|
|
- Info
Ecologically sustainable landscapes: The role of spatial configuration
| Author: |
Forman, Richard T.T. |
| Date: |
1990 |
| Periodical: |
In: Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag |
| Abstract: |
People attempt to improve their well-being. The environment provides materials, but also constrains the effort. This interplay between human aspiration and ecological integrity is an underlying theme of sustainable development and of this article. Alternating changes over a long time span is another theme. At times, technology and organization have provided breakthroughs in sustainable societal development, whereas at other times, environmental constraints have caused social stagnation and human suffering (Clark and Munn, 1986; Jacobs and Munro, 1987). Spatial scale is yet another basic theme. Individual local ecosystems are sometimes enhanced, but often degraded by humans. Such local ecosystems can change rapidly and markedly, and may be poor candidates to plan for sustainability. At the other end of our spatial scale, the biosphere exhibits considerable stability (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974), but also recently manifests significant degradation. Planet Earth must be analyzed and must be carefully tended for sustainability. However, is that enough? Or is there another spatial scale that should receive planning and management for a sustainable environment? The landscape as a mosaic of local ecosystems, and usually containing people and their activities, has promising characteristics and will be evaluated in this article. Ecological spatial theory focuses on (a) scale (e.g., Allen and Starr, 1982; O'Neill et al., 1986; Milne et al., 1989); (b) pattern or dispersion (random, regular, and aggregated) (e.g., Greig Smith, 1964; Pielou, 1974; Gardner et al., 1987), and (c) patch dynamics (appearance, persistence, and disappearance) (e.g., Pickett and White, 1985; Bormann and Likens, 1979; Levin, 1978; Paine and Levin, 1981). In contrast, the present analysis focuses on spatial configuration-that is, the adjacency, connection or juxtaposition of, for example, patches (Leopold, 1933; Harris, 1984; Forman and Godron, 1986; Merriam, 1984; Davis, 1986; Forman, 1987a). In a decade; sustainable development (and similar terms, sustainability or sustainable environments) has attained a wide range of definitions, perhaps reflecting the many fields necessary for informed policy and action (Repetto, 1985a; Clark and Munn, 1986; Jacobs and Munro, 1987). A United Nations committee (World Committee on Environment and Development, 1987) summarizes the general tone of the concept in stating: "A sustainable condition for this planet is one in which there is stability for both social and physical systems, achieved through meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Yet another definition will not be proposed here, but both important strengths and significant shortcomings of this concept should become clear in this article. The objectives are to: (1) delineate key characteristics of sustainable development, (2) evaluate the applicability of the concept to the landscape scale, and (3) examine the regulatory role of spatial configuration on key variables underlying sustainability. Human demography and direct economic considerations, both important to sustainable development, are widely discussed elsewhere and not analyzed here. However, each is indirectly mirrored in the present focus on the major ecological and human dimensions controlling sustainability. The general approach is to first consider the concept of sustainable development in terms of time and change, variables and values, and spatial scales. Then landscape ecology (Neef, 1967; Risser et al., 1984; Naveh and Lieberman, 1984; Forman and Godron, 1986; Merriam, 1984; Turner, 1987; Forman and Moore, 1989), and especially spatial configuration, will be used in considering the basic types of landscapes and their promise as sustainable environments. |
|
