Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified in a case study in Russia

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Recently, physical geography and landscape ecology have attracted increasing attention, due to the expectation that their theoretical and methodical concepts may improve the assessment of ecosystem services (ES). Examples of promising approaches rooted in various scientific schools, especially of Eastern Europe and Russia.

Objective

The paper briefly describes these approaches, particularly in terms of ES supply. This is deepened by way of a case study in Russia which shows the crucial role of landscape patterns and landscape units in the assessment of ES with respect to the relationship between forestry and runoff.

Methods

For the selection of important geosystem-based aspects we started from the ES approach and reviewed the Eastern European (particularly Russian and Eastern German) literature to identify aspects that might be suitable for incorporation into the ES concept.

Results

Among the geosystem-based geographical and landscape-ecological approaches which have been addressed by scientific schools in Russia and Eastern Europe, landscape genesis, landscape units, landscape hierarchy, the role of spatial scales, ecosystem patterns and relationships and natural potentials belong to the most promising ones. These approaches can improve assessments of ES by strengthening their scientific foundation, and elaborating them in a spatial context which might help to better influence land use policy and decision-making.

Conclusions

Integrated geosystem approaches may provide a number of interesting theoretical and methodological contributions and impulses to the study of ES, especially for the current national TEEB initiatives in many countries. This provides significant perspectives for the application of geosystem-based concepts in ecological planning.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert C, von Haaren C, Galler C (2012) Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 44:142–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Antipov AN, Mikhalkovsky VG (2006) Landscape planning: tools and experience in implementation. Russian Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch, VB Sochava Institute of Geography, Irkutsk. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn (2005 also in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey RG (2005) Identifying ecoregion boundaries. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):14–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) (2002) Development and perspectives in landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Krönert R, Lipský Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis in different space and time scales—a challenge for landscape planning. Landscape Ecol 21:359–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U (2012a) Space and time aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the EU Water Framework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manag. doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.631941

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012b) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic 21:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Syrbe R-U, Rosenberg M, Rahe D, Grunewald K (2013) The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 4:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchesne P, Ducruc J-P, Gerardin V (1996) Ecological mapping: a framework for delimiting forest management units. Environ Monit Assess 39:173–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berg LS (1915) The objectives and tasks of geography. In: Proceedings of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society 51:463–475 (in Russian). Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds.) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 11–18

  • Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc Urb Plan 75:198–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blotevogel HH (1995) Raum. In: Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ed) Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung. Hannover, pp 733–740

  • Blumenstein O, Schachtzabel H, Barsch H, Bork H-R, Küppers U (2000) Grundlagen der Geoökologie. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bobylev SN, Zakharov VM (2009) Ecosystem services and economy. Institute of Sustainable Development, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Braat LC, de Groot R (2012) The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst Serv 1:4–16

  • Bradley T, Hammond H (1993) Practical methodology for landscape analysis and zoning. Silva Forest Foundation, Slocan Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I (2013) A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB. TEEB follow-up study for Europe. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 15:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M (2012) Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chorley RJ, Kennedy BA (1971) Physical geography: a systems approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian CS (1958) The concept of land units and land systems. Proc Ninth Pac Sci Congr 20:74–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopherson RW (2014) Geosystems: an introduction to physical geography, 9th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141:350–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Environ Econ 41:393–408

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drozdov AV (ed) (2000) Landscape planning with elements of engineering biology. KMK, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyakonov KN (2007) Landscape studies in Moscow Lomonosov University: development of scientific domains and education. In: Dyakonov KN, Kasimov NS, Khoroshev AV, Kushlin AV (eds) Landscape analysis for sustainable development. Theory and applications of landscape science in Russia. Alex Publishers, Moscow, pp 11–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010) The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) (2015) Ecosystem services—concept, methods and case studies. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünwald A, Wende W (2015) Integrating the concept of ecosystem services into landscape planning. In: Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) Ecosystem services—concept, methods and case studies. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haase G, Mannsfeld K (2002) Naturraumeinheiten, Landschaftsfunktionen und Leitbilder am Beispiel von Sachsen. Forsch. z. deutschen Landeskunde, vol 250. Deutsche Akademie für Landeskunde, Flensburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2009) Methodologies for defining and assessing ecosystem services. Final Report. University of Nottingham

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herz K (1973) Beitrag zur Theorie der landschaftsanalytischen Maßstabsbereiche. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 117:91–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills GA (1961) The ecological basis for land-use planning. Research Report 26. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto

  • Ingegnoli V (2014) Landscape bionomics. Biological-integrated landscape ecology. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Isachenko AG (1973) Principles of landscape science and physical-geographic regionalization. Melbourne University Press, Carlton

  • Isachenko AG (2003) Ecological geography of Russia. Sankt-Petersburg University Publishing House, Sankt-Petersburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson L, Echeverria C, Nahuelhual L, Luque S (2014) Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: an introduction. Landscape Ecol 29:181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasimov NS, Gennadiev AN (2007) Basic concepts of landscape geochemistry and soil geography. In: Dyakonov KN, Kasimov NS, Khoroshev AV, Kushlin AV (eds) Landscape analysis for sustainable development. Theory and applications of landscape science in Russia. Alex Publishers, Moscow, pp 165–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenkel NC, Watson PR, Uhlig P (1998) Modelling landscape-level vegetation dynamics in the boreal forests of Northwestern Ontario. Forest Research Report No. 148. Ontario Forest Research Institute

  • Khoroshev A (2010) Multilevel analysis of landscape structure for land use decisions. In: Barančoková M, Krajčí J, Kollár J, Belčáková I (eds) Landscape ecology–methods, applications and interdisciplinary approach. Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, pp 99–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoroshev A, Koshcheeva A (2009) Landscape ecological approach to hierarchical spatial planning. Terra Spectra Plan Stud 1:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Khoroshev AV, Nemchinova AV, Avdanin VO (2013) Landscapes and ecological network of the Kostroma region. Kostroma Univ Publ House, Kostroma (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienast F (2010) Landschaftsdienstleistungen: ein taugliches Konzept für Forschung und Praxis? Forum für Wissen 2010:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolbovsky EYu (2008) Landscape planning. Academia, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Krestovsky OI (1986) Influence of cutting and forest regeneration on stream discharge. Hydrometeoizdat, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leser H (1997) Landschaftsökologie. 4th ed, (1st ed. 1976), Ulmer, Stuttgart

  • Löffler J (2002) Landscape complexes. In: Bastian O, Steinhardt U (eds) Development and perspectives of landscape ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 58–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland TR, Merchant JM (2004) Ecoregions and ecoregionalization: geographical and ecological perspectives. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Paracchini ML, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping ecosystems services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannsfeld K (1983) Landschaftsanalyse und Ableitung von Naturraumpotentialen. Abhandl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss., Leipzig, math. nat. class, vol 35. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Duque JF, Pedraza J, Sanz MA, Bodoque JM, Godfrey AE, Diez A, Carrasco RM (2003) Landform classification for land use planning in developed areas: an example in Segovia province (Central Spain). Environ Manag 32:488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Miklós L (2010) The most successful landscape ecological concepts in the practice. Probl Landsc Ecol 28:15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne G (1935) Some suggested units of classification and mapping for East African soils. Soil Res 4:183–198

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Minar J, Tremboš P (1997) Selected aspects of geoecological regionalization at detailed scales. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica 32:39–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss M (2000) Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the “Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes”. Landscape Ecol 15:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, van Brusselen J, Schelhaas MJ (2007) Future harvesting pressure on European forests. Eur J For Res 126:391–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naturkapital Deutschland–TEEB DE (2012) Der Wert der Natur für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft—Eine Einführung. Ifuplan, München; Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Leipzig. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Neef E (1963a) Dimensionen geographischer Betrachtungen. Forsch Fortschr 37:361–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Neef E (1963b) Topologische und chorologische Arbeitsweisen in der Landschaftsforschung. Petermanns Geogr Mitt 107:249–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Neef E (1967) Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Haack, Gotha, Leipzig. Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 225–245

  • O’Neill RV (1989) Transmutations across hierarchical levels. In: Innis GS. O’Neill RV (eds.) Systems analysis of ecosystems. Int. Coop. Publ., Fairland, Md., pp 59–78. Also in: Wiens JA, Moss M, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 11–18

  • Omernik JM (2004) Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions. Environ Manag 34(Suppl. 1):27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pobedinsky AV (1979) Water protection and soil protection role of forests. Lesnaya Promyshlennost, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Klug H, Haines-Young R (2010) From visions to action: framing the Leitbild concept in the context of landscape planning. Futures 42:656–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe JS (1996) Land classification and ecosystem classification. Environ Monit Assess 39:11–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schägner JP, Brander L, Maes J, Hartje V (2013) Mapping ecosystem services’ values: current practice and future prospects. Ecosyst Serv 4:33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith M-L, Carpenter C (1996) Application of the USDA Forest Service national hierarchical framework of ecological units at the sub-regional level: the New England-New York example. Environ Monit Assess 39:187–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sochava VB (1963) Definition of some notions and terms in physical geography. In: Proceedings of the Institute of Geography of Siberia and Far East. vol 3, pp 50–59 (in Russian)

  • Solntsev NA (1948) The natural geographic landscape and some of its general rules. In: Proceedings of the Second All-Union Geographical Congress, vol 1. OGIZ, Leningrad, pp 258–269 (in Russian). Also in: Wiens JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 19–27

  • Spangenberg JH, von Haaren C, Settele J (2014) The ecosystem service cascade: further developing the metaphor. The influence of purpose and application characteristics like scale and beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 104:22–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, Sharp R, Nelson E, Ennaanay D, Wolny S, Olwero N, Vigerstol K, Pennington D, Mendoza G, Aukema J, Foster J, Forrest J, Cameron D, Arkema K, Lonsdorf E, Kennedy C, Verutes G, Kim CK, Guannel G, Papenfus M, Toft J, Marsik M, Bernhardt J, Griffin R, Glowinski K, Chaumont N, Perelman A, Lacayo M (2013) InVEST 2.5.6 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford

  • Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010) In: Kumar P (ed.) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London and Washington. http://www.teebweb.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013

  • TEEB (2013) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Guidance manual for TEEB country studies. Version 1.0. http://www.teebweb.org. Accessed 20 Sept 2013

  • Tishkov AA (2005) Biospheric functions of natural ecosystems of Russia. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Troll C (1950) Die geographische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung. Studium Generale 3:163–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Biest K (2013) An integrated model to assess the effects of land use change on the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. In: Abstract of the workshop “Indication, integration and application of ecosystem services in decision making”, University of Kiel May 6–8

  • Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Harrison PA, Luck GW, Berry P, Bugter R, Dawson TP, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Hering D, Jones KB, Jongman R, Lavorel S, Martins da Silva P, Moora M, Paterson J, Rounsevell MDA, Sandin L, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel M (2008) Review paper on concepts of dynamic ecosystems and their services. RUBICODE Deliverable D2.1. http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_e-conference_report.pdf. Accessed Dec 2013

  • von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 7:150–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Haaren C, Galler C, Ott S (2008) Landscape planning. The basis of sustainable landscape development. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Wascher DM (ed) (2005) European landscape character areas—typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final Project Report. Alterra Report No. 1254, Wageningen (NL)

  • Wende W, Wirth P, Közle E, Lappo A, Spirin P (2013) Zum Umgang mit Schutzgütern und Nutzungen in der Territorialplanung der Russischen Föderation. 1. Practical guidance within the framework of the project EkoRus. Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development IOER, Dresden; NIIP Gradostroitelstva, St. Petersburg

  • Wiens JA, Moss MR, Turner MG, Mladenoff DJ (eds) (2006) Fundamental papers in landscape ecology. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggering H, Müller K, Werner A, Helming K (2003) The concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) Sustainable development of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L (2010) Mapping and modeling multifunctional landscapes. PhD thesis, Wageningen University (NL)

  • Wojtkiewicz W, May A, Hoppenstedt A, Wende W (2010) Einführung des Naturschutzinstruments “Landschaftsplanung” in der Region des Südkaukasus. Natur Landschaft 85:340–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25:367–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Li H (2006) Theories and methods in scaling: a review. In: Wu J, Jones B, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology. Springer, Dordrecht

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT (2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr Inf Sci 6:6–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld IS (1989) The land unit—a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its application. Landscape Ecol 3:67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The cooperation between the authors was supported by the DFG-Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Science Foundation, BA 1214/8-1). We also thank the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in Germany for the support of academic exchange between Germany and Russia to ecosystem services. We thank Prof. W. Wende, IOER Dresden, and two unknown reviewers for their advice, and Mr. Phil Hill (†)/F. Pahl, Berlin, for polishing the language.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217, Dresden, Germany

    Olaf Bastian & Karsten Grunewald

  2. Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia

    Alexander V. Khoroshev

Authors
  1. Olaf Bastian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karsten Grunewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander V. Khoroshev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Grunewald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bastian, O., Grunewald, K. & Khoroshev, A.V. The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified in a case study in Russia. Landscape Ecol 30, 1145–1164 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation