m a cr oclim a tic differ en ces. With in u n its, differ en ces
in ve geta tion com m u n ities r efl ect differ en ces
in ph ysiogr a ph ic site, pa r ticu la r ly w ith
r espect to su bstr a te textu r e, m oistu r e, a n d
m icr oclim a te (slope position a n d a spect).
Alth ou gh w ildlife is n ot dir ectly u tilized in
developin g m a ppin g u n its, clim a te a n d ve geta tion com m u n ities a ffect a n d con tr ol th e
distr ibu tion a n d a bu n da n ce of w ildlife.
Th er e is a n im plicit a ssu m ption in th e E LC
fr a m ewor k th a t r epr esen ta tive la n dfor m /
Figure 1
Sc he matic o f me tho do lo gy to asse ss re pre se ntative ne ss and e c o lo gic al
inte grity
Determination of
Representativeness
Assesment and
Selection
Step 1
Step 4
Charac te rizatio n o f
Ec o re gio n
Adequac y of Existing
Protec ted Areas
Step 2
Step 5
Charac te rizatio n o f
Physio graphy
Se le c t Ne w
Ec o lo gic al Are as
Step 3
De te rminatio n o f
Landsc ape Units
Determine Area
Requirements
ve geta tion u n its w ill a lso su ppor t r epr esen ta tive fa u n a .
Th e m ech a n ics of la n dsca pe pla n n in g u su a lly in volves a n h ier a r ch ica l m a ppin g system
wh ich is a fu n da m en ta l com pon en t to E LC
tech n iqu es. Th is system ca n be a pplied in
eith er a “top-dow n ” fa sh ion , a “bottom -u p”
fa sh ion , or, pr efer a bly a com bin a tion of th e
two.
Th e top-dow n a ppr oa ch is on e of th e m ost
com m on a n d is pa r ticu la r ly su ited for pla n n in g la r ge a r ea s (pr ovin cia l/ sta te/ n a tion a l)
u sin g r em ote sen sin g tech n iqu es in com bin a tion w ith existin g da ta . In th is a ppr oa ch , on e
wor k s th r ou gh a h ier a r ch y be gin n in g w ith
sm a ll sca le da ta (1:500,000 to 1:1 m illion
sca les) a n d pr ogr essin g th r ou gh la r ger sca les
depen din g on ava ila ble in for m a tion a n d
in ven tor y ca pa bilities. Sm a ll-sca le da ta ba sed
on m a cr o-clim a te, geom or ph ology, su r ficia l
m a ter ia ls, a n d geology ca n be u sed to defi n e
br oa d r e gion s (E cor e gion s) a n d distr icts
(E codistr icts) wh ich a r e th en fu r th er su bdivided on th e ba sis of soils a n d ve geta tion
in for m a tion . Th e a u th or r ecen tly u n der took
th is a ppr oa ch for n a tu r a l a r ea s pla n n in g in a
2.7 m illion h a for ested la n dsca pe of n or th er n
On ta r io (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c., 1994)
a s well a s for th e en tir e P r ovin ce of N ew
Br u n sw ick (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c.,
1995a ).
In th e “bottom -u p” a ppr oa ch , a s r ecen tly
em ployed Re gion a l Mu n icipa lity of Ottaw a Ca r leton , Ca n a da ’s ca pita l (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l, 1995b), th e fu ll r a n ge of biotic a n d
a biotic con dition s a r e deter m in ed fir st. Th is
in volves th e developm en t of deta iled (1:10,000
or la r ger sca le) ecologica l u n its wh ich defin e
th e fu ll com plem en t of con dition s in a n y
given pla n n in g a r ea . Th u s, n on -ve geta ted clay
soils m igh t be a u n it wh ich r epr esen ts a gr icu ltu r e wh er ea s for ested dr y coa r se u n its
wou ld r epr esen t con ifer or m ixed for est on
sa n dy soils. For a n y given clim a te a n d m icr oclim a te, th e u ltim a te expr ession of ve geta tion
(in clu din g a ll ser a l sta ges) ca n be
deter m in ed. A N a tu r a l Her ita ge System is
con str u cted by a ssem blin g ecologica l u n its in
a n y of a va r iety of w ays depen din g on ecologica l a n d pla n n in g goa ls r esu ltin g in m a xim u m
flexibility.
