Olaf Bastian, Karsten Grunewald

Tags: landscape planning, personal copy, Landscape Ecol, Landscape units, Russia, scales, approach, assessment, study area, ecosystem services, approaches, landscape unit, delineation, case study in Russia, Riss glaciation, geosystem, Ecol Author, spatial units, Springer Science, TEEB, forest zone, land cover, management measures, Landscape Ecol Author, Author, case study in Russia Olaf Bastian, landscape concepts, promising approaches, ecological planning, functional role, Karsten Grunewald, landscape patterns, K. Grunewald, Moscow State University, Landscape Ecology, morphological units, Sandy river terraces, Unzha river valley, silver birch, case study area, State Forest Inventory, secondary forests, Khoroshev, watershed areas, surface runoff, case study, spatial reference, Norway spruce, landscape approach, planning decisions, spatial scales, forest management, ecological units, ecological processes, Landscape Ecol Fig
Content: The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified in a case study in Russia Olaf Bastian, Karsten Grunewald & Alexander V. Khoroshev Landscape Ecology ISSN 0921-2973 Landscape Ecol DOI 10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x 1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com". 1 23
Landscape Ecol DOI 10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x PERSPECTIVE
Author's personal copy
The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified in a case study in Russia Olaf Bastian . Karsten Grunewald . Alexander V. Khoroshev
Received: 27 August 2014 / Accepted: 10 April 2015 У Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Context Recently, physical geography and landscape ecology have attracted increasing attention, due to the expectation that their theoretical and methodical concepts may improve the assessment of ecosystem services (ES). Examples of promising approaches rooted in various scientific schools, especially of Eastern Europe and Russia. Objective The paper briefly describes these approaches, particularly in terms of ES supply. This is deepened by way of a case study in Russia which shows the crucial role of landscape patterns and landscape units in the assessment of ES with respect to the relationship between forestry and runoff. Methods For the selection of important geosystembased aspects we started from the ES approach and reviewed the Eastern European (particularly Russian and Eastern German) literature to identify aspects that might be suitable for incorporation into the ES concept. Results Among the geosystem-based geographical and landscape-ecological approaches which have been addressed by scientific schools in Russia and Eastern O. Bastian Б K. Grunewald (&) Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany e-mail: [email protected] A. V. Khoroshev Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory 1, 119991 Moscow, Russia
Europe, landscape genesis, landscape units, landscape hierarchy, the role of spatial scales, ecosystem patterns and relationships and natural potentials belong to the most promising ones. These approaches can improve assessments of ES by strengthening their scientific foundation, and elaborating them in a spatial context which might help to better influence land use policy and decision-making. Conclusions Integrated geosystem approaches may provide a number of interesting theoretical and methodological contributions and impulses to the study of ES, especially for the current national TEEB initiatives in many countries. This provides significant perspectives for the application of geosystem-based concepts in ecological planning. Keywords Landscape genesis Б Landscape units Б River basins Б Catena Б Natural potentials Б Spatial scales Б Forestry Б Water runoff Introduction Recently, ecological planning has faced new challenges with respect to the ever more popular concept of ecosystem services (ES), which is seen as a way to enhance consideration for biodiversity and ecosystems in planning and decision-making processes, foster sustainable land use and avoid over-utilization and degradation of natural resources (e.g. Braat and de 123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Groot 2012). The ES concept has achieved prominence particularly via the global The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB), which is focused on ``the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation'' (TEEB 2010). Since the release of TEEB's suite of final reports at the UN-CBD meeting in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, numerous countries have begun or completed national TEEB studies, including Germany (Naturkapital Deutschland-TEEB DE 2012); initial steps have also been taken in Russia (Tishkov 2005; Bobylev and Zakharov 2009). These country-level studies focus on evaluating national policy priorities in terms of their ES dependencies and impacts, identify and value important ES and natural areas that provide them, and propose changes in policies and mechanisms that address national priorities and ES losses. There is considerable need for guidance for all these studies, in terms of process, organization, scope, policy contexts, valuation frameworks, methodologies, and typical solutions (TEEB 2013). Brouwer et al. (2013) note that there exists a wide variety of assessment approaches in practice at various geographical and temporal scales. As recent surveys of ES mapping studies have shown, the most commonly used sources of information include land cover variables, topographical information and spectral vegetation indexes. Less common are mapping techniques basing on biological data, such as functional traits of plants (e.g. vegetative height, leaf dry matter content, leaf nitrogen and phosphorous concentration, flowering onset), or ecosystem structure and habitat data. There are also such models as the InVEST tool, which examine the underlying mechanisms which drive ES delivery and are thus more likely to produce realistic information on ES supply, but they also require significant investment in data acquisition and expert knowledge (Maes et al. 2012). By using topographical maps and land use maps, and by relating landscape functions and ES to single land cover types, the ES of large areas can be mapped at a rather low expense (e.g. Burkhard et al. 2012; Maes et al. 2012). For instance, the Ecosystem Assessment of Great Britain (UK NEA 2011) refers to only nine ``broad habitat types''. However, the relationships between land cover variables and ES supply have not yet been thoroughly understood (de Groot et al. 2010; Eigenbrod et al. 123
2010). The poor understanding of the process underlying ES supply is one of the greatest barriers to progress in quantifying and mapping ES (Tallis et al. 2013). Hence, land use and land cover can be seen as helpful but simplistic proxies for ES supply and values (SchaЁgner et al. 2013). Such proxy methods have been very powerful in creating policy awareness at various levels, but they are insufficient when it comes to land use and policy planning for ES delivery, as they disregard complex ecological reality. This scientific uncertainty poses serious risks of adverse effects of policies (van der Biest 2013). It is also problematical that the indicator ``land cover'' does not allow for any clear differentiation between ES supply and demand (or present land use). Against this background, landscape-ecological integrative approaches deserve more attention (Iverson et al. 2014). Indeed, integrated approaches are attracting ever greater attention; they encompass the complexity of ecosystems and landscapes with their abiotic, biotic and socio-economic characteristics (Mikloґs 2010). Among the landscape-ecological integrated approaches rooted in various scientific schools in different parts of the world, we will emphasize particularly the Russian/Soviet (and Eastern European) biophysical approach based on the geosystem paradigm, on soil science, physical geography, and geology, which is not well known to the international readership, because early papers that define and describe this perspective were published in Russian or German, and only in some cases and much later translated into English--see the sample of key papers collected by Wiens et al. (2006). We argue that this approach may provide a number of interesting theoretical and methodological contributions and impulses to the study of ES delivery. The goal of this paper is to underpin this assumption from theoretical, methodological and practical points of view. The paper presents several aspects of, or approaches to, the geosystem concept (some of them exemplified by way of a case study in Russia on the relationship between forestry and runoff), and points out not only the opportunities and benefits it offers, but also their constraints for the assessment of ES supply. Methodology For the selection of important geosystem-based aspects, our point of departure was our knowledge of
Landscape Ecol
Author's personal copy
the ES concept and ES models, particularly the ES cascade (Haines-Young and Potschin 2009, while taking into account criticism and advancements--e.g. Spangenberg et al. 2014, who introduce additional elements, emphasize the societal dimensions more strongly and turn the cascade into so-called stairways) and the EPPS framework (Bastian et al. 2012a, b, 2013; Grunewald and Bastian 2015). We then reviewed the Russian literature to identify aspects that might be suitable for incorporation into the ES concept. The aspects selected are to some extent closely interlinked. Neither do they make any claim to completeness, nor do we attempt to compare them comprehensively with land cover based assessment approaches. There is no clear terminology concerning the distinction between concepts, models, approaches and aspects. Both the geosystem and natural potentials can represent a concept. But the latter can also be seen as an approach or an aspect of the former. Here, we prefer the terms ``concept'' (or paradigm) for geosystem (or landscape) and ``aspect/approach'' for the issues described in the following sections. We start from a short description of the geosystem and (physical) landscape concepts, and briefly present and discuss the selected geosystem and landscape based approaches. Then, we deepen the analysis with reference to a case study as representative of the role of landscape patterns and landscape units in the assessment of service supply, with respect to relations between forestry and runoff in Russia. Finally, we take a closer look at the perspectives for application in ecological planning, especially in Germany and Russia. Theoretical basis: aspects of geosystem and landscape-based ecosystem service assessments The concepts of geosystem and landscape The geosystem concept appeared in the 1960s, when Viktor Sochava (1963) introduced this term into geographical landscape research. At that time, the system approach was being intensively implemented in geography (Chorley and Kennedy 1971). Today, the term ``geosystem'' is also widely used in the teaching of physical geography (Christopherson 2014). Geosystems
