Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332

Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor

planning of sustainable landscapes
Paul Opdam ∗ , Eveliene Steingröver, Sabine van Rooij
Alterra, Landscape group, Wageningen University Research Center, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Available online 22 June 2005

Abstract

In this paper, we propose the ecological network concept as a suitable basis for inserting biodiversity conservation into
sustainable landscape development. For landscapes to be ecologically sustainable, the landscape structure should support those
ecological processes required for the landscape to deliver biodiversity services for present and future generations. We first show
that in multifunctional, human-dominated landscapes, biodiversity conservation needs a coherent large-scale spatial structure of
ecosystems. Theory and empirical knowledge of ecological networks provides a framework for the design of such structures.
Secondly, ecological networks can bridge the paradox between reserve conservation (fixing nature in space and time) and
development, which implies change. This is because ecological networks can change structure without losing their conservation
potential. Thirdly, ecological networks facilitate stakeholder decision-making on feasible biodiversity goals. They help to focus
on an effective spatial scale. We conclude that extending the ecological network concept with multifunctional indicators is a
promising step towards sustainable landscape development and stakeholder decision-making.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecological networks; Landscape planning; Stakeholder decision-making; Biodiversity; Sustainable development

1. Introduction ment (Ahern, 2002). Steiner (2000) introduces “eco-

Sustainable development is a widely accepted
strategic framework in decision-making about the
future use of land (IUCN, 1992). However, ecological
sustainability is not yet well developed in landscape
planning. The explicit inclusion of ecological princi-
ples in landscape planning is quite a recent advance-
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: paul.opdam@wur.nl (P. Opdam).
logical planning”, defined by “the use of biophysical
and socio-cultural information to suggest opportuni-
ties and constraints for decision-making about the use
of landscapes”. His handbook takes sustainability as a
basic goal for landscape development. Although it pays
considerable attention to decision-making by stake-
holders, it does not provide indicators for ecological
sustainability or methods for relating ecological sus-
tainability to the interests of people and the economy in
decision-making. Some landscape planners even crit-

0169-2046/$20.00 © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015
 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
icize the rational use of such methods in landscape
planning (Steiner, 2000).
Sustainable landscape development requires that
landscape planning aims for “a condition of stability
in physical and social systems achieved by accommo-
dating the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs”
(World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment, 1987; Ahern, 2002). This implies that in
decision-making about a future landscape a bal-
ance is achieved between ecological, cultural and
economic functions (Linehan and Gross, 1998),
so that resources of prime importance to future
generations are not depleted and destroyed. We
take the landscape as a geographical unit charac-
terized by a specific pattern of ecosystem types,
formed by interaction of geographical, ecological
and human-induced forces (Forman, 1995; Steiner,
2000). Humans form and change landscapes because
of economic, social or ecological purposes (Linehan
and Gross, 1998), so we regard the landscape as the
unit of physical planning. Hence, sustainable devel-
opment of landscapes demands that: the landscape
structure supports the ecological, social and economic
processes required, so it can deliver its goods and ser-
vices to present and future generations; the landscape
can change over time without losing its key resources;
stakeholders are involved in decision-making about
landscape functions and patterns.
In this paper, we focus on ecological sustainability,
and propose a spatial concept that may be applied in
planning and designing sustainable landscapes, involv-
ing a group of local actors (usually stakeholders). We
further focus on species diversity (defined as the num-
ber of species present in persistent populations) as
a prime resource of ecosystem services (Luck et al.,
2003). Hence, the landscape system should afford con-
ditions that allow natural populations to recover in
time from environmental, political and socio-economic
perturbations. With respect to species diversity, a land-
scape is ecologically sustainable if two conditions are
fulfilled. First, the spatial pattern of the landscape
should support the ecological processes required for
resilient populations in respect of a species diver-
sity target and the spatial scale that is ecologically
relevant to that target. Second, the changes that are
associated with landscape development in the spa-
tial pattern of the landscape do not push the long-
323
term persistence probability of the target populations
to an unacceptably low level. Thus, with respect to
species diversity, sustainable development of land-
scapes should comply with these two conditions. A
third condition is related to the transfer of knowledge:
local and regional actors deciding about landscape and
land use changes should be able to apply these condi-
tions in a complex planning and design process, even
in the absence of expert knowledge about ecological
processes.
The first condition is often poorly considered in
landscape planning. One reason for this can be that tar-
gets for species diversity are not specified (Treu et al.,
2000; Nakamura and Short, 2001; Jim and Chen, 2003).
Admittedly, an unsolved problem is how much species
diversity of what kind we need in which regions to fulfil
the requirement that the services delivered by biodi-
versity are maintained for future generations. Solving
this problem is well beyond the scope of this paper,
and we have to take a regionally defined conservation
aim as a starting point of planning. Thus, an ecologi-
cally sustainable landscape provides the conditions for
the long-term maintenance of that biodiversity aim. A
key factor for that purpose, the spatial cohesion of the
network of ecosystems (Opdam, 2002; Opdam et al.,
2003) is often neglected (as in Steiner, 2000; Bergen
Jensen et al., 2000; Tress and Tress, 2003). One of the
reasons for this is the knowledge gap between ecology
and planning (Opdam et al., 2002a). Therefore, we need
a spatial concept that is flexible with respect to spatial
scale, which is suited to link ecological sustainability
to landscape pattern on the right spatial scale.
The second condition is that landscapes can change
without deteriorating the conditions for target species.
Almost by definition, humans physically adapt land-
scapes to serve future purposes. Such changes may be
local (for example, at the level of a farm) or regional
(a land amelioration plan or the construction of a high-
way). So, “it is not the steady state that we seek, when
trying to manage for sustainability, but rather a sus-
tainable trajectory for our ecosystems and landscapes”
(Haines-Young, 2000). In other words, local extinction
of species can be acceptable as long as the population
at the regional level persists. A strategy could be to
spread the risk of such uncoordinated local changes
over a wider regional scale, by linking local sites in a
larger coherent ensemble of sites (Opdam et al., 1995).
Therefore, we need a spatial concept that can bridge the
324 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
paradox between site conservation and spatial change
by spreading the risk of a local change across the
landscape.
The third condition for sustainable landscape devel-
opment is that land managers, policy makers and
other stakeholders are involved in decision-making
(Buchecker et al., 2003). Applied to biodiversity, this
means that stakeholders are involved in defining the
species diversity goal and in finding an appropriate
landscape design for it. There are various reasons for
that. They will only end up with a sustainable design
if physical conditions are (or can be made) appropriate
for the defined species diversity aim, and achievable
and acceptable in the regional context. Local actors
have valuable knowledge about the biophysical and
social constraints and opportunities to change a land-
scape within the boundaries of ecological sustainabil-
ity. However, the level of species diversity that can
be sustained by a landscape very much depends on
the total area and quality of ecosystems and its con-
figuration across a region (Opdam et al., 2003). The
more species to be sustained by the landscape, the
larger the network of ecosystems and the more coher-
ent this network should be, and consequently, the more
money will be required. This linkage between species
diversity and landscape is established by complex eco-
logical relations, which are not understood by most,
if not all, actors in the planning process. Therefore,
planning a sustainable landscape starts with a deci-
sion for a feasible “ambition level” of conservation.
The term ‘ambition level’ is based on the assump-
tion that the more species are included in the target,
the more area of semi-natural ecosystems is required,
and hence more money and space. Thus far, we simply
assumed stakeholder decision-making to be based on a
logical, systematic use of ecological knowledge. How-
ever, forces beyond the planning rationale (Linehan and
Gross, 1998; Von Haaren, 2002) inevitably affect the
planning of landscapes, particularly when the views of
local stakeholders (for example, conservation groups,
farmers) weigh heavily in decision-making.
Therefore, we need a spatial concept that facilitates
communication and negotiation among stakeholders
about feasible aims and efforts, and at the same time
allows emotional preferences to be integrated with sci-
entific ecological reasoning. This can be achieved by
generating several ecologically sustainable options dif-
fering in spatial configuration. We agree with Haines-
Young (2000) that a key feature of this landscape plan-
ning approach is that “it recognizes that in any situation
there is no single sustainable state, but a whole set of
landscapes that are more or less sustainable”. Hence,
our spatial concept should allow “alternative sustain-
able states”.
In this paper, we show that the ecological network
concept complies with all of these requirements. We
will show that ecological networks are: indispensable
to acquire ecological sustainability, compared to plan-
ning based on land suitability alone; allow landscape
change without losing the conservation potential for
the conservation target; allow stakeholders to negoti-
ate about the area and configuration of the ecosystems
network in the planning area, the use of the network
for other functions and the land use in the surround-
ing landscape, while maintaining a realistic ‘ambition
level’ for conservation.
2. Defining ecological networks
We define ecological networks as a set of ecosys-
tems of one type, linked into a spatially coherent system
through flows of organisms, and interacting with the
landscape matrix in which it is embedded. Hence, the
ecological (or ecosystem) network is a multi-species
concept, linking ecosystems, whereas the term habi-
tat network as defined by Hobbs (2002) and Opdam
(2002) refers to the habitat of a single species. Note
that a landscape usually contains several ecosystem
types and, in consequence, several types of ecosystem
networks. The term does not refer to the function of
the network. Related terms like reserve or conservation
network focus on the function of species diversity pro-
tection. An ecological network may be single purpose
(Jongman, 1995) as well as multipurpose, but its name
emphasizes that the network coherence is based on eco-
logical processes. Greenways (Ahern, 2002) are linear
landscape structures for multipurpose use, including
nature conservation and aesthetics, and recreational
and cultural purposes, but exclusively contain linear
elements.
A key feature of ecological networks is that they
can have different configurations and still serve the
same goal. This is due to the variation in four physical
features of ecological networks: total network area,
quality, network density and permeability of the
 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
matrix (Opdam et al., 2003). Together, these features
constitute the spatial cohesion of the landscape.
