Participative landscape planning using a GIS approach for facilitation

  • Hermann Klug


Over thousands of years, humans affect landscapes in a way we cannot comprehend, expect, or control. Nowadays, the strong increase on human action since the middle of the last century and the increasing pressures on landscape resources from different parties mostly involve conflicting interests among stakeholders. In recognition to these environmental pressures, the European Commission established laws, directives, and conventions to be obligatory considered in planning. Hence, landscape planning and landscape management need to take place with the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD-Directive 2000/60/EG), the Natura 2000 Framework (FFH-Directive 92/43/EEC and Bird-Directive 79/409/EEC) and the more pragmatic Landscape Convention (Council of Europe 2000) which all have to correspond to various demands in order to be compliant in future.


Vision Space Buffer Stripe Soft System Methodology Landscape Planning Hierarchical Framework 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bastian O (1999) Leitbilder für Naturräume auf der Basis von Landschaftsfunktionen. Natur und Landschaft 74: 361–373.Google Scholar
  2. Bastian O (2000) Leitbilder — das Patentrezept für die Landschaftsplanung? Geographie und Schule 22: 12–22.Google Scholar
  3. Bertalanffy (1950) An outline of General Systems Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1:139–164.Google Scholar
  4. Brand J, Tress B, Tress G (2000) Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management. In: Conference material for the international conference on “Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management”, Centre for Landscape Research, University of Roskilde, Denmark, October 18–21, 2000, 263 p.Google Scholar
  5. Brandt J, Vejre H (2003) Multifunctional Landscapes, Motives, concepts and perspectives. In: Brandt J, Vejre H (eds) 2003. Multifunctional Landscapes. Vol 1 & 2. Advances in Ecological Sciences. WIT Press London. ISBN: 1-85312-936-4.Google Scholar
  6. Buchecker M, Hunziker M, Kienast F (2003) Participatory landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunch M (2000) An adaptive ecosystem approach to rehabilitation and management of the Cooum River environmental system in Chennai, India. Dissertation Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 404 p.Google Scholar
  8. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Toronto.Google Scholar
  9. Clayton AMH, Radcliffe N (1996) Sustainability: A Systems Approach. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  10. Costanza R (2000) Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conservation Ecology 4: 5. URL: Scholar
  11. Council Directive (2 April 1979) on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC); (accessed: 09.08.2005)Google Scholar
  12. Council Directive (21 May 1992) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC); (accessed: 09.08.2005)Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe (2000): European Landscape Convention. European Treaty. ETS No. 176. Florence. (accessed: 09.08.2005)Google Scholar
  14. di Castri F (1987) The evolution of terrestrial ecosystems. In: Ravera O (ed) Ecological assessment of environmental degradation, pollution and recovery, p.1–30.Google Scholar
  15. European Parliament and Council of Europe (23 October 2000): Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Directive 2000/60/EG); (accessed: 09.08.2005)Google Scholar
  16. Fellner A, Kohl M (1994) Leitbilder — Begriffs-Inflation oder Verfahrens-Innovation. ARSU 4: 7–16.Google Scholar
  17. Finck P, Hauke U, Schröder E, Forst R und Woithe G (eds) (1997) Naturschutzfachliche Landschafts-Leitbilder. Rahmenvorstellungen für das Nordwestdeutsche Tiefland ausbundesweiter Sicht. 265 S., Bonn-Bad GodesbergGoogle Scholar
  18. Fish R, Haines-Young R und Rubiano J (2003) Stakeholder landscapes and GIS: institutional visions of landscape and sustainability in the management of the Sherwood Natural Area, UK. In: Palang H et al. (eds) Landscape Interfaces. Cultural heritage in changing landscapes, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
  19. Gaede M, Potschin M (2001): Anforderungen an den Leitbild-Begriff aus planerischer Sicht. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde 75: 19–32.Google Scholar
  20. Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (1995) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York.Google Scholar
  21. Haber W (1971) Landschaftspflege durch differenzierte Bodennutzung. Bayr. Landw. Jb. 48: 19–35.Google Scholar
  22. Haines-Young R (2000) Sustainable Development and Sustainable Landscapes: Defining a New Paradigm for Landscape Ecology. Fennia 178: 7–14.Google Scholar
  23. Holling C (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York.Google Scholar
  24. Jedicke E (1998) Raum-Zeit-Dynamik in Ökosystemen und Landschaften. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 30: 229–236.Google Scholar
  25. Jessel B (1994) Leitbilder — Umweltqualitätsziele — Umweltstandards. In: (ANL), B.A.: Leitbilder — Umweltqualitätsziele — Umweltstandards, 04/1994, S. 5–10. — ISBN 3-924374-99-6.Google Scholar
  26. Jessel B (1995) Ist künftige Landschaft planbar? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen von ökologisch orientierter Planung. In: Laufener Seminarbeiträge 4/95, Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (ANL, Hrsg.): Vision Landschaft 2020 — Von der historischen Kulturlandschaft zur Landschaft von Morgen, 4/95, S. 91–100.Google Scholar
