African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, Vol. 7. pp.

1081-1084
Printed in Uganda. All rights reserved
ISSN 1023-070X/2005 $ 4.00
© 2005, African Crop Science Society

Multifunctional landscape paradigms for sustainable landscape

resource management
A. OCHIENG ADIMO
Department of Horticulture, Institute of landscape Architecture, Zhejiang University, P.R China

Abstract An insight into the possibility of using multifunctional landscape concept for sustainable and ecological landscape resource
evaluation, design, planning, monitoring, restoration, conservation and management in both transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary
system is further illustrated. Attempt were made to comprehensively put together some landscape indices for different functions
from previous studies in an effort to further bridge the gap between research findings and application, different disciplines working
with the landscape, resource managers and users, use and conservation conflict, and tangible and their non tangible functions. A
concise way of analysis that is very flexible while allowing for multiple data integration to facilitate landscape multifunctionality
strategy is suggested in a simpler language and style that is adoptable by different landscape practitioners and scientists.

Key words: Design, monitoring, planning, restoration

Résumé Un aperçu dans la possibilité de l’usage du concept de jardinage multifonctionnel pour l’évaluation, la conception, la
planification, la surveillance, la restauration, la conservation et la gestion durable et écologique de ressource de paysage à la fois dans
les systèmes transdisciplinaire et interdisciplinaire est davantage illustré. Les tentatives étaient faites de mettre de manière compréhensive
ensemble quelques indices de paysage pour les différentes fonctions des études antérieures dans un effort de combler davantage le vide
entre les résultats de recherche et application, les différentes disciplines travaillant avec le paysage, les gestionnaires et usagers des
ressources. Le conflit d’usage et de conservation, et leurs fonctions tangibles et non tangibles. Une voie concise d’analyse qui est très
flexible pendant que permettant l’intégration multiple des données pour faciliter la stratégie de multifonctionnalité de paysage est
suggérée dans un langage e style simple qui est adoptable par les différents praticiens et scientifiques de paysage.

