back from landscape science to landscape ecology?

1
Back from landscape science to landscape ecology? Miloslav Lapka 1,3 , Eva Cudlínová 1,2 , Jan Vávra 1,3 1 Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic 2 Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia, Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic 3 Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Celetná 20, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic Introductio n Landscape ecology presents itself as an interdisciplinary science, which links natural sciences with human disciplines and concerns human activity in landscape (www.landscape- ecology.org). Is it reality or just a proclamation? What shows analysis of leading journals? Methodology We reviewed 1620 abstracts of scientific articles published in two journals : Landscape Ecology (LE) and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) in years 1999-2008. This number means all articles from the decade available through Web of Science (LE) and Science Direct (LUP). Articles were divided into 3 groups according to the position of human (Social, Natural & Technical management and Natural). All abstracts were read, not just checked according to keywords, in Social group all full version of articles were reviewed. Result s Social human system is an object of research NT management for human, but human system is not research object Natural human system is not an object of reserach Fig. 2 LE summary (1999- 2008) Fig. 3 LUP summary (1999-2008) Fig. 3 LE per years Fig. 4 LUP per years LE LUP Social 37 337 NT mngmt 81 282 Natural 572 311 Total 690 930 Tab. 1 Articles in both journals Discussion and conclusion While some other studies and reviews are focused on more criterias, i.e. Wiens (1992), Hobbs (1997) and Andersen (2008), we focused mainly on social system in landscape as primary research object, which requires connection with social sciences. From this point of view we can note that LUP has evidently better proportional concern on social aspects of landscape than LE, even higher than Antrop’s study shows (2001). Landscape Ecology, the house journal of IALE, doesn’t meet its proclamated role to be bridge between nature and culture, between science and humanities. Analysis of our total sample of abstracts and articles shows Andersen’s (2008) conclusion about articles focusing on sociology in LE like overemphasized, maybe due to random sampling of 50 cases and classification of papers belonging to Social system following her very broad definition as „some aspect of sociology“. Results show that real cooperation with social sciences (Golley, 1996), integrating humans into landscape ecology (Wu and Hobbs, 2002) and concept of Total Human Ecosystem (Naveh, 2000) are more proclamations and wishes than a real way of thinking among the group of landscape ecologists presenting their papers in the elite house journal of IALE. It looks like reductionism towards landscape science bears fruit. Isn´t it the right time for return to landscape ecology? Thank you for your attention References Andersen B., J. (2008), Research in the journal Landscape Ecology, 1987-2005. Landscape Ecology 23: 129-134 Antrop, M. (2001), The language of landscape ecologists and planners. A comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 55: 163-173 Golley, F., B. (1996), A state of transition. Landscape Ecology 11: 321-323 Hobbs, R. (1997), Future landscapes and future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 1-9 Naveh, Z. (2000), What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 7-26 Wiens, J., A. (1992), What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape Ecology 7: 149-150 Wu, J., Hobbs, R. (2002), Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355-365 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Landscape Ecology Social 5% NT m ngm t 12% N atural 83% Landscape and U rban Planning Social 37% N T m ngm t 30% N atural 33% Landscape ecology 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 199 9 200 0 200 1 200 2 200 3 200 4 200 5 200 6 200 7 2008 Natural NT m ngm t Social Landscape and U rban Planning 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1999 2000 200 1 200 2 2003 200 4 200 5 200 6 200 7 200 8 Natural NT m ngm t Social

Upload: belle

Post on 06-Jan-2016

49 views

Category:

Documents


8 download

DESCRIPTION

Back from landscape science to landscape ecology?. Miloslav Lapka 1,3 , Eva Cudlínová 1,2 , Jan Vávra 1,3. 1 Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Back from landscape science to landscape ecology?

Back from landscape science to landscape ecology? Miloslav Lapka1,3, Eva Cudlínová1,2, Jan Vávra1,3

1 Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i., Na Sádkách 7, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic

2 Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia, Studentská 13, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic

3 Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Celetná 20, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic

Introduction Landscape ecology presents itself as an interdisciplinary science, which links natural sciences with human disciplines and concerns human activity in landscape (www.landscape-ecology.org). Is it reality or just a proclamation? What shows analysis of leading journals?

MethodologyWe reviewed 1620 abstracts of scientific articles published in two journals : Landscape Ecology (LE) and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) in years 1999-2008. This number means all articles from the decade available through Web of Science (LE) and Science Direct (LUP). Articles were divided into 3 groups according to the position of human (Social, Natural & Technical management and Natural). All abstracts were read, not just checked according to keywords, in Social group all full version of articles were reviewed. Result

sSocial

• human system is an object of research

NT management• for human, but human system is not research object

Natural• human system is not an object of reserach

Fig. 2 LE summary (1999-2008)

Fig. 3 LUP summary (1999-2008)

Fig. 3 LE per years Fig. 4 LUP per years

LE LUP

Social 37 337

NT mngmt 81 282

Natural 572 311

Total 690 930

Tab. 1 Articles in both journals

Discussion and conclusionWhile some other studies and reviews are focused on more criterias, i.e. Wiens (1992), Hobbs (1997) and Andersen (2008), we focused mainly on social system in landscape as primary research object, which requires connection with social sciences. From this point of view we can note that LUP has evidently better proportional concern on social aspects of landscape than LE, even higher than Antrop’s study shows (2001). Landscape Ecology, the house journal of IALE, doesn’t meet its proclamated role to be bridge between nature and culture, between science and humanities. Analysis of our total sample of abstracts and articles shows Andersen’s (2008) conclusion about articles focusing on sociology in LE like overemphasized, maybe due to random sampling of 50 cases and classification of papers belonging to Social system following her very broad definition as „some aspect of sociology“.

Results show that real cooperation with social sciences (Golley, 1996), integrating humans into landscape ecology (Wu and Hobbs, 2002) and concept of Total Human Ecosystem (Naveh, 2000) are more proclamations and wishes than a real way of thinking among the group of landscape ecologists presenting their papers in the elite house journal of IALE. It looks like reductionism towards landscape science bears fruit. Isn´t it the right time for return to landscape ecology? Thank you for your attentionReferencesAndersen B., J. (2008), Research in the journal Landscape Ecology, 1987-2005. Landscape Ecology 23: 129-134

Antrop, M. (2001), The language of landscape ecologists and planners. A comparative content analysis of concepts used in landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 55: 163-173

Golley, F., B. (1996), A state of transition. Landscape Ecology 11: 321-323

Hobbs, R. (1997), Future landscapes and future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 1-9

Naveh, Z. (2000), What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 7-26

Wiens, J., A. (1992), What is landscape ecology, really? Landscape Ecology 7: 149-150

Wu, J., Hobbs, R. (2002), Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355-365

[email protected] [email protected]@usbe.cas.cz

Landscape Ecology Social

5%

NT mngmt

12%

Natural83%

Landscape and Urban Planning

Social37%

NT mngmt30%

Natural33%

Landscape ecology

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Natural

NT mngmt

Social

Landscape and Urban Planning

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Natural

NT mngmt

Social