  27. Kaiser J (ed) (1965) Planung, Bd. I–VI, Baden-Baden. 1965–1972.Google Scholar
  28. Kay J (1994) The Ecosystem Approach: Ecosystems as Complex Systems and The Ecosystem Approach Applied to the Huron Natural Area. Prepared for Environment Canada, State of the Environment Reporting, Ottawa, Canada.; Scholar
  29. Kay J, Boyle M, Regier H und Francis G (1999) An ecosystem approach for sustainability: Addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures 31: 721–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kingsland S (2002) Designing nature reserves: adapting ecology to real world problems. Endeavour 26: 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klages L (1906) Das persönliche Leitbild. In: Graphologische Monatshefte.Google Scholar
  32. Klug H (2000) Landschaftsökologisch begründetes Leitbild für eine funktional vielfältige Landschaft. Das Beispiel Pongau im Salzburger Land. Universität Hannover, 112 S., Diplomarbeit (unpublished), URL:, Hannover.Google Scholar
  33. Klug H (2002) Methodisch-konzeptuelle Landschaftsentwicklung über prozessorientierte, funktional-haushaltliche landschaftsökologische Leitbilder. SIR-Mitteilungen und Berichte 30: 43–52.Google Scholar
  34. Klug H (2005) Semi-automatische Landschaftsanalyse mit dem ArcGIS 9.x ModelBuilder. Corp 2005. Tagungsband / Proceedings. 10th International Conference on Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) in Urban Planning and Spatial Development and Impacts of ICT on Physical Space. ISBN: 3-901673-12-1Google Scholar
  35. Klug H (submitted) No landscape planning without a vision: an extended process-driven Leitbild methodology for the practitioner. Submitted to Journal of Land Use Science.Google Scholar
  36. Klug H, Potschin M (submitted) Introduction to the German speaking Leitbild concept for integrative rural landscape planning.Google Scholar
  37. Klug H, Zeil P (2006) Bridging multi-functionality of agriculture and multifunctional landscapes by applying the Leitbild approach. In: Meyer BC (ed.): Sustainable Land Use in Intensively Used Agricultural Regions. Wageningen, pp. 82–90.Google Scholar
  38. Laszlo E (1972) The Systems View of the World. New York.Google Scholar
  39. Laszlo E (1994) The Choice: Evolution or Extinction. A thinking Person’s Guide to Global issues. New York.Google Scholar
  40. Lee KN (1993) Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington.Google Scholar
  41. Mörtl A (2005) Fotorealistische dreidimensionale Landschaftsvisualsierung auf der Basis von GIS-Daten — dargestellt am Beispiel eines Waldentwicklungsszenarios im Nationalpark Berchtesgaden. In: Strobl J, Blaschke T, Griesebner G (eds) Angewandte Geoinformatik. Beiträge zum 17. AGIT-Symposium Salzburg, S. 467–474.Google Scholar
  42. Mosimann T, Köhler I, Poppe I (2001) Entwicklung prozessual begründeter landschaftsökologischer Leitbilder für funktional vielfältige Landschaften. In: Gebhardt, H. et al. (eds) Berichte zur Deutschen Landeskunde, 75, S. 33–66.Google Scholar
  43. Moss R (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the “Transformation of Argricultural Landscapes”. Landscape Ecology 15: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naveh Z (2000a) What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naveh Z (2000b) The Landscape — from vision to Definition. In: Brand J, Tress B, Tress G (eds.) Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management. Conference material October 18–21, 2000, University of Roskilde, Denmark, p. 27–43.Google Scholar
  46. Naveh Z (2004) The importance of multifunctional, self-organising biosphere landscapes for the future of our Total Human Ecosystem — a new paradigm for transdisciplinary landscape ecology. In: Brandt J. et al. (eds) Multifunctional Landscapes: Theory, Values and History, 1, pp. 33–62.Google Scholar
  47. Opdam P, Steingröver E, van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75: 322–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prigogine I, Stengers I (1984) Order out of Chaos, Man’s Dialogue with Nature. New York.Google Scholar
  49. Schwineköper K, Seifert P, Konold W (1992) Landschaftsökologische Leitbilder. Garten und Landschaft 6: 33–38.Google Scholar
  50. Smuts JC (1926) Holism and Evolution, Scholar
  51. Tress B, Tress G (2000) Scenarios for the management of multifunctional landscapes. In: Brandt J, Tress B, Tress G (eds) Multifunctional Landscapes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Landscape Research and Management. Conference material October 18–21, 2000, University of Roskilde, Denmark, p. 21.Google Scholar
  52. Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary system approach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tress B, Tress G, Decamps H, d’Hautessere A (2001) Bridging human and natural science in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. von Haaren C (2002) Landscape planning facing the challenge of the development of cultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 60: 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vorwald J, Wiegleb G (1998) Beispielhafte Entwicklung von Leitbildern in der Bergbaufolgelandschaft. Aktuelle Reihe 4/98, Brandenburg Technische Universität Cottbus.Google Scholar
  56. Walters C (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York.Google Scholar
  57. Wiegleb G (1997) Leitbildmethode und naturschutzfachliche Bewertung. Z. Ökologie u. Naturschutz 6: 43–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann Klug
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Geoinformatics (Z_GIS)University of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations