A framework for monitoring landscape functions: The Saxon Academy Landscape Monitoring Approach (SALMA), exemplified by soil investigations in the Kleine Spree floodplain (Saxony, Germany)
Introduction
The term ‘landscape monitoring’ is regarded as the regular, long-term surveillance of a landscape, aiming at the early recognition, assessment and prediction of landscape change, and focusing on the effects of human impacts.
Landscape changes are considered as qualitative landscape alterations concerning the balance of matter and energy, use of natural resources and landscape aesthetics (Bastian and Steinhardt, 2002). Landscape functions describe the performance of a landscape in the broadest sense. Landscape functions reflect the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that directly and/or indirectly satisfy human needs (de Groot, 1992). According to Haase (1978), the assessment of the social functions of a landscape is a pre-condition for relating actual landscape state to economic categories and processes. By investigating changes in landscape functions, fundamental landscape changes relevant to human society can be identified. Such an integrated approach has advantages over methods based on single indicators, such as land cover changes, loss of landscape elements and biotopes, and decrease in biodiversity. For the landscape functions under investigation (see Section 2.3) a large number of assessment methods at different scale levels have been published (e.g. Marks et al., 1992, Knospe, 1998, Bastian and Schreiber, 1999, Bastian and Steinhardt, 2002).
Landscape changes also affect the functions of landscapes. Identifying emerging changes and trends becomes more important in order to counteract unfavourable future developments. Such monitoring can be seen as a prerequisite in working towards sustainable development.
The development of holistic conceptual frameworks and the design of efficient monitoring programmes and their co-ordination are in their infancy, and much more effort is necessary on these matters. Therefore, fundamental research into the scientific basics of landscape monitoring is seen as a priority (Petit and Lambin, 2002).
To date, many specific monitoring programmes have been developed by various institutions. Examples of important long-term international programmes are: the Blue Plan (Antipolis, 1995), ROSELT/OSS (2005), AMAP (2005) and UNEP-WCMC (2005). Though these programmes are rather comprehensive, they are always focused on specific questions, such as biodiversity and water protection. However, few initiatives are multifunctional – one exception is the British Countryside Survey (Howard et al., 2000). Others initiatives are focused on specific land use systems (Dramstad et al., 2002), nature reserves (Luthardt et al., 1999) or on special landscape types, e.g. the Wadden Sea (TMAP, 1997). A frame for worldwide co-operation between national partners is provided by the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network; details of which can be found at http://www.ilternet.edu.
The Saxon Academy Landscape Monitoring Approach (SALMA) is a contribution to the German Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER-D) programme, which started in 2005 (http://www.lter-d.de). The monitoring approach is focused on the ‘normal’ landscape, i.e. it is not limited to protected areas or special landscape types. This approach is also a response to the European Landscape Convention (CMCE, 2000), which requires standardization of landscape-related investigations; therefore, the development of suitable and comparable monitoring methods is necessary. At present, the authors are not aware of another comparable holistic monitoring programme.
The authors describe the main characteristics of the SALMA (Section 2). Following an explanation of the general methodology, the implementation steps are presented (Section 3), and the further development of the methodology is outlined (Section 4). The steps are exemplified by data from soil inventories in the Kleine Spree floodplain. Section 4 surveys whether the presented methodical innovations are satisfying the specific demands.
The Kleine Spree floodplain is a 16.1 km2 wide part of the Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond Landscape biosphere reserve. It is a Pleistocene lowland in the northeast of the German Federal State of Saxony. Ponds, wet meadows, dunes and pine forests are typical of this landscape. The rivulet Kleine Spree is a branch of the River Spree flowing into the River Havel in Berlin.
Section snippets
The Saxon Academy Landscape Monitoring Approach
The landscape monitoring approach described here (SALMA) differs from other monitoring programmes in some key points. One of the most outstanding characteristics is the understanding and treatment of landscape as an entity of natural components, e.g. eological structure, relief, soil, water, climate, bios (flora, fauna) and land use (see Bastian and Steinhardt, 2002). With regard to soil, however, the whole monitoring procedure can be demonstrated, and the existence of historical soil data
Monitoring procedure
Having drafted the framework for the investigation (Sections 2.1 Environmental problems approach, 2.2 Specification of relevant hypotheses and assumptions, 2.3 Connecting landscape functions and indicators to the hypotheses, 2.4 Data concept), the monitoring procedure can be regularly carried out in all test areas (Fig. 3).
The first step is the data collection (only once) to provide ‘baseline data’ that can be used again and again. The real monitoring procedure, which is repeated regularly,
Discussion
The framework presented enables holistic and goal-oriented observations of landscape changes. The monitoring is not restricted to detecting changes in land use and landscape structure. In fact, the ecological interpretation of miscellaneous landscape changes is the focus of this investigation.