are related to the geographical space and reflect the structure, development and change of the earth's crust. Sochava's geosystem term is basing on older fundamentals, such as the biologically oriented ecosystem science, the general theory of hydrological systems, the specific basics of geo-sciences (e.g. geomorphology, geochemistry, climatology) and landscape ecology (Blumenstein et al. 2000). Geosystem research deals with the properties and the internal energy, water and matter turnovers of landscape systems. The biologically oriented ecosystem research does the same, however, while taking the connection between living beings and their environment into special account. Despite different views of the life and earth sciences, both approaches largely overlap in practice (Leser 1997). The holistic paradigm ``the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'' applies to the provision of ES, too. The landscape matrix determines the role of the individual components, rather than simply adding up the individual components (Vandewalle et al. 2008). Willemen (2010) stresses the argument that landscapes are holistic spatial systems in which humans interact with their environment. In particular, the geographical context and landscape character can be very important for ES. The definition of landscape as a geosystem or an ecosystem complex is mainly held by physical geographers and landscape ecologists. For example, Nikolai Solntsev, founder of the landscape science school at Moscow State University, defined landscape as a ``genetically uniform territory, with regular and typical repetition of some interrelated combinations of geological structures, landforms, surface and groundwater, microclimates, soil types, phytocoenoses and zoocoenoses'' (Solntsev 1948). Ernst Neef (1967) included human creations, and described landscape as ``a segment of the earth's surface characterized by the same structure and processes, of which the full integration of all geofactors (geological subsoil, relief, soil, climate, water balance, flora, fauna, humankind and its works) of a site or a space consists''. Nevertheless, such physical landscapes, or geosystem or ecosystem complexes, may provide a suitable basis for ES assessments, and in many cases they are more appropriate than considering single components (e.g. land cover) in isolation. 123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Landscape genesis The complex structure of (physical) landscapes emerged over long periods in complicated processes. Especially the study of landscapes and their genesis may provide valuable insights into ecosystem structures and processes, which may be important for the provision of ES, particularly with regard to the vast, rather undisturbed areas which are a general geographical peculiarity of the former Russian Empire and the USSR, as well as of present-day Russia, particularly its Asian part. Russian geographers have since the early twentieth century focused on landscape genesis. Lev Berg created the basis for the ``structural'' approach in landscape science, providing definitions of landscapes and geography: ``A natural landscape is a region in which the character of landforms, climate, and plant and soil cover are integrated into a harmonic whole, typically repeated within a certain zone of the earth. A study of the causes leads to the fact that relief, climate, and plant and soil cover form one unique landscape system or organism, resulting from interactions of different factors that affect each other and that constitute the natural landscape. This is the task of scientific geography... The task of great significance for geographers is the division of the earth's entire surface, or its parts, into regions based on their natural attributes'' (Berg 1915). Berg composed first smallscale landscape maps and regionally integrated descriptions for the Asian part of Russia. In large parts of Russia, natural landscapes still dominate, and natural genesis-based classifications still have high validity. Physio(geo)graphy-based and genesis-based approaches to landscape research since the 1940s have proven relevant in the exploration for natural resources and for planned economic activities (Sochava 1963; Isachenko 1973). For instance, morainic outwash and karst plains differ in the intensity of their matter flows, soil fertility, biological productivity, carrying capacity of deposits etc., so that different land use and settlement possibilities result (see ``Ecosystem patterns'' section). Similar approaches referring to the idea of strong interdependencies between abiotic and biotic phenomena and physiography as a binding factor were developed simultaneously or a bit later in Australia, western and Central Europe, and North America (Troll 1950; Christian 1958; Zonneveld 1989). The importance of the genesis-based approach for the identification of spatial
units was emphasized by Minar and Trembos (1997) and Bailey (2005). The resulting maps in scales ranging from global to local were successfully used for ecological regionalization (Rowe 1996; Omernik 2004; Loveland and Merchant 2004; Bailey 2005), landscape planning (Hills 1961; Martin-Duque et al. 2003), and forest planning (Beauchesne et al. 1996; Smith and Carpenter 1996). Landscape units For the assessment of ES, particularly for the supply side, the potentials or the capacity of ecosystems to deliver services, suitable units of reference are necessary. Such spatial reference units are needed for the sampling, analysis and assignment of data, as well as for the assessment and modelling of ES themselves. We can distinguish between regular geometrical units such as grids, and irregular or non-geometrical units such as ecological units. Examples for ecological units are ecosystems, watersheds, bio-geographical units, or landscape units and geo-chores (Haase and Mannsfeld 2002; Blaschke 2006; Bastian et al. 2006; Ingegnoli 2014). The reference units should be related to scales that are ecologically reasonable and policy relevant, and they should express the complexity of facts and relationships. Landscape units show a uniform or similar overall character, which society must respect in order to achieve an effective and at the same time careful use. Different types of landscape units have the advantage of suitability for · Identifying landscape characteristics (all-encompassing landscape character in the sense that Alexander von Humboldt expressed in the early nineteenth century), · Defining leitbilder (visions for landscape development), and · Transferring information/extrapolating results and applying them to ecologically similar areas, in order to bridge data bottlenecks to a certain degree (Bastian et al. 2006; Potschin et al. 2010). A special case of landscape units is the natural or biophysical unit. According to Haase and Mannsfeld (2002) this ``is an area of land (a section of the earth's terrestrial crust) characterized by a uniform physical structure determined by natural laws and by a complex of abiotic and biotic components; it represents the
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
relationship (in terms of processes) between the geosphere and the biosphere''. In other words: The ``biophysical unit'' is that part of a landscape which is determined by its natural components (geological and geomorphologic structure, soil, water, climate, flora and vegetation, fauna). There are also several other names for such entities, e.g. geo-complex, geochore, physical region, natural complex, natural sphere, land unit, land system, eco-region, or, in German, Naturraum (Bastian et al. 2006). In the former USSR, landscape mapping developed since the 1940s, and served as a basis for the elaboration of the concept of morphological structure of landscape as a genetic entity. The hierarchical organization of nested landscape units is the focus of this concept. An elementary natural territorial complex is referred to as facies. Normally, it lies within an element of the mesorelief (e.g. the concave portion of a gully slope), and is absolutely uniform in lithology and slope. This results in a uniform microclimate and water regime. In such conditions only one soil and one biocoenosis can occur. Spatial arrangements of facies usually lead to the higher-level landscape units called podurochishchya in Russian (e.g. gully slopes). Lateral flows of matter and energy are well-manifested at this hierarchical level. A series of genetically and dynamically linked facies and podurochishchya constitute an urochishche--a landscape unit within a single mesorelief form (e.g. gully, hill, river terrace as a whole). A geographical mestnost (locality) has been defined as a part of a landscape with a certain combination of main urochishchya determined by the variability in geological structure (e.g. different thickness of surface deposits), ratio of dominant, subdominant and rare urochishchya (Dyakonov 2007), etc. Mapping units at the urochishche hierarchical level (scale 1:10,000­1:50,000) are widely used for the purposes of local landscape planning and Environmental Impact Assessment in Russia. Higher level units (mestnost, landscape) are more relevant for strategic planning at the regional level, e.g. in planning ecological networks, or priorities for economic development. The landscape level is preferred for the drawing of landscape maps for regional atlases. Facies are too small to have economic activity adapted to them, but certain combinations of facies within urochishchya, e.g. a number of small waterlogged depressions in a flat area, can impose restrictions on
land use and force a change in the choice of technology, e.g. on the manner of ploughing. With respect to ES, both ecological and socioeconomic units (administrative units, land use units) are relevant. The overlap of these two types is a major problem, which needs special attention, as ecological issues and institutional boundaries seldom coincide (de Groot et al. 2010). Landscape hierarchy Landscape units can be seen as associations or mosaics of basic topological elements, and they can be aggregated at different levels of abstraction, resulting in different sub-dimensions within the chorological dimension (nano-, micro-, meso-, macro-ecochores). At the chorological dimension, we leave behind the concept of homogeneity that has been used to define ecotopes (Neef 1963a). The internal heterogeneity of such units is reduced to new information, which is defined as homogeneous at a higher level of abstraction (Herz 1973). At a higher level of aggregation, geochores have new properties which are beyond the mere sum of their parts (LoЁffler 2002). Hierarchies play an implicit role in many ecological models (O'Neill 1989; Wu 1999), particularly in landscape ecology. The hierarchy concept developed in Russian physical geography has provided the methodological basis for the analysis and mapping of landscape structures at various scales. In Russia, relief and geology are traditionally considered of crucial importance for generating landscape patterns. In the hierarchy of natural units in Russia, landscape is understood to be a large, genetically homogeneous unit (1000­10,000 km2) that can be subjected to typological classification, unlike such higher-order units as physical-geographical (eco)districts, (eco)provinces, or (eco)regions. The landscape consists of so-called morphological units Solntsev (1948). Process-oriented research (particularly in landscape geochemistry) has also elaborated hierarchical systems of units. Elementary landscape, catena, cascade, landscape-geochemical system, and watersheds of different ranks (Kasimov and Gennadiev 2007) are examples of process-oriented units relevant for assessing ES dependence in matter flows between landscape elements. The list of such services includes runoff regulation, ability of soils to neutralize pollutant migration, the hydroelectric potentials of rivers, etc.
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Recently, researchers have started attempts to build hierarchies based on the concept of the multi-structural organization of landscapes. The point of departure for this is the multiplicity of mutually independent ecological processes, each of which is responsible for a specific hierarchy of geosystems (Wu et al. 2000). Statistically significant interrelationships between landscape components are evaluated to reveal the sensitivity of particular landscape properties to processes of various hierarchical orders (Khoroshev 2010). Spatial scales Ecosystems, their structures, processes and services, are related to specific spaces and manifest themselves in several scales. The term ``space'' is considered very important and constitutive in a wide range of scientific disciplines, not only in geography, but also in philosophy, mathematics and physics, history, archaeology and sociology. According to Blotevogel (1995) we understand space as a · Tangible physical space (pattern of different areas and cubes), which can be described objectively, · The natural human environment (e.g. landscape), and · Social space (the social construction of reality, spaces of collective actions, areas of spatial allocations). Scale issues of ecosystems were already rooted in the original definition of Tansley (1935), who stressed that ecosystems can be defined at a wide range of spatial scales, from the level of a small ephemeral sunlit spot on the forest floor up to that of a whole forest ecosystem spanning several thousands of kilometres and persisting for decades or centuries (Forman and Godron 1986). The supply of ES depends on the functioning of ecosystems, which is in turn driven by ecological processes operating across a range of scales (Hein et al. 2006). Often, specific ES are generated and supplied at particular scales (Hein et al. 2006; Costanza 2008). Given various scale levels, scale-dependent process variables and magnitudes require scale-adapted methods of analysis and evaluation, which have already been addressed by the ``dimension theory'' (Neef 1963b). On this basis, the approaches developed at the local and regional scales can be transferred (adapted,
applied and checked) to the supra-regional or even to the global context--the ``bottom-up'' strategy. The reverse ``top-down'' approach, too, is possible. Due to the fact that the combination and processing of data from quite different temporal and spatial scales and the transition from one scale to another can cause problems involving the expressiveness and interpretation of data and information (Neef 1963b), the choice of a suitable dimension or scale is essential for any conceptual and/or methodological ES framework. Wu and Li (2006) have provided a review on theories and methods in scaling. The spatial relations of ES are manifold. This applies to the supply aspects (for the areas where ES are supplied or maintained), but also for the areas where human needs or demands for ES arise, and where they have to be satisfied. Some aspects are listed below (cp. Bastian et al. 2012b): · The supply of ES is tied to special area requirements (minimum areas) of the ecosystems concerned. · Frequently, a specific spatial composition or pattern of several ecosystems is necessary to generate ES (see below). Composition aspects are also manifested in the spatial congruence or divergence of ES, or in mutual effects (synergies or trade-offs). · Whether different ES co-vary positively or negatively often depends on the configuration of the ecosystems or landscape elements involved at a specific scale. · Spatial Aspects are also relevant with respect to the differentiation between areas where ES are generated (service providing areas), and those where they are used or demanded (service benefiting areas). Ecosystem patterns One of the most important tasks is to reveal and assess ES provided by particular combinations of ecosystems, landscape elements and landscape units; the whole is more than the sum of its component elements. The composition and patterns of ecosystem complexes and landscapes strongly influence fluxes and flows of water, nutrients, and biota. These in turn determine the quality and diversity of ES derived from a landscape, catchment or river basin. The spatial properties of
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
ecosystems and landscapes--size, orientation, shape, core/edge ratio, mutual location, neighbourhood, proportion, distance to other elements, etc.--generate the diversity of potentials (service supply) and land use opportunities (cf. ``Natural potentials'' section). Spatial aspects and patterns take centre stage in landscape ecology (Forman and Godron 1986; Moss 2000). Landscape structure has a principal significance in geographical approaches to ES assessment. Various ES can depend either on the internal properties of a unit, or on the effects caused by the interactions of units, i.e. on the landscape structure per se. In assessing pattern-dependent ES, it is necessary to distinguish between the Functional Roles of units that each contribute differently to the emergent effect of spatial patterns. It is useful to distinguish between units which · Dominate in an area, usually serve as a major source of matter flow, and provide a considerable share of ES: Any part of such a unit can be exploited without significant loss of ES in other parts: E.g. patch-wise logging in a large forest complex · Are rare or unique within a matrix, but extremely significant and irreplaceable as providers of specific resources, habitats, recreation sites, etc.: E.g. riparian forests in steppe zones · Can stop undesirable flows and protect vulnerable neighbouring units, i.e. units with buffering function: E.g. forest patches on slopes can protect water bodies from nutrient inputs from adjoining farmlands · Can neutralize or compensate for the negative effects of neighbouring units and undesirable flows, e.g. patches with peat deposits in floodplains that can partially absorb and immobilize atmospheric pollutants · Ensure connectivity between valuable territories and support desirable migration routes for people, animals, seeds, genetic exchange, flows of fresh air and water, etc.: E.g. forest corridors in agricultural areas · Affect the directions of matter flows: E.g. mudflow cones that change their shapes frequently and affect streams in mountain valleys, sometimes resulting in the formation of dams and lakes
· Form mosaics that ensure the diversity and neighbourhood of habitats, resource areas, snowmelt patterns, wind directions, recreation facilities, etc. Various spatial patterns of units result in different amounts of ES, unless area proportions are the same. For example, rugged terrain ensures high diversity of nutrients supply in soils, which in turn results in diversity of plant cover, animal populations and game resources. Natural potentials In European concepts and schools of landscape ecology, for example, in the German landscape literature, natural potentials have been conceptualized (Bastian and Steinhardt 2002; Wiggering et al. 2003; Burkhard et al. 2009; Bastian et al. 2012a). The concept of potentials assesses nature's assets from the point of view of the potential user and by means of a primarily science driven mode of operation (explicitly including the natural and social sciences). The goal is to display the service capacities of an ecosystem (or of the bio-physical part of a landscape) as a field of options available to society for usage. Hence, the potentials approach also considers such categories as risk, carrying capacity and the capacity to capture and balance environmental stress, which limit or may even exclude certain intended uses (Mannsfeld 1983); this is increasingly subsumed today under the term ``resilience''. In addition to ``potential'', the term ``capacity'' can also be found in literature as well as ``natural functions'' (e.g. in the German Nature Conservation Act). Thus, de Groot et al. (2002) and Willemen (2010) define ecosystem functions (and landscape functions) as ``the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services which directly and/or indirectly satisfy human needs''. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) emphasizes ``the capacity of the natural system to sustain the flow of economic, ecological, social, and cultural benefits in the future''. Burkhard et al. (2012) distinguish between the potential as the hypothetical maximal service supply under the given conditions, and the capacity as the ability of a defined spatial unit to supply specific ES which are used within a certain period.
