Top

Landscape and Ecological Engineering

Published in:

19-01-2024 | Review

A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning

Authors: Hashem Dadashpoor, Leyla Ghasempour

Published in: Landscape and Ecological Engineering | Issue 2/2024

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Since its inception, land-use planning (LUP) has faced many challenges; most of these challenges have been due to the incompatibility of LUP with multi-layer situations. Lack of adaptability in planning has led to increased social conflicts and many environmental issues, especially in global southern countries. Paying attention to the context in which LUP takes place is necessary to adapt to the nonlinear land-use changes. LUP theories have formed two general processes including top-down (comprehensive planning) and bottom-up (collaborative planning) processes to influence land use. However, the processes that shape the transformations of land uses are more sophisticated than being placed in this or that theory. Land-use transformations are rooted in contextual conditions that are shaped by the mutual interactions of social structures and power relations at different spatial levels which are different for each society. This research explores the challenges of the incompatibility of LUP general processes with contextual conditions. The study reviews the compliance of contextual conditions with the LUP main elements, including cognition, decision-making process, goal setting, and policy selection. The results showed that LUP to comply with the multi-layer nature of various situations needs a continuous connection of its elements. Efficient knowledge of changing forces enables planning adaptability and flexibility. This knowledge provides the opportunity to redefine the decision-making process. This research can be the triggering point for LUP to comply with different conditions.

next article Research on the coupling coordination of land use and eco-resilience based on entropy weight method: a case study on Dianchi Lake Basin

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Land-use planning requires participation, negotiation, and a willingness to compromise to consider cultural differences; otherwise, it leads to racist and unjust decisions (Jackson 1997; Moroni 2019a, b).

The complexity of societies increases when they keep most of their rights over property control, management, or planning and have different forms of private, public, or common ownership. These societies also have stronger institutionalism. In other words, when people keep their rights over their properties and only give over some specific parts of rights, then the organization of socioeconomic structures reflects decentralization (Slaev 2016a, b). In contrast, the planning organization of simple systems is defined based on full property rights to all resources employed, that is, all resources belong to a single owner, whether a person or an entity. The goals of the activities in this system reflect the interests of this single owner. If it is a company or a club, then the goals are defined by the central body. Also, the owner of the resources predetermines the parameters of the results in detail.

Relative codes can create order in social systems and are the only way to deal with uncertainty (Moroni 2010).

A property right is a socially enforced right to select uses of an economic good and it includes the right to plan, manage, and control the use of land (Alchian and Demsetz 1973).

Aarts N, Leeuwis C (2010) Participation and power: reflections on the role of government in LUP and rural development. J Agric Educ Ext 16(2):131–145CrossRef

Adjei-Poku B (2018) Rationality and power in LUP: a conceptual view of the relationship. J Plan Lit 33(1):45–60CrossRef

Akimoto F (2009) The birth of ‘LUP American urban planning. Plan Perspect 24(4):457–483CrossRef

Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1973) The property right paradigm. J Econ Hist 33(1):16–27CrossRef

Alexander ER (1992) A transaction cost theory of planning. J Am Plan Assoc 58(2):190–200CrossRef

Alexander ER (2010) Introduction: does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how? Plan Theory 9(2):99–107CrossRef

Alexander ER, Mazza L, Moroni S (2012) Planning without plans? Nomocracy or teleocracy for social-spatial ordering. Prog Plan 77(2):37–87CrossRef

Anderson NM, Ford RM, Williams KJ (2017) Contested beliefs about land use are associated with divergent representations of a rural landscape as place. Landsc Urban Plan 157:75–89CrossRef

Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (1999) Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. World Bank Res Obs 14(1):73–98PubMedCrossRef

Barker K (2006) Barker review of LUP: final report, recommendations. The Stationery Office

Barry M (2011) Land restitution and communal property associations: the Elandskloof case. Land Use Policy 28(1):139–150CrossRef

Basu PK (2007) Political economy of land grab. Econ Polit Wkly 1281–1287

Blomley N (2017) Land use, planning, and the “difficult character of property”. Plann Theory Pract 18(3):351–364CrossRef

Bond AJ, Dockerty T, Lovett A, Riche AB, Haughton AJ, Bohan DA, Sage RB, Shield IF, Finch JW, Turner MM, Karp A (2011) Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in sustainability appraisal. Reg Stud 45(8):1157–1170CrossRef

Booth P (2009) Managing land-use change. Land Use Policy 26:S154–S159CrossRef

Bracken I (1982) Towards an analytic framework for LUP policies. Urban Stud 19(4):351–360CrossRef

Briassoulis H (2008) Land-use policy and planning, theorizing, and modeling: lost in translation, found in complexity? Environ Plann B Plan Des 35(1):16–33CrossRef

Broegaard RB, Vongvisouk T, Mertz O (2017) Contradictory land use plans and policies in Laos: tenure security and the threat of exclusion. World Dev 89:170–183CrossRef

Bruton MJ (1974) Transport planning. In: Bruton MJ (ed) The spirit and purpose of planning. Hutchinson, London, pp 169–204

Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2005) Driving forces of landscape change-current and new directions. Landsc Ecol 19(8):857–868CrossRef

Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multi-level world. Ecol Soc 11(2)

Challies E, Newig J, Lenschow A (2019) Governance for sustainability in telecoupled systems. In: Telecoupling. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 177–197

Cheshire P, Sheppard S (2002) The welfare economics of LUP. J Urban Econ 52:242–269CrossRef

Chiodelli F, Mazzolini A (2019) Inverse planning in the cracks of formal land use regulation: the bottom-up regularisation of informal settlements in Maputo, Mozambique. Plan Theory Pract 20(2):165–181CrossRef

Chorianopoulos I, Pagonis T, Koukoulas S, Drymoniti S (2010) Planning, competitiveness and sprawl in the Mediterranean city: the case of Athens. Cities 27(4):249–259CrossRef

Cinner JE, Barnes ML (2019) Social dimensions of resilience in social-ecological systems. One Earth 1(1):51–56CrossRef

Clement F, Amezaga JM (2008) Linking reforestation policies with land use change in northern Vietnam: why local factors matter. Geoforum 39(1):265–277CrossRef

Corkindale J (2007) Planning gain or missed opportunity? The Barker review of land use planning. Econ Aff 27(3):46–51CrossRef

Couclelis H (2005) “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environ Plan A 37(8):1353–1371CrossRef

Crossman ND, Bryan BA, de Groot RS, Lin YP, Minang PA (2013) Land science contributions to ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5):509–514CrossRef

Dadashpoor H, Ahani S (2019) Land tenure-related conflicts in peri-urban areas: a review. Land Use Policy 85:218–229CrossRef

Dadashpoor H, Sheydayi A (2021) Defining public interest in planning: a review. J Plan Lit 36(4):543–561CrossRef

Dawkins CJ (2000) Transaction costs and the LUP process. J Plan Lit 14(4):507–518CrossRef

de Bremond A, Ehrensperger A, Providoli I, Messerli P (2019) What role for global change research networks in enabling transformative science for global sustainability? A global land programme perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 38:95–102CrossRef

Deng FF (2003) The rebound of private zoning: property rights and local governance in urban land use. Environ Plan A 35(1):133–149CrossRef

Dietz K, Engels B (2020) Analysing land conflicts in times of global crises. Geoforum 111:208–217CrossRef

Dou Y et al (2019) Land-use changes across distant places: design of a telecoupled agent-based model. J Land Use Sci 14(3):191–209CrossRef

Ehrensperger A, de Bremond A, Providoli I, Messerli P (2019) Land system science and the 2030 agenda: exploring knowledge that supports sustainability transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 38:68–76CrossRef