Opdam et al. (2003) argued that this parameter is
a useful indicator for the ecological sustainability
of landscapes to species. In planning, these four
features can be used as four spatial strategies to design
ecologically sustainable landscapes.
Another key feature is that ecological networks can
be delineated at any spatial scale. Species differ with
respect to the spatial dimensions of their networks (Vos
et al., 2001). For small species, sustainable ecosys-
tem networks have a local to regional spatial scale.
Larger species need ecological networks on larger spa-
tial scales, which may encompass different countries.
Also, disturbances are scale dependent, with resilience
to climate change demanding cohesion on the biogeo-
graphical scale (Opdam and Wascher, 2004). In the next
three sections, we discuss the arguments for applying
ecological networks in sustainable landscape planning.
3. Ecological networks and sustainable
conditions
Every ecology textbook teaches that populations
fluctuate due to a wide range of intra- and interspecific
causes in interaction with variable weather conditions.
A population in a local area should be large enough to
be resilient to such perturbations. This means that at
the lowest density the local population should be large
enough not to go extinct by pure chance. It also requires
that the population can recover (that the growth rate
is high enough) before the next perturbation occurs, a
relationship also subject to a great deal of chance. Pop-
ulations have a critical minimum size, below which
random demographic processes may cause extinction
(Shaffer, 1981). The minimum viable population size
varies among species, and so does the minimum area
of an ecosystem (Vos et al., 2001). In many landscapes
with intensive human exploitation, the degree of frag-
mentation of natural ecosystems has developed to such
a degree, that local areas can not support viable popu-
lations of most of the species (Saunders et al., 1991;
Kinnaird et al., 2002; Myers, 2003). Opdam et al.
(1995) proposed a solution to this fragmentation prob-
lem based on considering the set of local populations
to form a network. Metapopulation ecology states that
the long-term persistence of such network populations
325
Fig. 1. Ecological networks may be ecologically unsustainable at
the local level, but sustainable at the regional (network) level. This is
depicted by the absence of a species in two local sites of a network
encompassing five sites. Two of these are suitable, but were deserted
for some local reason. The local populations in the three occupied
sites constitute a network of populations. The arrow indicates a recol-
onization event from one of the occupied sites. Hence, local risks are
spread over the whole landscape network. If such recolonizations are
frequent enough in comparison to local extinctions, then the network
population in the ecosystem network can be persistent.
depends on the spatial cohesion of habitat networks
in the landscape (Opdam et al., 2003). The degree of
cohesion of the habitat network determines whether
or not local extinction and recolonization rates are in
equilibrium, and whether the network allows the popu-
lation to be resilient enough to stochastic demographic
processes and environmental perturbations (Hanski,
1999). One may say that in ecological networks local
risks are spread over the whole network (Fig. 1).
An important future stress factor on a much larger
scale is climate change, which entails potentially dra-
matic effects: temperature rise, changes in precipita-
tion, extended periods of drought, increased incidence
of extreme events and invasive species. Although we
are far from predicting effects on populations of pro-
tected species on a regional scale, it is clear that the
effects are widespread among genera (Parmesan and
Yohe, 2003), that the effects of habitat fragmentation
are enforced (Warren et al., 2001). Opdam and Wascher
(2004) conclude that the large-scale ecosystem network
is a major conservation strategy to reduce the risks of
climate change.
We conclude that ecological sustainability of land-
scapes can only be achieved on the basis of large-scale
cohesive patterns of ecosystems. Can we find spatial
concepts in the planning literature that might serve as
a useful anchor for this ecological principle? Ahern
326 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
(2002) distinguishes seven spatial concepts used in
landscape planning, including a few more specific ones
in relation to urban landscapes (containment concept)
or hydrological systems (framework concept), while
others relate to some form of flexible spatial struc-
ture. Of these, we consider the ecological network and
the greenway concept useful for our purpose. Green-
ways consists of linear structures only, while ecological
networks (in contrast to greenways) are based on eco-
logical processes, and do not necessarily support func-
tions like water management, and recreation (Ahern,
1995). The segregation concept and the interdigitation
concept can be added as special cases of the ecologi-
cal network, referring to buffer zones around patches
and border zones with the landscape matrix. Ecolog-
ical planning merely based on abiotic suitability for
land use types only (Steiner, 2000) is not adequate,
because it focuses primarily on vertical relations in
the landscape. Therefore, we propose that for planning
multifunctional landscapes, ecological networks are an
effective basis for ecological sustainability.
4. Ecological network dynamics
Sustainable designs, driven by conservation inter-
ests, often ignore the needs for an adaptive form of
landscape development that is compatible with the
landscape flexibility required by economic enterprise.
Holling (2000) highlights the paradox of sustainable
development: that change is essential, and yet stability
is necessary. As a solution, he proposes distinguish-
ing slow and fast moving adaptive cycles of growth,
accumulation, restructuring and renewal. He defines
sustainability as the capacity to create, test and maintain
adaptive capability, while development is the process
of creating testing and maintaining opportunity. We
argue that for species diversity the ecological network
is a spatial structure that accommodates these insepara-
ble dimensions of sustainable landscape development.
Within ecological networks, humans can create a struc-
ture, which can be changed over time without losing
the conservation potential for target populations. The
explanation is found in the nature of spatial cohesion,
a unified measure for the conservation potential of an
ecological network (Opdam et al., 2003). For a popu-
lation to be resilient, the cohesion in a planning area
should exceed a certain minimum threshold. Four struc-
tural components of the ecological network (quality,
total area and density of network and landscape perme-
ability) contribute to the cohesion. Hence, a decrease
in one component may be compensated by improving
another component. Also, a lost local element may be
replaced by developing an element elsewhere in the
network. Hence, the ecological network is spatially
flexible. By this flexible nature, ecological networks
have the potential to integrate development and con-
servation, and make conservation of species diversity
adaptive. In this way, conservation may find its place
in the sustainable development of landscapes. This is
a fundamental difference with isolated protected areas
(Bouwma et al., 2003).
We admit that there are a number of restrictions in
applying this principle effectively. Some are related
to social factors (e.g. decision-makers must accept
the ecological sustainability as a principle) or legis-
lation (ecological compensation may be compulsory,
as is the case in the habitat directive of the Euro-
pean Union). Ecologically, the flexibility of ecological
networks has four important preconditions. First, the
ecosystem quality should allow species to reproduce at
a rate that compensates death. Obviously, the develop-
ment time of the ecosystem type should be less then the
rate of disappearance due to landscape change. If not,
the cycle of network change will not be sustainable,
and the network cohesion will degenerate. Third, the
ecosystem type can be redeveloped in the right place.
This condition implies that the abiotic conditions for
the ecosystems to be developed are available or can
be created. Fourth, while changing the landscape, the
spatial cohesion must stay well above the critical level
for the most susceptible populations. If not, the popu-
lation may go extinct during the change. A solution is
to let new parts of the network develop well ahead of
the destruction of others.
Landscape development implies a change in net-
work area and configuration. The degree of allowable
change depends on the actual spatial cohesion relative
to the minimal spatial cohesion required for the
persistence of species diversity defined in the ambition
level. The relation between landscape pattern and
the persistence of populations is usually non-linear
(Fig. 2), and often critical thresholds are involved
(Andrén, 1996; Fahrig, 2001; Vos et al., 2001; Opdam
and Wiens, 2002). This means that depending on
the landscape context, a particular change may not
 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
Fig. 2. The persistence of a species in a landscape depends on
whether the network of ecosystems in which the species finds its
habitat provides enough cohesion. The relationship is non-linear,
and shows a minimal cohesion threshold. This can be used as the
bottom line for designing sustainable ecosystem networks. Different
species have different threshold values.
affect populations in one landscape configuration,
while having dramatic effects in other landscapes
(Opdam and Wiens, 2002). Changes do not always
immediately result in population extinctions. There
may be a considerable time lag between the landscape
change and an observable change in the population
(Brooks et al., 1999; Nagelkerke et al., 2002). Part of
this is attributable to the age of individuals: long living
species have longer time lags before a detrimental
effect is observed in the population, but species
with a high growth rate have shorter recovery time.
Importantly, habitat networks with large patches have
longer time lags than networks with small patches
only. An impact pushing a population across its critical
threshold in any of these types of interaction means the
extinction of the population (Saunders et al., 1991).
5. Decision-making by stakeholders
Sustainable landscape development requires a con-
tinuing decision process about landscape change, in
which ecological, social and economic requirements
are balanced, while not losing irreplaceable entities.
Hence, it entails the controlled adaptation of the land-
scape to future needs of society, and requires that all
actors in the process accept the aim of long-term persis-
tence of biodiversity. However, balancing also implies
that, for the planning region, the functions end up with
optimal, rather than with maximal conditions. Balanc-
ing implies negotiations; compromise is part of the
327
process (Kingsland, 2002). So, the planning process
should lead stakeholders through decisions about pri-
ority ecosystem types and target species, and about the
required physical conditions needed (including enough
space and connectivity in the right location). Gov-
ernmental laws and national conservation targets may
impose constraints and opportunities in setting regional
targets, whereas amounts of available space and fund-
ing, as well as support by the local stakeholders may set
limits to the conditions. We agree with Treu et al. (2000)
and von Haaren (2002) that in multi-actor decision-
making communication is a key factor for success. We
hypothesize that ecological networks: help to focus on
an ecologically relevant part of the landscape, a part
that can be pictured as a concrete structure that appeals
to the actors’ imagination of what biodiversity needs;
facilitate negotiation about feasible goals and required
area, configuration and location of ecosystems; can be
designed in alternative options with more or less equal
ecological sustainability.