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
In Russia, ``natural landscape potentials'' were first mentioned by Solntsev (1948), who understood potential as the inherent natural capacities of a landscape, determined both by the geographical heritage of former times (i.e. the effect of genesis) and by the possibilities given by the present-day pattern of the geographical processes. He distinguished natural and cultural­technical potentials. Moreover, he recommended differentiating between groups of potentials according to the human point of view: positive (e.g. the provision of habitats for plants introduced to decrease the groundwater level), negative (e.g. irrigation-induced salinization), and neutral ones. Since the 1990s, Isachenko (2003) has developed the concept of the ecological potential of the landscape based on such climatic parameters as input and biological productivity as major output indicators. Landscape science in the former USSR since the 1950s has focused heavily on the assessment of natural potentials and their various applications in land use planning, for agriculture in particular. However, monetary valuation played no major role during the Soviet era, due to absence of market mechanisms.
is shaped by Riss glaciation as well as by glacial lakes and their currents. It is almost flat in the inner watershed areas, and in part consists of gently rolling plain (Khoroshev and Koshcheeva 2009). Oligotrophic mires are rare and of small sizes. The dominant vegetation is forests of Norway spruce (Picea abies), Siberian fir (Abies sibirica) and small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata), as well as silver birch (Betula pendula) and European aspen (Populus tremula) in widelyspread secondary forests (Khoroshev et al. 2013). Marginal parts of watershed areas sloping toward the Unzha river valley are deeply dissected and welldrained with exposures of Jurassic carbonate clays and marlstones. Soddy podzolic soils have formed on loamy sands or loess-like loams covering morainic loams. Sandy river terraces with well-developed aeolian landforms are occupied by forests with Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) on deep podzols. Timber harvesting is the main occupation of local communities who face now the problem of the resource depletion. Agriculture (mainly cattle-breeding and grain production) is concentrated in well-drained area adjusting to the Unzha river valley and is in state of decline.
Case study: the role of landscape patterns for service supply in fragmented forest areas in Russia Some of the approaches presented in the previous sections (e.g. landscape genesis, spatial patterns, scales and landscape units) will be illustrated by the following case study. It will show that the assessment of different kinds of ES requires a multiplicity of approaches to the delineation of spatial units, each of which is based on particular theoretical concepts. We also demonstrate that the application of each approach enables us to reveal functional roles of spatial units in a landscape. Study area The study area (Fig. 1) is located in the southern taiga at the north of the Kostroma administrative oblast (region) in Kologriv district (centre: 59°N 44°E). The relief is shaped by Riss glaciation and glacial lakes and their currents. The landscapes are representative for that section of the East-European taiga where the relief
Methods Assessments of ES may comprise both an inventory of the present state and a prognosis of ES supply in the future. Approaches to forecasting forest-dependent ES often include modelling the spatial distribution of age classes over a territory with regard to either natureoriented or economy-oriented management (Nabuurs et al. 2007) as well as to the variety of successional trajectories and disturbance regimes (Kenkel et al. 1998). To test the relevancy of several viewpoints on the delineation of spatial units for ES assessments we performed this case study using mapping and modelling techniques. Field Research on the area of approx. 3500 km2 involved integrated descriptions of relief, sediments, soils, and plant cover in representative topographic positions resulting in delineating natural spatial units. Topographic and remote sensing Landsat and SPOT data were used for landscape mapping and determination of typical and rare landscape elements. Data of the State Forest Inventory were used as an additional source of information about boundaries of forest management units, composition and age of forest
123
Landscape Ecol
Author's personal copy
Fig. 1 Location of the study area stands and corresponding forestry measures. Space images from 1990, 2001, and 2008 were used to assess dynamics of timber harvesting. Interviews with local forest managers provided valuable information concerning forestry technologies, game resources, and trends of economic development in the region. Table 1 summarizes important criteria (indicators), data
sources, reference units and other spatial aspects, some of which are described below in details. To illustrate the basin approach we performed a modelling of the total annual runoff from the small river basin Varzenga (3494 ha) under various cutting scenarios. Our point of departure was that runoff from the forest unit depends on stand age due to evaporation 123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
fluctuations. Recovery succession can be interrupted by cutting at various stages depending on the choice of target species. In the study region cutting ages for spruce and birch are established at 80 and 60 years, respectively. Therefore, we compared two scenarios: one aimed at the undifferentiated choice of one or two target species for cutting in the whole basin versus the scenario (no. 2) of a unit-related choice of target species depending on landscape conditions. We used data from Krestovsky (1986) who assessed deviations of total runoff from that of deforested areas depending on stand age. We assumed that just before cutting initial value of total runoff accounts for 100 %. Within a period of 5 years after cutting, runoff increases up to 165 % compared to the initial value. 25 years after cutting (succession stage with birch dominance), runoff decreases to 100 % and further to 50 % from initial value by the age of 80 years (spruce dominance stage). Later, runoff increases again and reaches 100 % at the age of 120. The dependence is approximated by the following equation with r-square 0.98 (p = 0.0000): Y ј р2:283 А 8:226рt=100Ю ю 13:496рt=100Ю2 А 9:125рt=100Ю3 ю 2:759рt=100Ю4 А 0:4рt=100Ю5Юs=S where Y is the total annual runoff, t is the time after cutting, s is the forest unit area, S is the basin area. The model evaluated the contribution of each forest unit to the total runoff from the basin every 10 years. Each step of evaluation involves information about the age class which is characterized by a specific dominant tree species--birch in young or middle-age stands and spruce in mature ones. Forecast of total runoff extends over the period between the years 2007 and 2197. Results The genesis of landscape and the hierarchy of spatial units are the keystones of the geosystem concept. The genesis-based, so-called ``structural'' approach to the delineation of landscapes is applicable for both the coarse and fine scales. At the coarse scale in the study area, we distinguished: (i) morainic gently rolling landscapes with cover of nutrient-rich loess-like loams which ensure the highest timber productivity and the highest level of biodiversity; and (ii), by contrast, flat
landscapes with a cover of fluvioglacial sands over morainic loams with poorer mineral nutrition and, hence, lower productivity and biodiversity. Such a genesis-based division of landscapes ensures a correct assessment of both provisioning (timber supply) and supporting (biodiversity) ES for contrasting territories with areas of approx. several hundred square kilometers (landscape, mesogeochore) (Table 1). At the finer hierarchical level, the smallest units of forest management (forest parcels) should ideally be related to landscape morphological units corresponding to individual landforms (urochishchya, nanogeochores), e.g. valley slopes, floodplains or river terraces. However, this conflicts with common practice in parcel delineation, which prefers to rely on a uniformity of tree species composition and age class. The application of a genesis-based approach increases the opportunities for the correct choice between forestry measures (Table 1). For instance, at slope urochishchya (nanogeochores), intact spruce and fir forests facilitate the partial transfer of surface runoff to subsurface flow. It means that this forest parcel will contribute to runoff regulation due to its own (i.e. neighbourhood-independent) properties. Hence, its preservation is preferable to the adjustment of urochishchya on flat surfaces, which would contribute much less to runoff regulation, and where the timber supply service could have higher priority. Consideration of spatial patterns is the core idea of the Basin and Catena approaches. Both focus on neighbourhood relations and spatial interactions between landscape morphological units linked by oneway matter and energy flows, but at different scales. The main point of departure for applying the basin approach in the study area is the well-known effect of the contribution of forest stands to long-term and seasonal runoff regulation (Pobedinsky 1979; Bradley and Hammond 1993). In the model the river basin is characterized by dominance of young stands (\20 years, 30 % of the total area) and premature or mature even-aged birch stands (40­60 years, 30 %) while mature spruce forests rarely occur. Forestry strategy can be aimed at either cutting all the mature small-leaved stands or postponing cutting in selected (or all) units until the maturation of spruce. The model of long-term forestry described above showed evidence (Fig. 2) that the choice of birch as the target species for cutting results in the largest range of total runoff fluctuations for the next 200 years. An
123
Landscape Ecol
Table 1 Quantitative criteria (indicators), data sources, relevant units and significance of spatial patterns for ES assessment in the case study area
Ecosystem service
Quantitative criteria Semi-quantitative criteria Data sources
Relevant
Relevant
economic unit natural unit
Significance of spatial patterns
Author's personal copy
Provision of timber resources Provision of non-timber forest resources (wild fruits) Game resources (hunting) Provision of agricultural products (plants)
Timber volume (m3/ ha) Basal areas (m2/ha) Amount of harvested timber Amount of berries/mushrooms picked up Number of involved citizens Proportion of profit in total income (variable margins) Patch density and fragmentation indices Number of hunters species richness and abundance Height, number of plants at sample plot Aboveground biomass Proportion of herbs and grasses Yields (dt/ha)
Distance/access time consumption to productive areas Distance/access time to productive areas Distance/access to abandoned field with coppice Local prices for berries/mushrooms depending on yield Density of pathways Land cover neighborhood Number of hunted animals Minimum distance to game areas Prevailing herbs group (valuable Graminae or Leguminosae, weeds, poisonous plants)
Forest inventory Field research at key plots and extrapolation using space images classification Forest management unit database Interviews Space image Landscape map Interviews Game inventory Field observation (winter trace counting) Yield (t/ha) Field research Agricultural monitoring Interviews with stakeholders
Forest management unit Forest quarter Forest parcel Forest quarter Forest parcel Forest quarter Field Field Agricultural enterprise Land tenure
Nanogeochore/ Urochishche
Underestimation of landscape diversity results in non-compliance between natural units and forest parcels (delineated in forest inventory) Heterogeneity promotes wrong evaluation of timber volume for parcel/quarter
Nanogeochore/ Minimum effective size of harvesting area Urochishche Forest/meadow adjacency
Microgeochore/ Mestnost Nanogeochore/ Urochishche Valuable ecotope
Landscape diversity (patches and landforms, cores and singularities) Proportion of mature/young stands/nonforest land
Nanogeochore/ urochishche
Drainage conditions depend on neighboring landforms Combination of landforms can be characterized by morphometrical parameters (relief ruggedness, curvature)
123
123
Table 1 continued
Ecosystem service
Quantitative criteria
Semiquantitative criteria
Data sources
Soil fertility
Depth of humus horizon (cm) N, P, K, C content (%) Humus supply (t/ha)
Presence/ absence of typical horizons Degree of erosioninduced heterogeneity Soil texture Soil type
Sampling and chemical analysis Data of agrochemical monitoring
Runoff regulation
Evapotranspiration/ Precipitation ratio depending on age and type of forest stands Duration and height of floods/ low water Patch density and fragmentation indices
Number of flood waves Flood intensity Degrees of heterogeneity
Interviews (memories) Calculation based on known land cover proportions for different periods (from historical maps and images) and forest age-dependent evapotranspiration intensity Space image classification Landscape maps
Carbon
NDVI
sequestration
Space images Forest inventory data Land inventory data Field observation
Recreation services
Income of hotels Proportion of area with recreation facilities Number of recreants/cars
Number of photos in Google Earth Distance/ access time to valuable sites Density of pathways
Interviews Statistical data Field observation
Relevant economic unit
Relevant
Significance of spatial
natural unit patterns
Field Forest management unit Forest quarter Forest parcel Field Agricultural enterprise Land tenure District Hotel cluster Settlement
Nanogeochore/ urochishche Catena River basin
Morphometrically measured (from DEM) combination of landforms Ruggedness indicates erosion potential or accumulation of nutrients Deterioration of waterbodies in lower sections of a catena. Forest/non-forest lands ratio Proportion of mature/ young stands Location of forest/nonforest lands within a basin Landscape diversity
Mesogeochore/ Landscape Nanogeochore/ Urochishche
Landscape diversity (patches and landforms) Uniqueness in regional/national context
Landscape Ecol
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Author's personal copy
Fig. 2 Forecast of deviation of total annual runoff from the Varzenga river basin for the period 2007­2197 under three forestry scenarios. ``1'' runoff from hypothetical deforested basin
extremely high runoff peak is expected to repeat approximately every 70 years. Thus, this scenario favours short-term water-protection ES during periods of birch maturity in most areas. However, long-term decrease of water-regulatory ES is unavoidable. If a planner makes a decision to ignore mature birch stands, to enable further succession and to cut only mature spruce stands, runoff will be less variable and, in general, smaller. Hence, long-term water-regulatory ES increases while water-protection ES decreases. The third scenario involves an adaptive choice of various target species with regard to landscape structure. Birch stands are cut only partially; succession continues until spruce maturation; spruce stands are partially preserved at slope positions to facilitate subsurface flow. Under these conditions the model forecasts high level of both water-protection and water-regulation services. The seasonal aspect of water-regulatory ES within a river basin depends greatly on: (i) the total forest percentage, (ii) the ratio of areas covered by various forest types, (iii) the allocation of clear-cuts. In the study area, hydrography shows evidence of wellmanifested spring maximums that can result in catastrophic floods, followed by low summer water levels. To maximize the regulatory ES, the rational allocation of clear-cuts within a river basin should take into account the total proportions of forests, and the spatial ratios of various forest types (Table 1).