Comparable monitoring results will be of crucial importance for future monitoring snapshots. Although time series based on historical data give much qualitative information on past landscape changes, they
Conclusion
The results from this investigation were obtained by following a newly designed SALMA framework which was tested in several areas in Saxony. It has been demonstrated here that essential landscape changes, even in ‘normal’ landscapes, are not always strongly influenced by human impacts only, but also by long-term, moderate, stepwise influences. Landscape components known to be relatively stable (e.g. soil) may also display changes. Nevertheless, changes which may at first not appear to be great
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Mrs. Marion S. Porter in the preparation of this manuscript.
References (32)
- et al.
Development and implementation of the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes
J. Environ. Manage.
(2002) - AG Bodenkunde (Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe Boden der Geologischen Landesämter und der Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und...
- AMAP, 2005. The AMAP Strategic Plan 2004+. AMAP Report 2004,...
- Antipolis, S., 1995. Observation et évaluation de l’environment en Mediterranée (Phase preparatoire). PlanBlue,...
- et al.
Ökosystemare Umweltbeobachtung im Biosphärenreservat, Oberlausitzer Heide- und Teichlandschaft’ (Sachsen)
Nat. Landschaft
(2002) - et al.
Rahmenmethodik zur Entwicklung lokaler Agrar-Umweltprogramme in Europa. 2. Ableitung von Agrarumweltzielen und –maßnahmen
Wasserwirtschaft
(2005) - et al.
Landscape functions and natural potentials
- et al.
Bestimmung von Landschaftsfunktionen für heterogene Bezugsräume. Methoden und exemplarische Ergebnisse aus der Westlausitz
Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung
(1999)
Functions of Nature – Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making
Cited by (22)
Understanding relationships between landscape multifunctionality and land-use change across spatiotemporal characteristics: Implications for supporting landscape management decisions
2022, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :Tipraqsa et al. (2007) took northeast Thailand as the study area to analyze the multifunctionality of integrated agricultural systems, and concluded that the integrated agricultural landscape has food security, environmental, economic, and social functions. Some scholars have summarized the production function, regulation function, habitat function, and information function of landscape based on the regional attribute of landscape function (Syrbe et al., 2007; Uzun et al., 2011; Jessel, 2006). They point out that each landscape function can be further divided, which is related to the process of landscape change and human activities, so that people can obtain various benefits from it.
Comparative study on biophysical ecosystem service mapping methods—a test case of carbon stocks in Finnish Forest Lapland
2017, Ecological IndicatorsCitation Excerpt :Thus, ecologically sustainable use of ecosystems and their services is required to maintain the functioning of the ecosystems. In order to detect the spatial variation in ES delivery across space is essential to distinguish the varying environmental and socio-ecological conditions (Wiggering et al., 2006; Syrbe et al., 2007). For the purpose, various mapping methods are being used to access to spatial information on ESs (Maes et al., 2012).
Ecosystem assessment and management as key tools for sustainable landscape development: A case study of the Ore Mountains region in Central Europe
2015, Ecological ModellingCitation Excerpt :Integrated approaches have advantages over methods based on single indicators, such as land cover changes, loss of landscape elements and biotopes, and decrease in biodiversity. Appropriate monitoring processes can be seen as a prerequisite for working towards sustainable development (Syrbe et al., 2007). ES are not only ecological phenomena, they also have much to do with human demands and values (Fig. 1).
Understanding and quantifying landscape structure - A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics
2015, Ecological ModellingCitation Excerpt :In addition to the initially purely descriptive purpose of quantifying landscape structures (O’Neill et al., 1988; Turner, 1990; Riitters et al., 1995; McGarigal, 2002; Herzog and Lausch, 2001; Lausch and Herzog, 2002; Lang and Blaschke, 2007) attempts were made to identify potential relationships between landscape structures and spatiotemporal biotic and abiotic processes within the landscape (Turner, 1989), such as the spread of species or populations and biodiversity (Mühlner et al., 2010; Walz and Syrbe, 2013) or effect of soil characteristics on vegetation patterns distributions (Schmidtlein et al., 2012; Lausch et al., 2013a). As a result, the quantification of landscape structures based on PMM was increasingly used for assessing and planning landscapes (Syrbe et al., 2007), quantification of landscape functions (Bolliger et al., 2007; Bolliger and Kienast, 2010) or quantification of ecosystem services (Syrbe and Walz, 2012). This speedy development fostered enthusiasm in quantitative landscape ecology and led to a spirit of optimism or even “research euphoria” in landscape ecology at the start of the 1980s and 1990s.
Mapping landscape services: A case study in a multifunctional rural landscape in the Netherlands
2013, Ecological IndicatorsCitation Excerpt :Collaboration with all organisations that might have useful information for the analysis of the landscape services of interest is essential and needs to be further developed in order to improve the accuracy of landscape service maps. Opposing to the definition as we presented it, a landscape service is more often defined as ‘the capacity of the landscape to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly’ (MA, 2005; de Groot, 2006; Hein et al., 2006; Syrbe et al., 2007; Willemen et al., 2008; Kienast et al., 2009; Verburg et al., 2009; Posthumus et al., 2010). In this paper, we did not consider the capacity, instead, we looked at the actual presence of a service.