Implementation component
Imple me ntatio n: To apply the po lic ie s o f
landsc ape planning fo r the lo ng-te rm
mainte nanc e o f e c o lo gic al func tio n and fo r
the maximizatio n o f e c o lo gic al inte grity
Th e da ta collected a n d a ssem bled to u n der ta k e th e ecologica l a n a lysis a r e a lso vita l to
th e im plem en ta tion of th e la n dsca pe pla n .
F ir st, a s n oted a bove, th e la n dsca pe pla n is
n ot sta tic bu t evolves w ith pla n n in g n eeds
[ 75 ]
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
a n d w ith im pr ovem en ts in ou r k n ow ledge of
ecologica l pr ocesses. Hen ce th e da ta ba se,
w ith con tin u a l u pda tin g, ca n be u tilized to
ea sily u pda te or r e-visit th e pla n by sim ply
a dju stin g th e cr iter ia . Th e u se of a
Geogr a ph ic In for m a tion System (GIS) to
stor e, a n a lyse a n d u pda te th e in for m a tion
gr ea tly en h a n ces th e flexibility to im plem en t
la n dsca pe pla n s.
Secon d, on ce th e la n dsca pe pla n is
design ed, th er e is a n eed to u n der ta k e ecosystem m a n a gem en t. Gen er a lly, th e lowest level
of m a n a gem en t possible is pr efer r ed. If
ecosystem s a r e per m itted to fu n ction n a tu r a lly, th en h u m a n in ter ven tion is m in im ized
or n ot r equ ir ed. However, th is r ela tes to ecologica l in te gr ity a n d in m ost u r ba n a n d a gr icu ltu r a l pla n n in g en vir on m en ts, som e de gr ee
of ecosystem m a n a gem en t is r equ ir ed. Th u s,
th e da ta ba se esta blish ed to design th e system
ca n a lso be u sed a s a ba sis for design in g a n d
u n der ta k in g ecologica l m a n a gem en t. In m ost
ca ses a ddition a l, site specific da ta w ill be
r equ ir ed a n d th is ca n be obta in ed a s tim e a n d
bu dgets a llow.
At th e ver y lea st, th e pla n n in g a gen cies
h ave a power fu l tool to pr otect a r ea s fr om
distu r ba n ce by fin e-tu n in g th e developm en t
a ppr ova l pr ocess. Ra th er th a n r equ ir in g a
sta n da r d en vir on m en ta l im pa ct a ssessm en t
(E IA), a ppr ova l a gen cies ca n specify th e
n a tu r e of th e poten tia l im pa ct(s) a n d clea r ly
iden tify th e ecologica l com pon en ts wh ich
m ay be im pa cted. Ra th er th a n follow in g a
sta n da r d off-th e-sh elf a ppr oa ch to u n der ta k in g th e E IA (e.g. sta n da r d species lists), pr opon en ts w ill be gu ided in to a ddr essin g fu n da m en ta l a spects of ecosystem pr ocess a n d
str u ctu r e r ela tin g dir ectly to th e site a n d
a dja cen t a r ea s.
Oth er com pon en ts wh ich m ay for m a pa r t
of th e on -goin g im plem en ta tion of th e la n dsca pe pla n a n d for wh ich th e da ta ba se ca n be
u sed in clu de th e follow in g:
• cu m u la tive effects a ssessm en t;
• effects m on itor in g/ str ess-r espon se;
• developm en t of per for m a n ce sta n da r ds for
im pa ct a ssessm en t;
• la n dsca pe r epr esen ta tiven ess;
• ecologica l in te gr ity a n a lysis;
• en h a n cem en t of biodiver sity; a n d
• ecologica l r estor a tion .