Simultaneous and rapid snowmelts across an entire deforested basin is typical where extensive cutting was carried out during the 1980s and 1990s (Khoroshev 2010). This has resulted in low summertime water levels which are harmful for fish and water mammal populations. Longer and less intensive snowmelts occur in basins where the dominant forest units alternate with cut areas, e.g. as in the Varzenga river basin (Fig. 3). Mosaics of coniferous and deciduous forests also affect the water regime positively, since they result in different snowmelt periods (Khoroshev and Koshcheeva 2009). To provide effective waterregulatory ES, the optimum proportion of forested lands within a river basin in the East-European taiga would be 30­50 % (Pobedinsky 1979). Basin lag is a property of basin geosystems that must be considered for a rational allocation of clear-cuts. If the lower basin is already deforested (Fig. 3), it is recommended that logging be reduced, or forest cover in the upper basin preserved. This helps avoid the superposition of floods, because snowmelts in the forested upper basin start later. Hence, the flood wave will reach the lower basin by the time the flooding in the deforested section drains out, and the forest units in the upper reaches will play a compensatory role (Khoroshev and Koshcheeva 2009) with respect to the negative effects of deforestation in the lower basin (Table 1). The need for basin-related planning aimed at maximizing runoff
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of forest stand age classes in the Varzenga river basin
regulatory ES increases greatly if bridges, roads, embankments, and recreational sites located at the floodplains in the lower reaches are susceptible to extreme spring flooding. Obviously, this can result in significant losses of provisioning and cultural ES. The scale of pattern-related planning decisions does matter if a planner intends to solve a problem of maximizing regulatory or supporting ES. Some of the latter require a finer scale than a river basin. The catena approach first introduced by Milne (1935) appears relevant for decisions concerning the preservation or restoration of forest units (urochishchya or facies) that could stop or neutralize undesirable solid matter fluxes on their way from deforested watersheds to watercourses (Table 1). Unlike the genesis-based landscape approach, the Catena approach focuses on the functional role of a morphological unit in a sequence of units across a slope. The Catena approach requires a specific perspective on landscape morphological units, namely identification of autonomous, transitional and accumulative categories (Kasimov and Gennadiev 2007). For example, protective forest strips act as buffers for local-scale ecological networks and prevent excessive input of matter to low-lying landscape units. Buffer forest strips should be located at the toe-slopes, at the lines of slope curvature changes, and at the borders of valley slopes and flat interfluves. The amount of ES provided is a function of minimum area,
shape, width and orientation which should be projected in accordance with slope length and slope gradient, adjusted for the deforested area. This ES is especially important in valley sectors with priority agricultural use and high inputs of fertilizers and pesticides. In the area under study, an erosion-shaped morainic landscape, the allocation of necessary forest strips depends to a large extent on soil-forming deposits related to landscape genesis. Loess-like loams require the widest protection strips, since they offer the least resistance to erosion (Fig. 4). At the same time, nutrient-rich soils are favourable for communities with numerous herb species typical of the broad-leafed forest zone. Thus, buffer forest strips in such locations can be treated as rare for taiga and highly vulnerable landscape morphological units that also provide supporting ES. A minimum buffer strip width is possible on sandy slopes where surface runoff risk and biological diversity are very low (Fig. 4). Thus, rational allocation of buffer strips assures a natural potential to capture and balance environmental stress resulting from soil disturbance. Our results show that spatial planning of forest use (timber harvesting in the form of clear cutting) in the study area should aim at runoff regulation and erosion control. It is obvious that the three approaches described above, Landscape, Basin and Catena, can effectively supplement each other to optimize ES, and
123
Landscape Ecol
Author's personal copy
Fig. 4 Allocation of necessary buffer forest strips on steep slopes with regard to soil texture (Map Koroshev 2015)
reflect the superposition of three types of geosystem models that require different management measures. Discussion: implications for planning In addressing the implications for planning, we should look first at ES in planning processes, and second at the special role of the geosystem concept. Planning relevant for ES addresses especially the following issues (GruЁnwald and Wende 2015): · Which ES in the area are important for human well-being? · Where do the ES originate from (inside or outside the planning area)? · Which actors/stakeholders need these ES? · Which values (and priorities) have the particular ES? · How can management and other measures im- prove the ES (incl. trade-offs)? · Who are the addressees of measures? In Germany, landscape plans are prepared at several spatial levels (von Haaren et al. 2008):
Although ES are not addressed explicitly within this or other planning and decision-making processes, the instruments, goals and contents are similar. Both the ES concept and landscape planning are based on the analysis of ecosystem properties and land use, and they aim at the maintenance and the development of natural assets by commonly accepted valuation rules (e.g. Kienast 2010). Both concepts use environmental information, which can be associated with a broad range of ES. Nevertheless, it has not become clear to date how the ES concept could be integrated into the current landscape planning process, because there are significant differences in the scope of planning, in the methods applied, and especially in the role of quantification and economic valuation. The main constraints to the implementation of the ES concept are that landscape planning is already a very complex process, and adding another layer of complexity by integrating ES assessments, anyway, seems to be feasible but expensive (GruЁnwald and Wende 2015). To achieve such a goal, regulatory frameworks provided by superordinate legislative levels, and higher remuneration for planners, are 123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
needed (von Haaren and Albert 2011; Albert et al. 2012). In Russia and such other post-Soviet countries as Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, landscape plans or pilot studies and drafts were developed at various scales, from the regional to the local levels; though legally mandatory, they were not fully introduced in practice (Antipov and Mikhalkovsky 2006; Wojtkiewicz et al. 2010). The legal basis for landscape planning per se has not yet been developed, which results in insufficient coordination of various kinds of branch planning. However, legislation regulating territorial planning (Schemes of Territorial Planning required for regions and districts, and General Plans for cities and rural settlements) provides opportunities to introduce concepts of natural potential and ES, as well as instruments of landscape planning (Wende et al. 2013). Recent documents regulating territorial planning require a set of procedures traditional in landscape analysis, e.g. delineation of functional zones with different allowable anthropogenic loads in accordance with ecosystem potentials; assessment and mapping of natural risks; identification of the most valuable spatial units; and analysis of the spatial context and exterior factors affecting the territory. The most common spheres of application are planning in agriculture, recreation, urban development, protecting natural protected areas and ecological networks (Kolbovsky 2008). Landscape planning projects during the 1990s and 2000s in various regions in Russia proposed the evaluation of landscape functions as an integral part of the bioproductive, biotopic, water-regulating, climateregulating, soil-forming, sanitary, information and culture forming, economic-functional and other decision-making processes (Drozdov 2000; Antipov and Mikhalkovsky 2006; von Haaren et al. 2008). Generally, it is clear that thorough knowledge and consideration of the ecological/physical fundamentals enables better results in spatial planning. · Thus, the knowledge of landscape genesis helps to understand properties of ecosystems, their spatial arrangements and their development and change over time. · Landscape units are widely applied, e.g. for the assessment of landscape character (Wascher 2005), or for the definition of Leitbilder (models) for planning (Potschin et al. 2010).