Most aspects of these conjectures have not been
tested thoroughly for ecological networks, neither do
we know the conditions under which their advantages
are most effectively realized. We do not know of pub-
lished research about the role of ecological networks in
effective communication in a planning process. How-
Fig. 3. Relationship between total number of species with sustain-
able conditions in a planning area and the effort (e.g. expressed as
area or money) made to attain ecological sustainability. The curve
represents the minimal network cohesion values for different species
(or ecoprofiles). Below the curve are sustainable networks, above
the curve the non-sustainable ones. The star denotes a chosen target
for a specific planning area, which is in the non-sustainable section.
To make it sustainable, one can either lower the ambition level or
increase the effort.
328 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332

ever, Rientjes and Roumelioti (2003) undertook a sur-
vey among conservationists and policy makers in 31
European countries. They conclude that there is wide
support for the concept (in the European planning con-
text), and that it has a potential to appeal to the general
public as well as to specific stakeholder groups, because
it can be easily explained to laypeople, and made vis-
ible through maps. Von Haaren (2002) supports our
view by stating that the connection of design and eco-
logical contents helps to promote the acceptance of
landscape plans. This was confirmed by three applica-
tions of designing with ecological networks with local
stakeholders in Cheshire, UK (Van Rooij et al., 2003a),
Emilia Romagna, Italy (Van Rooij et al., 2003b) and
the Gelderse Vallei, NL (Steingrover et al., personal
communication). Stakeholders reported that the design
approach based on ecological networks helped them to
focus and made it easier to agree on common priorities.
Also, they stated that ecological criteria urged them to
make decisions and find solutions.

Fig. 4. Generating alternative solutions for network configuration adds another source of planning flexibility, allowing a solution to be chosen
that matches best with patterns for other land use functions, and with cultural or emotional preferences (from Opdam et al., 2002b). The starting
point is a region with two non-sustainable networks. Two options to achieve at least one sustainable network are given.
 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
In the Cheshire study (Van Rooij et al., 2003a), we
have developed a framework based on ecological net-
works, in which the decision for achievable aims is
linked to the potentially achievable improvement of
regional ecological networks. The basis of the approach
was a system of so-called ecoprofiles (Vos et al., 2001),
a three-dimensional matrix defined by dispersal dis-
tance, area requirement and ecosystem type. The cells
of the matrix are called ecoprofiles. Based on its eco-
logical characteristics, any real species can be put into a
cell. Combined with a diagnostic instrument providing
information about the current conditions for ecoprofiles
in the region (for example, habitat cohesion assess-
ment, Opdam et al., 2003), a planning group is guided
to a decision for one or several ecoprofiles as targets in
the design procedure (Fig. 3). If the actors are not satis-
fied about the target ecoprofiles (for example, because
a popular species is not among them), they can try to
raise the ambition level of the plan by finding more
money or local support (negotiations). The effect of
this procedure is that non-realistic aims are prevented.
Hence, negotiations between stakeholders in the plan-
ning group were facilitated by focussing on ecological
networks, and enhanced by the “hard” scientific data
on minimal distances and minimal area required for a
commonly agreed level of ambition.
Multi-actor landscape planning requires alternative
ecological design options to choose between. One does
not achieve sustainable conditions by simply offering
a rational ecologically based landscape pattern that
should be developed. The best ecological design option
is not necessarily the plan that best corresponds with the
peoples’ feelings and with other functions’ demands.
The solution to this problem is to develop a series of
alternative options that all guarantee sustainable eco-
logical conditions, from which a group of stakeholders
can choose the socially most acceptable and econom-
ically most profitable ones. It also allows decision-
makers to choose the option that best fits the existing
landscape patterns or that can be best combined with
other land use functions. Given a certain required level
of network cohesion, ecological networks are flexi-
ble in design (Fig. 4). The four structural components
(quality, total area and density of network and land-
scape permeability) can be imagined as the knobs of a
virtual cohesion generator. We can achieve the required
cohesion in the network by turning any of these knobs.
The design of these alternatives follows explicit sys-
329
tematic steps in goal setting, and makes choices trans-
parent (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Kingsland, 2002;
Van Rooij et al., 2003a,b). Producing a series of
alternatives open up the possibility to prioritize. Von
Haaren (2002) argues that prioritizing goals generates
room for negotiations and enhances cooperation among
stakeholders.
6. Discussion
We argued that ecological networks are required to
attain ecological sustainability in landscapes with little
(semi)natural ecosystem area left. In such landscapes,
sustainability for conservation cannot be achieved at
the level of local sites. Linking these sites in a cohesive
network may spread the risk of local extinction across
the landscape. We also showed that ecological net-
works might change in area, shape and location without
losing their conservation potential. Therefore, they can
build a bridge between conservation of protected sites
(which implies fixing in space and time) and the change
of land use and landscape configuration inherent in sus-
tainable development (see also Bouwma et al., 2003).
Finally, we argued that ecological networks might facil-
itate the communication among and decision-making
by actors in the planning process, more specifically
about goal setting and design optimization.
Setting priorities for species diversity conservation
in a multifunctional context requires that some parts
of the landscape be given priority to nature conser-
vation purposes. This involves a decision process in
which rational and emotional motives are mixed up,
causing opposing views and misunderstanding. The
ecological network is an imaginative spatial concept
that helps to focus on ecologically relevant structures
in the landscape and clarify arguments in priority set-
ting. Moreover, it links pattern with ecological function
and ambitions, and it might help a non-ecologically
trained decision group to design and change land-
scape structures based on an inherent relation with
ecological processes. We therefore conclude that dur-
ing target setting and design optimization, ecological
networks guide the decision-making process to stay
within the limits of ecological sustainability (minimum
thresholds) and socio-economic feasibility (maximum
ambition level of species diversity conservation). The
ecological network can be a flexible modular concept
330 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
in environmental planning (Von Haaren, 2002). The
concept is based on a sound ecological theory and a
rapidly growing amount of empirical evidence.
However, our claim is based on many assumptions,
raising a series of questions. The first concerns the plan-
ning context. To what extent is the application of the
network concept depending on the planning context
and the type of landscape of the planning area? For
example, we developed the concept assuming a sys-
tematic and (at least partly) rational chain of decisions
on aims and solutions. Our approach is developed in
countries with a spatial planning culture, in processes
where rational decision-making is part of the planning
process. We are unaware of studies throwing light on
the planning conditions under which ecological net-
works might facilitate the decision-making process.
We have not studied the applicability of the concept
with respect to various planning styles and different
paradigms. Clearly, if rational decision-making is not
part of the planning process, the method is less effec-
tive. We argue that under such conditions, ecological
sustainability will often not be achieved. In testing our
method in three cases, stakeholders said that working
with quantitative indicators enhanced their communi-
cation and made decision-making more efficient. This
was also reported by Treu et al. (2000).
Also, we developed our approach in situations in
which nature was going to gain extra area, and agri-
culture was receding. The type of landscape was in
all cases multifunctional farmland. It remains to be
tested how its presumed advantages also apply in plan-
ning situations where future ecosystem networks are
selected out of an extensive area of natural ecosystems
that is bound to be exploited by humans. Similarly,
we do not know its applicability in urban landscapes.
We agree with Williams and Araújo (2002) that such
questions should not prevent us from developing meth-
ods suitable for stakeholder involvement for use when
opportunities arise.
There is a wide support for using the ecological net-
work as a conservation strategy (Bouwma et al., 2003).
However, the concept is only appropriate in human-
dominated landscapes with a moderate to large degree
of habitat loss and fragmentation of natural ecosystems
(Opdam and Wiens, 2002). Habitat loss and fragmenta-
tion, usually parallel processes (the term fragmentation
is often used for both phenomena), may cause pop-
ulations to pass a critical level of spatial cohesion.
Whenever this happens to species that are targeted in
conservation schemes, a conservation problem has to
be solved. One option is to restore large areas of good
quality up to the point that the minimal size is attained.
This is often incompatible with ongoing land use devel-
opment. Alternatively, ecological networks offer an
effective conservation strategy.
We did not prove that our concept is better than
other spatial concepts. Inherent to promoting the
use of ecological networks is that other parts of the
landscape are lower-rated from the point of view of
conservation of species diversity. We believe that this
is inevitable in multifunctional landscapes that are
intensively used by humans. Most species depend
on the remnants of (semi)natural ecosystems, while
highly exploited landscape compartments are poor
habitat for wild populations. Alternatively, one may
prefer concepts that do not pre-focus on the more nat-
ural structures in the landscape. In theory, landscapes
are often conceptualized as complex holistic systems
(Palang et al., 2000), in which pattern and process
are neatly linked. However, we failed to find holistic
landscape concepts (Grossmann, 2000; Makhzoumi,
2000; Naveh, 2000) that can be made imaginative to
stakeholders by generating concrete spatial patterns
linked to species performance. Therefore, we promote
a bottom-up approach, rooted in reductionism, which
aggregates ecological knowledge from the individual
level, via population and metapopulation level, to the
landscape level (Opdam et al., 2002a). There is another
argument in favor of ecological networks. Ecological
networks are based on a large body of theoretical and
empirical knowledge about the dynamics of spatially
structured populations (metapopulations), as we have
discussed. We are not aware of other spatial concepts
that are as appropriate in linking spatial features of the
landscape to the population processes and persistence
probability of species in a landscape.
We assume, but have not proved, that planning
based on systematic use of ecological knowledge gen-
erates ecologically more sustainable landscapes. There
is some evidence for that: in landscapes that have
had at least 40% of their surface transformed into
urban or agricultural land, ecological planning has been
shown to improve the conditions for nature consider-
ably (Forman and Collinge, 1997; Flather et al., 2002).
We also assumed that ecological networks are
appropriate for linking ecological sustainability to eco-
 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
nomic and social sustainability of a landscape. The
current development of knowledge on ecological net-
works is not yet adequate for that. It is a future challenge
to link ecological networks with concepts and indi-
cators used in sustainable development, for example,
the idea of the natural capital (De Groot et al., 2002;
Potschin and Haines-Young, 2003). This implies the
extension of the ecological network with indicators for
costs of development and management (see Nalle et
al., 2002), recreational value (Vos et al., 2003), value
to human health, water retention and pest control in
agro-ecosystems, as well as added value for housing
and business parks. Another challenge is to determine
the added value of the use of ecological networks in
the planning process, both from the point of view of
more effective decision-making and a more sustain-
able outcome for biodiversity. In terms of Potschin and
Haines-Young (2003), the ecological network could be
used to develop an ecologically viable future based on
biophysical needs as well as on societal needs and aspi-
rations. The range of possible sustainable solutions for
a network demarcate the “room to maneuver” (Potschin
and Haines-Young, 2003). The role of networks in
linking ecological scales across landscapes, regions,
nations and continents also needs to be explored, for
example, in the context of adapting the landscape to
the effects of climate change on biodiversity (Opdam
and Wascher, 2004). These ecological scale levels are
paralleled with administrative scale levels (Jongman,
1995), and one of the main challenges will be to have
administrative units cooperate across ecological scales
(Saunders and Briggs, 2002).
References
Ahern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. In: Fabos, J.,
Ahern, J. (Eds.), Greenways: The Beginning of an International
Movement. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 131–155.
Ahern, J., 2002. Greenways as strategic landscape planning: theory
and application. Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wagenin-
gen, The Netherlands.
Andrén, H., 1996. Population responses to habitat fragmentation:
statistical power and the random sample hypothesis. Oikos 76,
235–242.
Bergen Jensen, M., Persson, B., Guldager, S., Reeh, U., Nilsson, K.,
2000. Green structure and sustainability-developing a tool for
local planning. Landscape Urban Plann. 52, 117–133.
Bouwma, I., Opdam, P., Schrevel, A., 2003. Ecological Net-
works: Linking Protected Areas with Sustainable Development.
Brochure Alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
331
Brooks, T.M., Pimm, S.L., Oyugi, J.O., 1999. Time lag between
deforestation and bird extinctions in tropical forest fragments.
Conserv. Biol. 13, 1140–1150.
Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., 2003. Participatory land-
scape development: overcoming social barriers to public involve-
ment. Landscape Urban Plann. 64, 29–46.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.J., 2002. A typology for
description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions,
goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408.
Fahrig, L., 2001. Effect of habitat fragmentation on the extinction
threshold: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 12, 346–353.
Flather, C., Bevers, M., Hof, J., 2002. Prescribing habitat lay-
outs: analysis of optimal placement for landscape planning. In:
Gutzwiller, K.J. (Ed.), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biologi-
cal Conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 428–453.
Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaics. In: The Ecology of Landscapes
and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Forman, R.T.T., Collinge, S.K., 1997. Nature conserved in changing
landscapes with and without spatial planning. Landscape Urban
Plann. 37, 129–135.
Grossmann, W.D., 2000. Realising sustainable development with
the information society—the holistic double gain-link approach.
Landscape Urban Plann. 50, 179–193.
Haines-Young, R., 2000. Sustainable development and sustainable
landscapes: defining a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Fen-
nia 178, 7–14.
Hanski, I., 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and
metapopulations in dynamic landscapes. Oikos 87, 209–219.
Hobbs, R.J., 2002. Habitat networks and biological conservation. In:
Gutzwiller, K.J. (Ed.), Applying Landscape Ecology in Biologi-
cal Conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 150–170.
Holling, C.S., 2000. Theories for sustainable futures. Conserv. Ecol.
4 (2), 7 (on line).
IUCN, 1992. The Rio Declaration on the Environment. IUCN, UNEP,
WWF, Gland.
Jim, C.Y., Chen, S.S., 2003. Comprehensive green space planning
based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city
China. Landscape Urban Plann. 65, 95–116.
Jongman, R.H.G., 1995. Nature conservation planning in Europe:
developing ecological networks. Landscape Urban Plann. 32,
163–183.
Kingsland, S., 2002. Designing nature reserves: adapting ecology to
real world problems. Endeavour 26, 9–14.
Kinnaird, M.F., Sanderson, E.W., O’Brien, T.G., Wibisono, H.T.,
Woolmer, G., 2002. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape
and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv. Biol.
17, 245–257.
Linehan, J.R., Gross, M., 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: the
social ecology of landscapes and the future of landscape plan-
ning. Landscape Urban Plann. 42, 207–224.
Luck, G.W., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P., 2003. Population diversity and
ecosystem services. TREE 18, 331–336.
Makhzoumi, J.M., 2000. Landscape ecology as a foundation for land-
scape architecture: application in Malta. Landscape Urban Plann.
50, 167–178.
Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation plan-
ning. Nature 405, 243–253.
332 P. Opdam et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (2006) 322–332
Myers, N., 2003. Conservation of biodiversity: how are we doing?
Environmentalist 23, 9–15.
Nagelkerke, C.J., Verboom, J., Van den Bosch, F., Van de Wolfshaar,
K., 2002. Time lags in metapopulation responses to landscape
change. In: Gutzwiller, K.J. (Ed.), Applying Landscape Ecol-
ogy in Biological Conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp.
330–354.
Nalle, D.J., Arthur, J.L., Montgomery, C.A., Sessions, J., 2002. Eco-
nomic and spatial impacts of an existing reserve network on
future augmentation. Environ. Model. Asses. 7, 99–105.
Nakamura, T., Short, K., 2001. Land-use planning and distribution
of threatened wildlife in a city of Japan. Landscape Urban Plann.
53, 1–15.
Naveh, Z., 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual
introduction. Landscape Urban Plann. 50, 7–26.
Opdam, P., 2002. Assessing the conservation potential of habitat
networks. In: Gutzwiller, K.J. (Ed.), Applying Landscape Ecol-
ogy in Biological Conservation. Springer Verlag, New York, pp.
381–404.
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Reijnen, R., Schotman, A., 1995. The land-
scape ecological approach in bird conservation, integrating the
metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis 137, 139–146.
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Vos, C.C., 2002a. Bridging the gap between
empirical knowledge and spatial planning in landscape ecology.
Landscape Ecology 16, 767–779.
Opdam, P., Steingrover, E., Vos, C.C., Prins, D., 2002b. Effective
Protection of the Annex IV Species Habitats Directive: the Land-
scape Approach. Alterra Report 590, Wageningen, NL.
Opdam, P., Verboom, J., Pouwels, R., 2003. Landscape cohesion: an
index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiver-
sity. Landscape Ecol. 18, 113–126.
Opdam, P., Wascher, D., 2004. Climate change meets habitat frag-
mentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale level in
research and conservation. Biol. Conserv. 117, 285–297.
Opdam, P., Wiens, J.A., 2002. Fragmentation, habitat loss and land-
scape management. In: Norris, K., Pain, D. (Eds.), Conserving
Bird Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.
202–223.
Palang, H., Mander, U., Naveh, Z., 2000. Holistic landscape ecology
in action. Landscape Urban Plann. 50, 1–6.
Parmesan, C., Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421,
37–42.
Potschin, M.B., Haines-Young, R.H., 2003. Improving the quality of
environmental assessments using the concept of natural capital:
a case study from southern Germany. Landscape Urban Plann.
63, 93–108.
Rientjes, S., Roumelioti, K., 2003. Support for Ecological Networks
in European Nature Conservbation, an Indicative Social Map.
ECNC technical report series, European Centre for Nature Con-
servation, Tilburg, NL.
Saunders, D.A., Briggs, S.V., 2002. Nature grows in straight lines-or
does she? What are the consequences of the mismatch between
human-imposed linear boundaries and ecosystem boundaries?
An Australian example. Landscape Urban Plann. 61, 71–82.
Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J., Margules, C.R., 1991. Biological con-
sequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv. Biol.
5, 18–32.
Shaffer, M.L., 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conser-
vation. BioScience 31, 131–134.
Steiner, F., 2000. The living landscape. In: An Ecological Approach
to Landscape Planning. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
Treu, M.C., Magoni, M., Steiner, F., Palazzo, D., 2000. Sustainable
landscape planning for Cremona, Italy. Landscape Urban Plann.
47, 79–98.
Tress, B., Tress, G., 2003. Scenario visualization for participatory
landscape planning-a study from Denmark. Landscape Urban
Plann. 64, 161–178.
Van Rooij, S.A.M., Steingrover, E.G., Opdam, P.F.M., 2003. Corri-
dors for Life. Scenario Development of an Ecological Network
in Cheshire County. Alterra Report 699, Wageningen, NL.
Van Rooij, S.A.M., Van der Sluis, T., Steingröver, E.G., 2003. Net-
works for LIFE. Development of an Ecological Network for
Persiceto (Emilia Romagna, Italy). Alterra Report 729, Wagenin-
gen, NL.
Von Haaren, C., 2002. Landscape planning facing the challenge of
the development of cultural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann.
60, 73–80.
Vos, C.C., Pouwels, R., Opdam, P., 2003. Recreation and biodiversity
in balance: a spatial approach. Landschap 20, 3–13 (in Dutch with
English summary).
Vos, C.C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P.F.M., ter Braak, C.J.F., 2001.
Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am. Nat. 157,
24–51.
Warren, M.S., Hill, J.K., Thomas, J.A., Asher, J.A., Fox, R., Huntley,
B., Roy, D.B., Teffer, M.G., Jeffcoate, S., Harding, P., Jeffcoate,
F., Willis, S.G., Greatorex-Davies, J.N., Moss, D., Thomas, C.D.,
2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces
of climate and habitat change. Nature 414, 65–69.
Williams, P.H., Araújo, M.B., 2002. Apples, oranges, and probabil-
ities: integrating multiple factors into biodiversity conservation
with consistency. Environ. Model. Assess. 7, 139–151.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our
Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.