Skip to main content
Log in

Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology

  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The normative landscape scenario is one of many types of scenario methods that are used by landscape ecologists. We describe how normative landscape scenarios are different from other types and how these differences create special potential for engaging science to build landscape policy and for exploring scientific questions in realistic simulated landscapes. We describe criteria and a method for generating normative scenarios to realize this potential in both policy and landscape ecology research. Finally, we describe how the method and criteria apply to an interdisciplinary project that proposed alternative scenarios for federal agricultural policy and related futures for agricultural watersheds in Iowa, USA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahern J. 2001. Spatial concepts, planning strategies and future scenarios: A framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning.. In: Klopatek J. and Gardner R. (eds), Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahern J., France R., Hough M., Burley J., Turner W., Schmidt S., Hulse D., Badenhope J. and Jones G. 2002. Integrating ecology ‘across’ the curriculum of landscape architecture. In: Johnson B.R. and Hill K. (eds), Ecology and Design, Frameworks for Learning. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantayan N.C. and Bishop I.D. 1998. Linking objective and subjective modeling for landuse decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck M.B. 2002. Environmental Foresight and Models: A Manifesto. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck M.B., Chen J., Osidele O. 2002. Random search and the reachability of target futures.. In: Beck M.B. (ed.), Environmental Foresight and Models: A Manifesto. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, UK, pp. 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierzychudek P. 1999. Looking backwards: assessing the projections of a transition matrix model. Ecological Applications 9: 1278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caza C. and Kaarik A.. 1994. Envisioning Future Canadian Landscapes: A Source Book. Wildlife Habitat Canada and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Ottawa, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocks D. 1999. Scenarios for Australian landscapes. Visions of Future Landscapes. Fenner Conference on the Environment, Canberra, ACT, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, pp. 75–82.

  • Coiner C., Wu J. and Polasky S. 2001. Economic and environmental implications of alternative landscape designs in the Walnut Creek Watershed of Iowa. Ecological Economics 38: 119–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole S. 2001. Dare to dream: Bringing futures into planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 67: 372–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corry R.C. 2002. A landscape index approach to evaluating the small mammal habitat quality of designed scenarios for agricultural watersheds. PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Countryman D.W. and Murrow J.C. 2000. Economic analysis of contour tree buffer strips using present net value. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55: 152–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse R.M. 1990. Strip intercropping.. In: Keeney D. (ed.), Farming Systems for Iowa: Seeking Alternatives. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp. 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmelin L. 1994. Landscape impact analysis: a human ecological approach to landscape futures.. In: Caza C. and Kaarik A. (eds), Envisioning Future Canadian Landscapes: A Source Book. Wildlife Habitat Canada and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, pp. 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exner D.N., Davidson D.G., Ghaffarzadeh M., Cruse R. 1999. Yields and returns from strip intercropping on six Iowa farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14(2): 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin J. and Forman R.T.T. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology 1: 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freemark K. 1995. Assessing effects of agriculture on terrestrial wildlife: developing a hierarchical approach for the US EPA. Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 99–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freemark K.E., Hummon C., White D., Hulse D. 1996. Modeling Risks to Biodiversity in Past, Present, and Future Landscapes. Canadian Wildlife Service Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 60 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry G.L.A. 2001. Multifunctional landscapes — towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudy W. and Burke S.C. 1994. Iowa’s Counties: Selected Population Trends, Vital Statistics, and Socioeconomic Data. Census Services, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 427 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson E.J. and Crow T.R. 1998. Simulating spatial and temporal context of forest management using hypothetical landscapes. Environmental Management 22(5): 777–787.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin A. 1999. Visions of Future Landscapes. Fenner Conference on the Environment, Canberra, ACT, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

  • Hammond A.L. 1998. Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson L., Fahrig L., Merriam G. 1995. Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. Chapman &Hall, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs R. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 37: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse D., Eilers J., Freemark K., Hummon C., White D. 2000. Planning alternative future landscapes in Oregon: Evaluating effects on water quality and biodiversity. Landscape Journal 19: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse D., Gregory S. and Baker J., (eds) 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iowa State University 1996. Iowa Soil Properties and Interpretations Database. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 28 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenerette G.D. and Wu J. 2001. Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona-Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecology 16: 611–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson G.D., Myers W.L. and Patil G.P. 1999. Stochastic generating models for simulating hierarchically sgtructured multi-cover models. Landscape Ecology 14: 413–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones S. 1999. Participation and community at the landscape scale. Landscape Journal 18: 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane R.E., Morgan P. and White J.D. 1999. Temporal patterns of ecosystem processes on simulated landscapes in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA. Landscape Ecology 14: 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keitt T.H. 2000. Spectral representation of neutral landscapes. Landscape Ecology 15: 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer J.I. and Corry R.C. 1999. Rural Watersheds and Policy, World-Wide Web. Universal Resource Locator http://www.snre.umich.edu/nassauer/

  • Nassauer J.I., Corry R.C. and Cruse R.M. 2002. Alternative landscape future scenarios: a means to consider agricultural policy. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57: 44A–53A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P., Foppen R. and Vos C. 2002. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 767–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson S.M., Turner M.G. and Drake J.B. 1999. Landscape change and habitat availability in the sourthern Appalachian highlands and Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications 9: 1288–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson G.D., Cumming G.S., Carpenter S.R. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17: 358–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralls K. and Starfield A.M. 1995. Choosing a management strategy: Two structured decision-making methods for evaluating the predictions of stochastic simulation models. Conservation Biology 9: 175–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribe R., Morganti R., Hulse D. and Shull R. 1998. A management driven investigation of landscape patterns of northern spotted owl nesting territories in the high Cascades of Oregon. Landscape Ecology 13: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risser P.G., Karr J.R. and Forman R.T.T. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Directions and Approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey, 22 p.

  • Rustigian H.L., Santelmann M.V. and Schumaker N.H. 2003. Assessing the potential impacts of alternative landscape designs on amphibian population dynamics. Landscape Ecology 18: 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • RIZA 1996. Ecological networks in river rehabilitation scenarios: Rhine-Econet. M-Directorate — General for Public Works and Water Management: Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Agriculture, Lelystad, The Netherlands, 23 p.

  • Sala O.E., Chapin F.S.I., Armesto J.J., Berlow E., Bloomfield J., Dirzo R., Huber-Sanwald E., Huenneke L.F., Jackson R.B., Kinzig A., Leemans R., Lodge D.M., Moodey H.A., Oesterheld M., Poff N.L., Sykes M.T., Walker B.H., Walker M. and Wall D.H. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287.

  • Samson F.B. and Knopf F.L. 1996. Putting ‘ecosystem’ into natural resource management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51: 288–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santelmann M., Freemark K., White D., Nassauer J., Clark M., Danielson B., Eilers J., Cruse R., Galatowitsch S., Polasky S., Vaché K. and Wu J. 2001. Applying ecological principles to land-use decision-making in agricultural watersheds.. In: Dale V.H. and Haeuber R.A. (eds), Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA, pp. 226–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santelmann M., White D., Freemark K., Nassauer J., Eilers J., Vaché K., Danielson B., Corry R., Clark M., Polasky S., Cruse R., Sifneos J., Coiner C., Wu J. and Debinski D. 2004. Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in the U.S. Cornbelt. Landscape Ecology 19: 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonenboom I.J. 1995. Overview and state of the art of scenario studies for the rural environment.. In: Schoute J.F.T., Finke P.A., Veeneklass F.R. and Wolfert H.P. (eds), Scenario studies for the rural environment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science Advisory Board 1995. Beyond the Horizon: Using Foresight to Protect the Environmental Future. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz P. 1991. The Art of the Long View. Doubleday, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C. 1990. A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal 9: 136–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C. and MacDowell S. 2001. Alternative Futures for Monroe County Pennsylvania.. In: Dale V. and Haeuber R.A. (eds), Applying Ecological Principles to Land Management. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C., Arias H., Bassett S., Flaxman M., Goode T., Maddock III T., Mouat D., Peiser R. and Shearer A. 2003. Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes: The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C. 2002. On teaching ecological principles to designers.. In: Johnson B.R. and Hill K. (eds), Ecology and Design. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 231–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swetnam R.C., Ragou P., Firbank L.G., Hinsley S.A. and Ballamy P.E. 1998. Applying ecological models to altered landscapes: scenario-testing with GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 41: 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D., Fargione J., Wolff B., D’antonio C., Dobson A., Howarth R., Schinder D., Schlessinger W.H., Simberloff D., Swackhamer D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292: 281–284.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L. 2001. Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecology 16: 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress B. and Tress G. 2003. Scenario visulization for participatory landscape planning — a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning. In Press.

  • Turner M.B. and Romme W.H.. 1994. Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landscape Ecology 9: 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M.G., Gardner R.H. 2001. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. Springer — Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA 2001. Food and Agricultural Policy. Taking Stock for a New Century. Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaché K., Eilers J. and Santelmann M. 2002. Water quality modeling of alternative agricultural scenarios in the U. S. Corn Belt. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38: 773–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varis O. 2002. Belief networks: Generating the feared dislocations.. In: Beck M.B. (ed.), Environmental Foresight and Models: A Manifesto. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, Oxford, UK, pp. 169–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachs M. 2001. Forecasting versus envisioning: A new window on the future. Journal of the American Planning Association 67: 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waide J.B. and Hatfield J.L. 1995. Preliminary MASTER assessment of the impacts of alternative agricultural management practices on ecological and water resource attributes of Walnut Creek watershed, Iowa. FTN Associates Limited, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • White D., Minotti P.G., Barczak M.J., Sifneos J.C., Freemark K.E., Santelmann M.V., Steinitz C.F., Kiester A.R. and Preston E.M. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change. Conservation Biology 11: 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J.D., O’Neill R.V. and Jones K.B. 2000. A geography of ecosystem vulnerability. Landscape Ecology 15: 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iverson Nassauer, J., Corry, R.C. Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 19, 343–356 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030666.55372.ae

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030666.55372.ae

Navigation