Modelling Nature-based Solutions Integrating Computational and Participatory Scenario Modelling for Environmental Management and Planning
Book contents
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Landscape Modelling and Stakeholder Engagement: Participatory Approaches and Landscape Visualisation
- 2 Agent-based Models of Coupled Social and Natural Systems
- 3 Modelling Nature-based Solutions from Soil Ecosystem Services
- 4 Modelling Water Resources for Nature-based Solutions
- 5 Models at the Service of Marine Nature-based Solutions
- 6 Coastal and Freshwater Flood Models: A Review in the Context of NBS
- 7 Nature-based Solutions to Urban Microclimate Regulation
- 8 Data Mining, Machine Learning and Spatial Data Infrastructures for Scenario Modelling
- 9 Can Geodesign Be Used to Facilitate Boundary Management for Planning and Implementation of Nature-based Solutions?
- 10 Integrating Models into Practice – Recommendations
- Appendix: List of Models/Software
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
1 - Landscape Modelling and Stakeholder Engagement: Participatory Approaches and Landscape Visualisation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2020
Book contents
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Modelling Nature-based Solutions
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Landscape Modelling and Stakeholder Engagement: Participatory Approaches and Landscape Visualisation
- 2 Agent-based Models of Coupled Social and Natural Systems
- 3 Modelling Nature-based Solutions from Soil Ecosystem Services
- 4 Modelling Water Resources for Nature-based Solutions
- 5 Models at the Service of Marine Nature-based Solutions
- 6 Coastal and Freshwater Flood Models: A Review in the Context of NBS
- 7 Nature-based Solutions to Urban Microclimate Regulation
- 8 Data Mining, Machine Learning and Spatial Data Infrastructures for Scenario Modelling
- 9 Can Geodesign Be Used to Facilitate Boundary Management for Planning and Implementation of Nature-based Solutions?
- 10 Integrating Models into Practice – Recommendations
- Appendix: List of Models/Software
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Landscapes are defined as ‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Council of Europe, 2000). Cultural landscapes are defined by the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1992) as distinct geographical areas or properties uniquely ‘represent[ing] the combined work of nature and of man’. It also describes cultural landscapes as a ‘diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment’, and that the protection of traditional cultural landscapes can contribute to maintaining biological diversity. Indeed, Pilgrim and Pretty (2010) propose that the resilience of ecocultural systems is at its strongest when biological and cultural diversity can be considered as an interdependent whole.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Modelling Nature-based SolutionsIntegrating Computational and Participatory Scenario Modelling for Environmental Management and Planning, pp. 19 - 55Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Agarwal, C., Green, G. L., Grove, M., Evans, T. & Schweik, C. 2000. A Review and Assessment of Land Use Change Models Dynamics of Space, Time and Human Choice. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ahern, J. 1999. Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. In: Landscape Ecological Analysis, pp. 175–201. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Alcamo, J., Van Vuuren, D. & Cramer, W. 2006. Changes in ecosystem services and their drivers across the scenarios. In: Carpenter, S. R. (ed.) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Findings of the Scenarios Working Group. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Aldred, O. & Fairclough, G. 2003. Historic Landscape Characterization: Taking Stock of the Methods – the National HLC Method Review 2002 Carried out by English Heritage for Somerset County Council. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Antrop, M. 2004. Rural–urban conflicts and opportunities. In: Jogman, R. H. G. (ed.) The New Dimensions of the European Landscape. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Antrop, M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21–34.Google Scholar
Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.Google Scholar
Ball, J., Capanni, N. & Watt, S. 2008. Virtual reality for mutual understanding in landscape planning. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 78–88.Google Scholar
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J. & Jordan, A. 2002. Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as ‘learning machines’. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 12, 13.Google Scholar
Brown, I. 2018. Assessing climate change risks to the natural environment to facilitate cross-sectoral adaptation policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2121). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0297Google Scholar
Brown, I. & Castellazzi, M. 2014. Scenario analysis for regional decision-making on sustainable multifunctional land uses. Regional Environmental Change, 14, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, J., Darlington, J. & Fairclough, G. 2004. Using Historic Landscape Characterisation. London: English Heritage Publications.Google Scholar
Cortner, H. J. 2000. Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 3, 21–30.Google Scholar
Couclelis, H. 2005. ‘Where has the future gone?’ Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1353–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention: Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Florence.Google Scholar
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8.Google Scholar
Daniel, T. C. & Vining, J. 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman, I. & Wohlwill, J. F. (eds.) Behaviour and the Natural Environment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
De Groot, R., Wilson, M. A. & Boumans, R. M. J. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 16.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D. C. & Hobbs, R.J. 2017. Cultural ecosystem services: characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research. Ecosystem Services, 25, 179–194.Google Scholar
Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Bone, A. & Sunnenberg, G. 2006. Developing scenarios and visualisations to illustrate potential policy and climatic influences on future agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114, 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson-Selby, G., Wang, C., Miller, D., Horne, P., Castellazzi, M., Brown, I., et al. 2012. Testing public preferences for future land uses and landscape. In: Proceedings of GIS Research UK, 11–13 April 2012, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
EEA. 2007. Land-use Scenarios for Europe: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis on a European Scale. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EEA. 2009. Water Resources across Europe – Confronting Water Scarcity and Drought. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
European Commission. 2015. Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Bioeconomy: A Challenge for Europe. 4th SCAR Foresight Exercise. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/pdf//ki-01-15-295-enn.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=noneGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, G. & Macinnes, L. 2002. Understanding Historic Landscape Character, A Paper Exploring the Relationship between Landscape Character Assessment and Historic Landscape Characterisation/Historic Land-use Assessment, Topic Paper 5. Scottish Natural Heritage, The Countryside Agency, Historic Scotland and English Heritage.Google Scholar
Fjellstad, W. J. & Dramstad, W. E. 1999. Patterns of changes in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45, 177–191.Google Scholar
Foresight Land Use Futures Project. 2010. Final project report. London: Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
Fry, G., Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Velarde, M. 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9, 933–947.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. 1994. The worth of a songbird: economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 10, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fyrhi, A., Jacobsen, J. & Tommervik, H. 2009. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 10.Google Scholar
Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin, P. & Swart, R. 1997. Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
Green, B. and Vos, W. 2001. Threatened Landscapes: Conserving Cultural Environments. London: Spon.Google Scholar
Gupta, R. & Gregg, M. 2012. Climate change adaptations. In: Smith, S., Elsinga, M., Mahony, L., Eng, O., Wachter, S. & Lovell, H. (eds.) International Encyclopaedia of Housing and Home. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haag, D. & Kaupenjohann, M. 2001. Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precautionary principle – a roadmap for modelling decision-making. Ecological Modelling, 144, 45–60.Google Scholar
Halfacree, K. 2006. From dropping out to leading on? British counter-cultural back-to-the-land in a changing rurality. Progress in Human Geography, 30, 309–336.Google Scholar
Healy, S. 1999. Extended peer communities and the ascendance of post-normal politics. Futures, 31, 655–669.Google Scholar
Kahane, A. 1998. Imaging South Africa’s future: how scenarios helped discover common ground. In: Fahey, L. & Randall, R. (eds.) Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kay, J. J., Regier, H. A., Boyle, M. & Francis, G. 1999. An ecosystem approach for sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures, 31, 721–742.Google Scholar
Luks, F. 1999. Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: deconstructing normal science. Futures, 31, 705–719.Google Scholar
Mayumi, K. & Giampietro, M. 2006. The epistemological challenge of self-modifying systems: governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era. Ecological Economics, 57, 382–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, Island Press.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Kruse, A. & Roth., M. 2018. Adaptive management strategies for renewable energy landscapes. In: Roth, M., Eiter, S., Rohner, S., Kruse, A., Schmitz, S., Frantal, B., et al. (eds.) Renewable Energy and Landscape Quality, Chapter 5.2, pp. 226–235. Berlin: Jovis.Google Scholar
Miller, D. & Morrice, J. 2006. Visualisation Tools for Public Participation in the Management of Landscape Change. Aberdeen: The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.Google Scholar
Munda, G. 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 662–677.Google Scholar
Nakicenovic, N. & Swart, R. 2000. Emissions Scenarios 2000 – Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14, 161–170.Google Scholar
Naveh, Z. 2007. Transdisciplinary Challenges in Landscape Ecology and Restoration Ecology: An Anthology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nord, J. 2009. Changing landscapes and persistent places: an exploration of the Bjare peninsula. PhD thesis, University of Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P. & Miller, D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 375–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ode, Å. & Miller, D. 2011. Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B, 38, 17.Google Scholar
Ode, Å., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators – touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33, 89–117.Google Scholar
OECD. 2001. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture: Methods and Results. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., López-Santiago, C. & Montes, C. 2011. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social ecological system in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papamichail, K. N. & Robertson, I. 2003. Supporting societal decision making: a process perspective. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 12, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, M. L., Fischer, C., Livermore, M., Rosenzweig, C. & Iglesias, A. 1999. Climate change and world food security: a new assessment. Global Environmental Change, 9, 17.Google Scholar
Paterson, J., Metzger, M. and Walz, A. 2012. The VOLANTE scenarios: framework, storylines and drivers. EU VOLANTE project, Deliverable 9.1 report.Google Scholar
Pauleit, S., Hansen, R., Lorance Rall, E., Zölch, T., Andersson, E., Catarina Luz, A., et al. 2017. Urban landscapes and green infrastructure. In: Environment and Human Health, Management and Planning. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.23Google Scholar
Pilgrim, S. & Pretty, J. 2010. Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Potting, J. & Bakkes, J. (eds.) 2004. The GEO-3 Scenarios 2002–2032 Quantification and Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Nairobi: UNEP and Bilthoven: RIVM.Google Scholar
Rothman, D. 2008. A survey of environmental scenarios. In: Alcamo, J. (ed.) Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schroter, D., Metzger, M., Cramer, W. & Leemans, R. 2004. Vulnerability assessment – analysing the human–environment system in the face of global environmental change. Environmental Science Section Bulletin, 2, 7.Google Scholar
Schroth, O., Pond, E., & Sheppard, S. R. 2015. Evaluating presentation formats of local climate change in community planning with regard to process and outcomes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahumyan, H., White, R., Petrov, L., Williams, B., Convery, S. & Brennan, M. 2011. Urban development scenarios and probability mapping for Greater Dublin Region: the MOLAND model applications. In: International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, pp. 119–134. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. 2005. Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a framework for planning with local communities at the landscape level. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 33, 1515–1526.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. R. J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., Burch, S. & Schroth, O. 2013. Bringing climate change science to the landscape level: Canadian experiences in using landscape visualisation within participatory processes for community planning. In: Fu, B. & Jones, K. B. (eds.) Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Stanners, D. & Bourdeau, P. 1995. Europe’s Environment: The Dobois Assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
Steinitz, C., Arias, H., Bassett, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock, T., et al. 2003. Alternative Futures for Changing Landscapes. The Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Stock, C. & Bishop, I. 2005. Helping rural communities envision their future. In: Bishop, I. & Lange, E. (eds.) Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications, pp.145–151. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Turner, R. K., Georgiou, S., Gren, I.-M., Wulff, F., Barrett, S., Söderqvist, T., et al. 1999. Managing nutrient fluxes and pollution in the Baltic: an interdisciplinary simulation study. Ecological Economics, 30, 333–352.Google Scholar
Tveit, M. & Ode-Sang, Å. 2014. Landscape assessment in metropolitan areas – developing a visual indicator-based approach. SPOOL, 1(1).Google Scholar
Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G. 2006. Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31, 229–255.Google Scholar
UK NEA. 2011. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Understanding Nature’s Value to Society. Synthesis of the Key Findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
UNECE. 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Århus: UNECE.Google Scholar
UNESCO World Heritage Convention. 1992. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Unwin, K. I. 1975. The relationship of observer and landscape in landscape evaluation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 66, 130–133.Google Scholar
Van Der Heijden, K. 1966. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Van Der Heijden, K., Bradfield, R., Burt, G., Cairns, G. & Wright, G. 2002. The Sixth Sense: Accelerating Organizational Learning with Scenarios. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Van Notten, P. W. F., Rotmans, J., Van Asselt, M. B. A. & Rothman, D. 2003. An updated scenario typology. Futures, 35, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verburg, P. & Overmars, K. P. 2009. Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape Ecology, 24, 15.Google Scholar
Verburg, P. H., van Berkel, D. B., van Doorn, A. M., van Eupen, M. & van den Heiligenberg, H. 2010. Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landscape Ecology, 25, 217–232.Google Scholar
Vos, W. & Klijn, J. 2000. Trends in European landscape development: prospects for a sustainable future. In: Klijn, J. & Vos, W. (eds.) From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science. Wageningen: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Waldhardt, R., Bach, M., Borresch, R., Breuer, L., Diekotter, T., Frede, H.-G., et al. 2010. Evaluating today’s landscape multifunctionality and providing an alterbnative future: a normative scenario approach. Ecology & Society, 15(3), 30.Google Scholar
Wang, C. Miller, D.R., Brown, I., Jiang, Y. & Castellazzi, M. 2016. Visualisation techniques to support public interpretation of future climate change and land use choices: a case study from N-E Scotland. International Journal of Digital Earth, 9, 586–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2015.1111949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by