Mots clés: Conception, surveillance, planification, restauration

Introduction
A working definition for what a functional landscape means
is truly difficult to arrive at. Its however commonly
agreeable, that landscapes have multiple functions in the
‘ecosystem(s)’. Many landscape functions are not quite
apparent and therefore not easily appreciated by many
landscape users or humans, unlike say the aesthetic
attributes of the landscape which are obvious and tend to
be the overriding theme in many man made landscapes
however subjective it may be. These issues have raised
concern and a lot of pertinent questions for example; are
good looking landscape necessarily good? Just where can
the balance between beauty and ‘functionality’ of the
landscape be? What is landscape ‘functionality’ in the first
place? And the list continues.
Land-use and land-cover change as influenced by
human activities or in a Total Human Ecosystem (THE)
such as urban areas, is a dominant factor in the study of
landscape dynamics. It’s however important to note that
land use and cover change parse are just symptoms that
point to other landscape ‘parameters’ which are not easily
recognized at first sight, for example the functions of the
landscape parameters themselves, which are either
jeopardized or enhanced by these land use and cover
changes (Bastian and Roder,1998).
The holistic and multifunctional landscapes conception
has been proposed by many studies before (Bradley and
Hammond, 1992; Wear et al., 1996; Olaf, 1998; Gary et al.,
2001; Naveh, 2001; Wu and Hobbs, 2002) as a way forward
towards a goal- oriented landscape research which is
transdisciplinary in its approach.
Multifunctional landscape assessment for
ecologically functional and sustainable landscapes using
landscape metrics can be significant to a range of themes
and issues; planning, evaluation, monitoring,
management, restoration/reclamation, conservation and
design of the landscape are just but few of the relevant
applications, as also observed in some previous studies
(Naveh, 1987, 2001; Wear et al., 1996; Ahern and Leitao,
2002; Cook, 2002; Wu and Hobbs, 2002; Ruslan, 2003).
Landscape functions are quite diverse and indeed
complex, landscapes are also known to have long history
and often than not, only communicates in an equivocal
manner especially when it comes to their ecological
functions which in most cases are not obvious to the
landscape users. Effective landscape vision or
anticipatory plan therefore requires the support of
relevant current data and historic data to help come up
with a trend that can be useful in focusing and guiding/
shaping the dynamism of the landscape functions
however unpredictable we attest it is. As pointed out by
Naveh (2001), changes in human-influenced landscapes
are very unpredictable and thus calls for landscape
research approaches to be anticipatory, and like medicine
to become also prescriptive science. Holling (1996) and
1082 A. OCHIENG ADIMO
Bright (2000) are of the opinion that we can only attempt
to anticipate the fate and risks involved in further misuse
and degradation and the prospects of sustainable
landscape development. Towards these end landscape
metrics have been shown to have great potential though
not a panacea to all landscape issues (Ahern and Leitao,
2002).
Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics
from a horizontal planning perspective can be used to
analyze the potential usefulness of ecological knowledge
across the perceived current planning theme(s). In such a
design, it is anticipated to address many issues including
the following questions in the context of the landscape of
interest:
1) Is multifunctionality synonymous with ecological
functionality? 2) What makes a landscape multifunctional?
3) How far can land use change be applied to enhance
multifuntionality without compromise on the ecological
functionality and sustainability of a landscape? 4) How
are ecological functionality affected/ influenced by
composition and configuration of the landscape elements?
5) What are the indicators of the landscape’s
multifunction(s) with respect to; aesthetic quality
function, socio-economic quality function, and ecological
quality functions? 6) Where does biodiversity stand in a
multifunctional landscape? 7) Does landscape
multifunctionality define sustainability of the landscape?
The recognition that more sustainable approaches are
needed for planning and managing landscapes worldwide
is not new, it is actually entrenched in the holistic approach
to landscape issues. “Patch-corridor-matrix model”, which
is also widely accepted (Forman, 1995).
Objectives
To try use landscape metrics and ecological concepts in a
horizontal perspective to evaluate\assess the ecological
functionality and/or multifunctionality of landscapes
Attempt to propose how to enhance, restore, and conserve
landscape biodiversity by the use of selected landscape
metrics and the widely accepted patch-corridor-matrix
model.
To try create a method for landscape vision assessment
for planning, evaluation, restoration and conservation of
multifunctional landscapes.
Attempt to propose a method for designing functional
landscapes that will among other things fulfill the
following:
a) Conserve historical estates and agricultural
landscapes with cultural-historical or ecological
values.
b) Conserve and restore landscape quality in those
parts which are important for recreation and
tourism.
c) Incorporate landscape quality aspects to
development projects
d) Continue research in the field of landscape
e) Investment in rural and urban landscape
f) Improve living conditions in rural and urban areas
by maintenance and development of sustainable
landscapes
Methodology
Area/scale. The scale need to be clearly defined and set
at the beginning, this will affect the land use/cover
classification which are all scale dependent. For example a
forest can be a matrix or a patch depending on the scale of
operation or planning. The system therefore can be applied
to the smallest scale possible, say farm level, village and
community, location and county, municipality and city,
national, regional, and global levels.
Data acquisition. data sources : Past and present land
use maps and plans, Topographic maps, Landsat TM
images and other satellite imagery, Aerial photographs,
existing land use information (GIS) and data collected from
field survey using GPS and other terrestrial survey
approaches of the landscape, and other relevant data
sources. These can be data from different disciplines.
Landscape functions. The landscape functions can be
divided in to these main categories: ecological functions,
aesthetic functions, socio-economic functions, cultural
heritage function and other functions. Other function
which can be identified, but don’t fall in these four main
classes provides an option of integrating other new
thinking of landscape functions.
Land cover/ use and categorization. The first step
involves land cover and use categorization/classification
and quantification. Anderson’s Level 1, Level 2 and level
3(modified to suite the set objectives) systems of land
use and cover classification in a “patch-corridor-matrix
model” perspective of the area of interest should form a
structure for land cover categorization.
Landscape metrics. This study was conducted in a patch-
corridor-matrix model, each class and sub levels identified
were quantified using a number of indices, these included:
patch richness PR; patch number PN; class area proportion
CAP; patch density; patch shape/patch area ratio SHAPE;
edge contract TECI; patch compaction; nearest neighbor
distance MNND; contagion CONTAG; cover type and
size; land cover structure and diversity; cover context,
cover naturalness; cover length, and width structure(Cook,
2002; Ahern and Leitao, 2002; Ruslan, 2003).
Conclusion
The proposed procedure is flexible and will be guided by
the project(s)’ objectives, it ensures that all other aspects
of the landscape that may not be the focus of a particular
 Landscape paradigms for sustainable landscape resource management 1083

Aerial Existing land Field

photographs Satellite use information survey/GPS/
images(TM) (GIS) OTHERS

Interpretation
Geometric
correction and Data analysis
Classification
Digitizing

Multi land use/ land

cover information

GIS DATA
OVERLAY

Landscape function Identification

Others Economic
Social
Ecological Aesthetic

MULTIFUNCTIONAL STRATEGY/
INTERVENTION/PLAN

Opportunistic
Protective Defensive Offensive

Figure 1. Methodology layout.

project, are incorporated and duly considered in the
decision process , thus ensuring an interdisciplinary
approach to landscape resource use and management.
References
Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T. & Witmer, R. E.
1976. A revision of the land use classification system
as presented in U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 964, Geological Survey Circular 671. United States
Government Printing Office, Washington: 1976.
Bradley, T. & Hammond, H. 1992. Landscape Analysis and
Planning Summary, A Component of Wholistic Forest
Use.Richard E. Toth, 1988. Theory and language in
landscape analysis, planning, and evaluation.
Landscape Ecology vol. 1 no. 4 pp 193-201 (1988) SPB
Academic Publishing by, The Hague, Netherlands.
Bright, C. 2000. Anticipating environmental surprises. In:
Brown, L.R., Flavin, C., French, H., (eds.), State of the
world 2000. A Worldwatch Institute Report on progress
towards a sustainable society. Norton & company ,
New York, pp. 22-38.
Cook, E.A. 2002. Landscape structure indices for assessing
urban ecological networks. Landscape and Urban
planning 58, 269-280.
Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics, The ecology of
landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. 632 pp.
Gary, R.C. & Daniel T.C. 2000. Scenic landscape
assessment: the effects of land management
jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty.
Landscape and Urban Planning 49, 1-13.
Holling, J. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for
ecosystems and incentives for people. Ecoll. Appl. 6,
733-735.
Leitao B. & Ahern J. 2002. Applying landscape ecological
concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape
planning. Landscape and Urban planning 59, 65-93.
Linehan, J. R. & Gross, M. 1998. Back to the future, back
to basics: the social ecology of landscapes and the
1084 A. OCHIENG ADIMO
future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning 42, 207-223.
Naveh Z. 1987. Biocybernetics and thermodynamics
perspectives of landscape function and land use
patterns. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague.
Landscape Ecology 1(2), 75-83.
Naveh, Z. 2001. Ten major premoses for a holistic
conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape
and urban planning 57, 269-284. .
Olaf, B. 2000. Landscape classification in Saxony
(Germany) – a tool for holistic
regional planning. Landscape and Urban Planning
50, 145- 155.
Olaf, B. & Roder, M. 1998. Assessment of landscape change
by land evaluation of past and present situation.
Landscape and Urban Planning 41, 171-182.
Ruslan , R. 2003. Application of GIS and landscape metrics
in monitoring Urban and Landuse change. Urban
ecosystem studies in Malaysia. University publishers
2003.
Wear, D. N., Turner, M.G. & Flamm, R .O. 1996. Ecosystem
management with multiple owners: Landscape
dynamics in southern Appalachian watershed.
Ecological society of America. Ecological applications
6(4), 1173- 1188.
Wu, J. & Hobbs, R. 2002. Key issues and research priorities
in landscape ecology: An idiosyncratic synthesis.
Kluwer Academic publishers. Printed in Netherlands.
Landscape Ecology 17, 355-365, 2002.