Im plem en ta tion ca pa bilities va r y w idely
fr om ju r isdiction to ju r isdiction . Th e k ey
fu n da m en ta ls a r e to en su r e th a t ecosystem
va lu es a r e fu lly con sider ed in developin g th e
pla n wh ich th en m u st be im plem en ted w ith
du e con sider a tion to socio-cu ltu r a l cir cu m sta n ces. Th e str en gth en in g of gover n m en t,
cor por a te, a n d pu blic in stitu tion s m ay be a s
cr itica l to im plem en ta tion a s th e design of
[ 76 ]
th e pla n itself. N owh er e is th is m or e eviden t
th a n in th e Am a zon ba sin sta tes of Br a zil,
su ch a s Ron dôn ia a n d Ma to Gr osso, wh ich
a r e cu r r en tly developin g deta iled la n dsca pe
pla n s (Zon ea m ien to Socio-E con óm icoE cológico – secon d a ppr oxim a tion ) (Beck er
a n d E gler, 1996). Tr em en dou s la n d u se pr essu r es exist a n d th e cu r r en t le ga l a n d in stitu tion a l in fr a str u ctu r es a r e lik ely n ot su fficien t
to en su r e a dequ a te im plem en ta tion .
N u m er ou s a r ea s w ith in N or th Am er ica
h ave a lso u n der gon e la n dsca pe type pla n n in g
bu t th ese too a r e su bject to n u m er ou s difficu lties in im plem en ta tion . Th ese difficu lties
r ela te to con cer n s for th e loss of la n ds for
for est h a r vestin g (Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l
In c., 1994) a n d/ or th e per ception of a loss of
in dividu a l r igh ts on beh a lf of la n dow n er s. To
da te th er e a r e n o exa m ples of tr u e ecologica lly-ba sed la n dsca pe pla n s bein g fu lly im plem en ted.
Role of GIS and remote sensing
Th e fu ll developm en t a n d im plem en ta tion of
a la n dsca pe pla n ca n on ly be a ch ieved by
u tilizin g sta te-of-th e-a r t tech n ologies in GIS
a n d r em ote sen sin g. E edy (1995) deta ils som e
of th e a dva n ta ges of GIS tech n ologies a s
r ela ted to E n vir on m en ta l Im pa ct
Assessm en ts. Th ese a dva n ta ges r ela te to th e
follow in g ca pa bilities of GIS (m odified fr om
E edy, 1995):
• m a n a gem en t of la r ge da ta sets;
• da ta over lay tech n iqu es;
• tr en d a n a lysis;
• m a th em a tica l m odellin g ca pa bilities;
• h a bita t a n a lysis;
• 3-D view in g a n d a n a lysin g ca pa bilities;
• pr esen ta tion gr a ph ics for pu blic con su lta tion .
Th ese ca pa bilities a r e even m or e su ited for
la n dsca pe pla n n in g w ith th e dir ect in te gr a tion of sa tellite der ived r a ster da ta sets
in clu din g both spectr a l a n d r a da r type
im a ger y. Th e va lu e of r em ote sen sin g da ta
lies in its u se to in ter pr et la r ge a r ea s a t r ela tively low cost. In ter pr eta tion s of th e exten t
of n a tu r a l ve geta tion , ba sic types of ve geta tion (for ested, gr a ssla n d, sava n n a ), m a jor
la n d u se ca te gor ies (in ten sive a gr icu ltu r e,
n on -in ten sive a gr icu ltu r e, u r ba n , for est h a r vestin g), a n d m a jor la n dfor m ca te gor ies
(flood pla in s, m ou n ta in s, in ter ior a n d coa sta l
pla in s, pla tea u x, delta s, bea ch es, a n d so on )
a r e pa r ticu la r ly u sefu l for la n dsca pe pla n n in g pu r poses.
Rem ote sen sin g im a ger y is a lso u sefu l for
r e gu la r or per iodic u pda tin g of la n dsca pe
pla n s a n d for u n der ta k in g ecologica l m on itor in g a s im a ges m ay be a cqu ir ed on a n on -
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
goin g ba sis. La n dsa t Th em a tic Da ta , for
exa m ple, m ay be a cqu ir ed for vir tu a lly a n y
loca tion on ea r th ever y 18 days if r equ ir ed.
Alth ou gh th e a cqu isition of GIS a n d r em ote
sen sin g tech n ologies a s well a s th e esta blish m en t of a ppr opr ia te da ta ba ses r equ ir e su bsta n tia l u p-fr on t costs, th ese a r e qu ick ly pa id
ba ck by efficien cies in a n a lysis, u pda tin g a n d
r epor tin g.
Summary and conclusion
Th e a pplica tion of ecologica lly-ba sed la n dsca pe pla n n in g r equ ir es a deta iled k n ow ledge
of ph ysica l a n d biologica l system s, a n h ier a r ch ica l pla n n in g fr a m ewor k , a n d th e a pplica tion of con ser va tion biology pr in ciples. La n dsca pe level pla n n in g m u st be u n der ta k en in
both developed a n d developin g cou n tr ies
im m edia tely in or der to en su r e th e m a in ten a n ce, pr eser va tion a n d en h a n cem en t of
biodiver sity wh ile a t th e sa m e tim e en su r in g
th e su sta in a ble u se of r esou r ces for bu r geon in g popu la tion s. By ign or in g ecologica l
pr ocess a n d str u ctu r e in pla n n in g th e in ten sity, m a n a gem en t style a n d type of la n d u ses,
ir r evoca ble ecologica l disa ster s w ill r esu lt.
Ou r sta te of k n ow ledge is con tin u a lly
a dva n cin g a n d th e fi eld of con ser va tion biology is qu ite you n g. In som e r espects pla n n in g
r equ ir em en ts a r e pu sh in g scien ce beyon d its
ca pa bilities to pr edict wh a t wor k s best in a n y
la n dsca pe. However, if we u tilize th e m ost
m oder n em pir ica l eviden ce a n d a llow for
flexibility, ecologica l r estor a tion , a n d ecosystem m a n a gem en t, th en a t th e ver y lea st we
w ill be goin g in th e r igh t dir ection if n ot a ll
th e w ay a t a n y m om en t in tim e.
Th e r a pid developm en t of r em ote sen sin g
a n d geogr a ph ic in for m a tion system tech n ologies in th e la st twen ty yea r s pr ovide th e tools
to in ven tor y, m ea su r e a n d eva lu a te th e ph ysica l a n d biologica l system s. Th ese tech n ologies per m it r a pid, h igh qu a lity, low cost da ta
collection m ost su ita ble for a r ea s wh er e
k n ow ledge is la ck in g or wea k a n d wh er e th e
existin g in fr a str u ctu r e m ay be u n r elia ble a n d
logistica lly difficu lt to oper a te. Th ey a r e a lso
pa r ticu la r ly su ited to a pplica tion w ith in
m oder n a ppr oa ch es to la n dsca pe pla n n in g.
References
Beck er, B.K. a n d E gler, C.A.G. (1996),
“Deta lh a m en to da m etodologia pa r a execu çã o
do zon ea m en to ecológico-econ ôm ico pelos
esta dos da Am a zôn ia le ga l”, Un pu blish ed
P a per, LAGE T/ UF RJ La ba or a tór io de Gestã o
do Ter r itór io, SAE – MMA, Br a silia , Br a zil,
43pp.
Bla k e, J .G. a n d Ka r r, J .R. (1984), “Species com position of bir d com m u n ities a n d th e con ser va -
tion ben efi t of la r ge ver su s sm a ll for ests”,
B iologica l Con ser va tion , Vol. 0006 N o. 3207,
pp. 173-87.
Ca n a da Com m ittee on E cologica l La n d Cla ssifica tion (CCE LC) (1977), “E cologica l (bioph ysica l)
la n d cla ssifi ca tion in Ca n a da ”, Th ie, J . a n d
Ir on side, G. (E ds), La n ds Dir ector a te, E n vir on m en t Ca n a da , Ottaw a , E LC Ser ies N o. 1,
269pp.
Cowell, D.W., Sh a r p, M.J . a n d Taylor, M.E . (1994),
Ecoregion Ga p A n a lysis: Pa r t 2 – Fra m ew ork
for Dev elopin g a N a tion -Wid e S ystem of Protected Ecologica l A rea s, Repor t pr epa r ed for
th e Ca n a dia n Cou n cil on E cologica l Ar ea s by
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c., 26p. + a ppen dices.
Cowell, D.W., Sh a r p, M.J . a n d Taylor, M.E . (1995),
“A n a tu r a l h er ita ge system for th e N ia ga r a
esca r pm en t pla n a r ea ”, in P r oceedin gs of th e
Lea din g E dge ‘95 Con fer en ce, Ca r ly, S.,
Wh itelaw, G. a n d Powell, S. (E ds), Collin gwood, On ta r io, Ca n a da , pp. 242-51.
E edy, W. (1995), “Th e u se of GIS in en vir on m en ta l
a ssessm en t”, Im pa ct A ssessm en t, Vol. 13 N o. 2,
pp. 199-206.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1993), N a tu ra l
Her ita ge S ystem for th e Oa k R id ges M ora in e
A rea : GT A Por tion , Ba ck gr ou n d Stu dy N o. 4 to
th e Oa k Ridges Mor a in e P la n n in g Stu dy,
P r epa r ed for th e Oa k Ridges Mor a in e Tech n ica l Wor k in g Com m ittee by Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c., 55p. plu s 1:10,000 a n d 1:50,000
sca le m a ps.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1994), Ga p A n a lysis
a n d Ca n d id a te A rea S election for L ife S cien ce
R epresen ta tion in S ite Distr ict 4E-3, P r epa r ed
for On ta r io Min istr y of N a tu r a l Resou r ces,
Cen tr a l Re gion , Hu n tsville, On ta r io, Ca n a da ,
86p.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1995a ), A n a lysis of
R epresen ta tiv e N a tu ra l A rea s in N ew
B ru n sw ick , N ew Br u n sw ick Depa r tm en t of
N a tu r a l Resou r ces a n d E n er gy, F r eder icton ,
N ew Br u n sw ick , Ca n a da , 32p. + a ppen dices.
Geom a tics In ter n a tion a l In c. (1995b), N a tu ra l
En viron m en t S ystem s S tra teg y for th e
R egion a l M u n icipa lity of Ottaw a -Ca rleton :
S ta ge 1 R egion a l In for m a tion B a se a n d Ecologica l Profi le, P r epa r ed for Re gion a l Mu n icipa lity of Ottaw a -Ca r leton , P la n n in g a n d P r oper ty
Depa r tm en t, Ottaw a , On ta r io, Ca n a da , 79p. +
a ppen dices.
Hills, G.A. (1959), A R ea d y R eferen ce to th e Descr iption of th e L a n d of On ta r io a n d its prod u ctivity,
Resea r ch Division , On ta r io Depa r tm en t of
La n ds a n d For ests, Tor on to, On ta r io, Ca n a da ,
142p. w ith m a ps.
Hills, G.A. (1961), T h e Ecologica l B a sis of L a n d Use
Pla n n in g, Res. Rept. 46, On ta r io Depa r tm en t
of La n ds a n d For ests, Tor on to, 210p.
Hills, G.A. (1976), A n In tegra ted Itera tiv e Holistic
A pproa ch to Ecosystem Cla ssifi ca tion . Ecologica l (B ioph ysica l) L a n d Cla ssifi ca tion in
Ca n a d a , P r oceedin gs of th e 1st Meetin g,
Ca n a da Com m ittee on E cologica l La n d
[ 77 ]
Daryl W. Co we ll
Ec o lo gic al landsc ape planning
te c hnique s fo r bio dive rsity
and sustainability
Enviro nme ntal Manage me nt
and He alth
9 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 7 2 –7 8
[ 78 ]
Cla ssifi ca tion , Petaw aw a , On ta r io, Ca n a da ,
May, 1976, pp. 73-98.
Ka r r, J .R. a n d Du dley, D.R. (1981), “E cologica l
per spective on w a ter qu a lity goa ls”, En viron m en ta l M a n a gem en t, Vol 5 N o. 1, pp. 55-68.
Kava n a gh , K. a n d Ia cobelli, T. (1995), “P r otected
a r ea s ga p a n a lysis m eth odology”, in N oss, R.
(E d.), A Protected A rea s Ga p A n a lysis M eth od olog y: Pla n n in g for th e Con ser va tion of B iod iv ersity, Wor ld Wildlife F u n d, E n da n ger ed
Spa ces Ca m pa ign , Discu ssion P a per, pp. 10-25.
La ca te, D.S. (1969), “Gu idelin es for bioph ysica l
la n d cla ssifi ca tion ”, Su bcom m ittee on Bioph ysica l La n d Cla ssifi ca tion , N a tion a l Com m ittee on For est La n d, P u b. N o. 1264, Ca n a dia n For estr y Ser vice, Ca n a da Depa r tm en t of
F ish er ies a n d For estr y, Ottaw a , On ta r io, 61p.
McHa r g, I.L. (1969), Design w ith N a tu re, Dou bleday N a tu r a l Histor y P r ess, Lon don .
Meffe, G.K. a n d Ca r r oll, C.R. (a n d con tr ibu tor s),
(1994), Pr in ciples of Con ser va tion B iolog y,
Sin a u er Associa tes In c., Su n der la n d, MA.
N aveh , Z. (1994), “F r om biodiver sity to ecodiver sity: a la n dsca pe-ecology a ppr oa ch to con ser va tion a n d r estor a tion ”, R estora tion Ecolog y,
Vol. 2 N o. 3, pp. 180-189.
N oss, R.F. (1990), “Ca n we m a in ta in biologica l a n d
ecologica l in te gr ity?”, Con ser va tion B iolog y,
Vol. 4 N o. 3, pp. 241-43.
N oss, R.F. (1993), “Th e w ildla n ds pr oject – la n d
con ser va tion str a te gy”, Wild Ea r th , Specia l
Issu e, Vol 10 N o. 25.
Robbin s, C.S. (1979), “E ffect of for est fr a gm en ta tion on bir d popu la tion s”, in P r oceedin gs of
Wor k sh op on Ma n a gem en t of N or th Cen tr a l
a n d N or th E a ster n For ests for N on ga m e
Bir ds, 23-25 J a n u a r y, Min n ea polis, MIN, N or th
Cen tr a l E xper im en ta l Sta tion , F ish a n d
Wildlife Ser vice, U.S.D.A., pp. 198-212.
Rowe, J .S. (1992), “P r ologu e: site cla ssifica tion
r esea r ch pr ior ities for est a n d cu ltu r e”,
Forestr y Ch ron icle, Vol. 68 N o. 1, pp. 22-44.
Ru bec, C.D.A. (1992), “La n dsca pe a ppr oa ch es to
w ildlife a n d ecosystem m a n a gem en t: su m m a r y of wor k sh op r ecom m en da tion s”, in
In gr a m , G.B. a n d Moss, M.R. (E ds), L a n d sca pe
A pproa ch es to Wild life a n d Ecosystem M a n a gem en t, P r oceedin gs of th e Secon d Sym posiu m
of th e Ca n a dia n Society for La n dsca pe E cology a n d Ma n a gem en t, Un iver sity of Br itish
Colu m bia , May 1990, Polyscien ce P u blica tion s
In c., Mor in Heigh ts, Ca n a da , pp. 259-267.
Wh itta k er, R.H. (1965), “Dom in a n ce a n d diver sity
in la n d pla n t com m u n ities”, S cien ce, Vol. 147,
pp. 250-60.
Wik en , E .B. a n d Ir on side, G. (1977), “Th e developm en t of ecologica l (bioph ysica l) la n d cla ssifica tion in Ca n a da ”, L a n d sca pe Pla n n in g, Vol. 4
N o. 4, pp. 273-5.