· Ecological data and analyses from a particular reference unit can to a certain degree be transferred to ecologically similar and therefore comparable units, including the capacity to supply ES. Vast areas of Russia need regionally specific models of land use and landscape management, which is impossible without careful regionalization based on natural units, their properties and potentials. · The role of spatial aspects and scales is generally recognized and applied by ES experts and practitioners. · The understanding of spatial (and temporal) aspects may enable manipulation of systems to decrease trade-offs, enhance synergisms and promote resilience and sustainable use of multiple ES (Bennett et al. 2009). · The theory of the hierarchical organization of geosystems provides the opportunity to relate levels of land use decision-making to appropriate landscape unit levels. It is also important to pay more attention to the role of entire ecosystem complexes, rather than only to single ecosystems in isolation. · We consider the approach of natural potentials a very important foundation for land use and landscape planning, to distinguish between the potential (i.e., capacity) to supply ES and the actual or demanded/needed use of these ES by humans. By means of potentials, we address both the question of non-use or inadequate use of natural resources and the problems of overexploitation. Recently, the approach of potentials has increasingly been addressed in ES frameworks, e.g. by Bastian et al. (2012a, b, 2013) or Spangenberg et al. (2014). Conclusions Geosystem-based approaches may improve ES supply assessments by strengthening their scientific foundation, and elaborating ES in a spatial context, which may help to better influence land use policy and decision-making. Some of the approaches described above, such as spatial relationships, scale, landscape units, or potentials, are already being widely applied. On the other hand, several aspects, such as landscape genesis or landscape hierarchy, have not played any significant role in international ES debates. The question is: what are the reasons for this situation?
123
Landscape Ecol
Author's personal copy
We can identify in particular the following weaknesses and gaps in the ``classic Eastern European landscape approaches'': Some terms are complicated, still insufficiently understood in the international scientific community, difficult to communicate, and/or have not yet been adopted into the common international scientific language (e.g. microchore). Also, some approaches are complicated to handle, demanding and time consuming, and are not interdisciplinary, but rather specific to a single scientific discipline (e.g. physical geography). Geosystem or physical landscape concepts are very descriptive and strongly focused on nature, and their relation to humans and their benefits are not immediately evident. On the other hand, comprehensive analytical data on such factors as elevation, soils, waters, biotopes or land cover are increasingly available in many countries. GIS applications make any processing and combination of such data easy, so that more complex and ``holistic'' approaches seem to be becoming unnecessary. This is also supported by specialized, unidimensional ways of thinking in the sciences and in practice. Moreover, geographers and landscape researchers in Eastern Europe/Russia (the former Soviet Union) hardly published in international English-language journals at all, but rather in domestic journals, the so-called grey literature. That has led to a lack of knowledge about their contributions among foreign experts. The case study conducted on the crucial role of landscape patterns and landscape units in the assessment of ES related to the relationship between forestry and runoff is suitable to support the theoretical assumption on the importance of geosystem-based concepts. According to Flyvbjerg (2006), thoroughly executed case studies are very important for the effectiveness of scientific disciplines. To verify, support, confirm and communicate the wide range of geosystem-based concepts, a larger number of convincing case studies should be performed and published. The ES concept will only be successful if it refers to a great extent to the peculiarities of the ecosystems concerned. Integrated geosystem and landscape-based approaches may drive the current implementation of the national TEEB processes forward, as has been the case in many countries, including Germany and Russia. Some of these approaches are relevant mainly in a national context (e.g. for Russia), as they link up with national scientific traditions and the specifics of the country, but others are also relevant in an international framework, and are already being applied there, at
least to some extent. Since even the inclusion of ES in ecological planning causes significant difficulties and requires adapted regulations or ordinances, this is even more true for the application of several geosystembased approaches, especially if they cause additional expenditure. But they can also facilitate the work and improve the results. Not only is further research on geosystem-based concepts/approaches themselves needed, there is also a valuable potential and a need with regard to the exploration and communication of existing, but often hidden, knowledge. Acknowledgments The cooperation between the authors was supported by the DFG-Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Science Foundation, BA 1214/8-1). We also thank the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in Germany for the support of academic exchange between Germany and Russia to ecosystem services. We thank Prof. W. Wende, IOER Dresden, and two unknown reviewers for their advice, and Mr. Phil Hill ( )/F. Pahl, Berlin, for polishing the language. References Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) OЁ kosystemdienstleistungen. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 44:142­148 Antipov AN, Mikhalkovsky VG (2006) Landscape planning: tools and experience in implementation. Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch, VB Sochava Institute of Geography, Irkutsk. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn (2005 also in Russian) Bailey RG (2005) Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):14­26 Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and perspectives in landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht Bastian O, KroЁnert R, Lipskyґ Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis in different space and time scales--a challenge for landscape planning. Landscape Ecol 21:359­374 Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U (2012a) Space and time aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the EU Water Framework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manag. doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.631941 Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012b) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services--The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7­16 Bastian O, Syrbe R-U, Rosenberg M, Rahe D, Grunewald K (2013) The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:15­24 Beauchesne P, Ducruc J-P, Gerardin V (1996) Ecological mapping: a framework for delimiting forest management units. Environ Monit Assess 39:173­186 Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394­1404 123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Berg LS (1915) The objectives and tasks of geography. In: Proceedings of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society 51:463­475 (in Russian). Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds.) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 11­18 Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc Urb Plan 75:198­226 Blotevogel HH (1995) Raum. In: Akademie fuЁr Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ed) HandwoЁrterbuch der Raumordnung. Hannover, pp 733­740 Blumenstein O, Schachtzabel H, Barsch H, Bork H-R, KuЁppers U (2000) Grundlagen der GeooЁkologie. Springer, Berlin Bobylev SN, Zakharov VM (2009) Ecosystem services and economy. Institute of Sustainable Development, Moscow (in Russian) Braat LC, de Groot R (2012) The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst Serv 1:4­16 Bradley T, Hammond H (1993) Practical methodology for landscape analysis and zoning. Silva Forest Foundation, Slocan Park Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013) A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. TEEB follow-up study for Europe. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Burkhard B, Kroll F, MuЁller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services--a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 15:1­22 Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jшrgensen SE, Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:1­6 Chorley RJ, Kennedy BA (1971) Physical geography: a systems approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Christian CS (1958) The concept of land units and land systems. Proc Ninth Pac Sci Congr 20:74­81 Christopherson RW (2014) Geosystems: an introduction to physical geography, 9th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350­352 de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Environ Econ 41:393­408 de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260­272 Drozdov AV (ed) (2000) Landscape planning with elements of engineering biology. KMK, Moscow (in Russian) Dyakonov KN (2007) landscape studies in Moscow Lomonosov University: development of scientific domains and education. In: Dyakonov KN, Kasimov NS, Khoroshev AV, Kushlin AV (eds) Landscape analysis for sustainable development. Theory and applications of landscape science in Russia. Alex Publishers, Moscow, pp 11­20 Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010) The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377­385
Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219­245 Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) (2015) Ecosystem services-- concept, methods and case studies. Springer, Heidelberg GruЁnwald A, Wende W (2015) Integrating the concept of ecosystem services into landscape planning. In: Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) Ecosystem services--concept, methods and case studies. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177­185 Haase G, Mannsfeld K (2002) Naturraumeinheiten, Landschaftsfunktionen und Leitbilder am Beispiel von Sachsen. Forsch. z. deutschen Landeskunde, vol 250. Deutsche Akademie fuЁr Landeskunde, Flensburg Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) Methodologies for defining and assessing ecosystem services. Final Report. University of Nottingham Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209­228 Herz K (1973) Beitrag zur Theorie der landschaftsanalytischen MaЯstabsbereiche. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 117:91­96 Hills GA (1961) The ecological basis for land-use planning. Research Report 26. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto Ingegnoli V (2014) Landscape bionomics. Biological-integrated landscape ecology. Springer, Dordrecht Isachenko AG (1973) Principles of landscape science and physical-geographic regionalization. Melbourne University Press, Carlton Isachenko AG (2003) Ecological geography of Russia. SanktPetersburg University Publishing House, Sankt-Petersburg Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014) Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an introduction. Landscape Ecol 29:181­186 Kasimov NS, Gennadiev AN (2007) Basic concepts of landscape geochemistry and soil geography. In: Dyakonov KN, Kasimov NS, Khoroshev AV, Kushlin AV (eds) Landscape analysis for sustainable development. Theory and applications of landscape science in Russia. Alex Publishers, Moscow, pp 165­175 Kenkel NC, Watson PR, Uhlig P (1998) Modelling landscapelevel vegetation dynamics in the boreal forests of Northwestern Ontario. Forest Research Report No. 148. Ontario Forest Research Institute Khoroshev A (2010) Multilevel analysis of landscape structure for land use decisions. In: Barancokovaґ M, Krajcґi J, Kollaґr J, Belcaґkovaґ I (eds) Landscape ecology­methods, applications and interdisciplinary approach. Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, pp 99­112 Khoroshev A, Koshcheeva A (2009) Landscape ecological approach to hierarchical spatial planning. Terra Spectra Plan Stud 1:3­11 Khoroshev AV, Nemchinova AV, Avdanin VO (2013) Landscapes and ecological network of the Kostroma region. Kostroma Univ Publ House, Kostroma (in Russian) Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches Konzept fuЁr Forschung und Praxis? Forum fuЁr Wissen 2010:7­12 Kolbovsky EYu (2008) Landscape planning. Academia, Moscow (in Russian)
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Krestovsky OI (1986) Influence of cutting and forest regeneration on stream discharge. Hydrometeoizdat, Moscow (in Russian) Leser H (1997) LandschaftsoЁkologie. 4th ed, (1st ed. 1976), Ulmer, Stuttgart LoЁffler J (2002) Landscape complexes. In: Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 58­68 Loveland TR, Merchant JM (2004) Ecoregions and ecoregionalization: geographical and ecological perspectives. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):1­13 Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, SchaЁgner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Paracchini ML, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping ecosystems services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31­39 Mannsfeld K (1983) Landschaftsanalyse und Ableitung von Naturraumpotentialen. Abhandl. SaЁchs. Akad. Wiss., Leipzig, math. nat. class, vol 35. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin Martin-Duque JF, Pedraza J, Sanz MA, Bodoque JM, Godfrey AE, Diez A, Carrasco RM (2003) Landform classification for land use planning in developed areas: an example in Segovia province (Central Spain). Environ Manag 32:488­498 MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington (DC) Mikloґs L (2010) The most successful landscape ecological concepts in the practice. Probl Landsc Ecol 28:15­22 Milne G (1935) Some suggested units of classification and mapping for East African soils. Soil Res 4:183­198 Minar J, Trembos P (1997) Selected aspects of geoecological regionalization at detailed scales. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica 32:39­43 Moss M (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the ``Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes''. Landscape Ecol 15:303­311 Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, van Brusselen J, Schelhaas MJ (2007) Future harvesting pressure on European forests. Eur J For Res 126:391­400 Naturkapital Deutschland­TEEB DE (2012) Der Wert der Natur fuЁr Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft--Eine EinfuЁhrung. Ifuplan, MuЁnchen; Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research­UFZ, Leipzig. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn Neef E (1963a) Dimensionen geographischer Betrachtungen. Forsch Fortschr 37:361­363 Neef E (1963b) Topologische und chorologische Arbeitsweisen in der Landschaftsforschung. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 107:249­259 Neef E (1967) Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Haack, Gotha, Leipzig. Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 225­245 O'Neill RV (1989) Transmutations across hierarchical levels. In: Innis GS. O'Neill RV (eds.) systems analysis of ecosystems. Int. Coop. Publ., Fairland, Md., pp 59­78. Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 11­18
Omernik JM (2004) Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):27­38 Pobedinsky AV (1979) Water protection and soil protection role of forests. Lesnaya Promyshlennost, Moscow (in Russian) Potschin M, Klug H, Haines-Young R (2010) From visions to action: framing the Leitbild concept in the context of landscape planning. Futures 42:656­667 Rowe JS (1996) Land classification and ecosystem classification. Environ Monit Assess 39:11­20 SchaЁgner JP, Brander L, Maes J, Hartje V (2013) Mapping ecosystem services' values: current practice and future prospects. Ecosyst Serv 4:33­46 Smith M-L, Carpenter C (1996) Application of the USDA Forest Service national hierarchical framework of ecological units at the sub-regional level: the New England-New York example. Environ Monit Assess 39:187­198 Sochava VB (1963) Definition of some notions and terms in physical geography. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Geography of Siberia and Far East. vol 3, pp 50­59 (in Russian) Solntsev NA (1948) The natural geographic landscape and some of its general rules. In: Proceedings of the Second AllUnion Geographical Congress, vol 1. OGIZ, Leningrad, pp 258­269 (in Russian). Also in: Wiens JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 19­27 Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J (2014) The ecosystem service cascade: further developing the metaphor. The influence of purpose and application characteristics like scale and beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 104:22­32 Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M (2013) InVEST 2.5.6 User's Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284­307 TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed.) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington. http://www.teebweb. org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013 TEEB (2013) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Guidance manual for TEEB country studies. Version 1.0. http://www.teebweb.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013 Tishkov AA (2005) Biospheric functions of natural ecosystems of Russia. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) Troll C (1950) Die geographische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung. Studium Generale 3:163­181 UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge van der Biest K (2013) An integrated model to assess the effects of land use change on the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. In: Abstract of the workshop ``Indication, integration and application of ecosystem services in decision making'', University of Kiel May 6­8 Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR,
123
Author's personal copy
Landscape Ecol
Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Lavorel S, Martins da Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. RUBICODE Deliverable D2.1. http://www.rubicode.net/ rubicode/RUBICODE_e-conference_report.pdf. Accessed Dec 2013 von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 7:150­167 von Haaren C, Galler C, Ott S (2008) Landscape planning. The basis of sustainable landscape development. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Leipzig Wascher DM (ed) (2005) European landscape character areas-- typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report. Alterra Report No. 1254, Wageningen (NL) Wende W, Wirth P, KoЁzle E, Lappo A, Spirin P (2013) Zum Umgang mit SchutzguЁtern und Nutzungen in der Territorialplanung der Russischen FoЁderation. 1. Practical guidance within the framework of the project EkoRus. Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development IOER, Dresden; NIIP Gradostroitelstva, St. Petersburg Wiens JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York
Wiggering H, MuЁller K, Werner A, Helming K (2003) The concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) Sustainable development of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, Berlin, pp 3­18 Willemen L (2010) Mapping and modeling multifunctional landscapes. PhD thesis, Wageningen University (NL) Wojtkiewicz W, May A, Hoppenstedt A, Wende W (2010) EinfuЁhrung des Naturschutzinstruments ``Landschaftsplanung'' in der Region des SuЁdkaukasus. Natur Landschaft 85:340­344 Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25:367­380 Wu J, Li H (2006) Theories and methods in scaling: a review. In: Wu J, Jones B, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology. Springer, Dordrecht Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT (2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr Inf Sci 6:6­19 Zonneveld IS (1989) The land unit--a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its application. Landscape Ecol 3:67­86
123

File: olaf-bastian-karsten-grunewald.pdf
Title: The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified in a case study in Russia
Author: Olaf Bastian
Subject: Landscape Ecology, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x
Keywords: Landscape genesis; Landscape units; River basins; Catena; Natural potentials; Spatial scales; Forestry; Water runoff
Published: Sat Apr 18 20:52:03 2015
Pages: 22
File size: 1.6 Mb


Midnight Clear, 13 pages, 0.45 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb

The Ancient Jewish Wedding, 22 pages, 0.41 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com