Fernandes JP, Guiomar N, Gil A (2019) Identifying key factors, actors and relevant scales in landscape and conservation planning, management and decision making: promoting effective citizen involvement. J Nat Conserv 47:12–27CrossRef

Foo K, Martin D, Wool C, Polsky C (2014) Reprint of “The production of urban vacant land: relational placemaking in Boston, MA neighborhoods.” Cities 40:175–182CrossRef

Forester J (1984) Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Adm Rev 44:23–31CrossRef

Friis C, Nielsen J (2017) Land-use change in a telecoupled world: the relevance and applicability of the telecoupling framework in the case of banana plantation expansion in Laos. Ecol Soc 22(4)

Godschalk DR (2004) Land use planning challenges: coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. J Am Plann Assoc 70(1):5–13CrossRef

Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, Pullin AS, Savilaakso S, Stewart GB (2020) Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 1–8

Hananel R (2013) Planning discourse versus land discourse: the 2009–12 reforms in land-use planning policy and land policy in Israel. Int J Urban Reg Res 37(5):1611–1637CrossRef

Healey P (1986) Emerging directions for research on local LUP. Environ Plan B Plan Des 13(1):103–120CrossRef

Healey P (1992) A planner’s day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. J Am Plan Assoc 58(1):9–20CrossRef

Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan International Higher Education, LondonCrossRef

Healey P (1999) Deconstructing communicative planning theory: a reply to Tewdwr–Jones and Allmendinger. Environ Plan A 31(6):1129–1135CrossRef

Hettig E, Lay J, Sipangule K (2016) Drivers of households’ land-use decisions: a critical review of micro-level studies in tropical regions. Land 5(4):32CrossRef

Hillier J (2000) Going round the back? Complex networks and informal action in local planning processes. Environ Plan A 32(1):33–54CrossRef

Holtslag-Broekhof SM, Beunen R, Van Marwijk R, Wiskerke JSC (2014) “Let’s try to get the best out of it” understanding land transactions during land use change. Land Use Policy 41:561–570CrossRef

Holzhauer S, Brown C, Rounsevell M (2019) Modelling dynamic effects of multi-scale institutions on land use change. Reg Environ Change 19(3):733–746CrossRef

Jackson S (1997) A disturbing story: the fiction of rationality in LUP in Aboriginal Australia. Aust Plan 34(4):221–226CrossRef

Jankowski P, Czepkiewicz M, Młodkowski M, Zwoliński Z, Wójcicki M (2019) Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban LUP: a comparison of Geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 46(3):511–533CrossRef

Jensen D, Baird T, Blank G (2019) New landscapes of conflict: land-use competition at the urban–rural fringe. Landsc Res 44(4):418–429CrossRef

Kavaliauskas P (2008) A concept of sustainable development for regional LUP: Lithuanian experience. Technol Econ Dev Econ 14(1):51–63CrossRef

Klosterman RE (2017) Foundations for normative planning. In: Ethics in planning. Routledge, pp 51–69

Koontz TM (2005) We finished the plan, so now what? Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Stud J 33(3):459–481CrossRef

Köppel J (2020) For IA, a ‘place-based’towards ‘flow-based’landslide ahead. Impact Assess Project Apprais 38(2):136–140CrossRef

Kovachev A, Slaev AD, Nozharova B, Nikolov P, Petrov P (2018) Can public participation contribute to sustainable mobility? The experience of Bulgarian cities. In: Bolay JC, Maričić T, Zeković S (eds) Suport to Urban Development Process. EPFL, IAUS, Lausanne, pp 59–79

Lagopoulos AP (2018) Clarifying theoretical and applied LUP concepts. Urban Sci 2(1):17CrossRef

Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P, Rueda X, Blackman A, Börner J, Cerutti PO, Dietsch T, Jungmann L, Lamarque P, Lister J, Walker NF (2014) Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob Environ Chang 28:129–140CrossRef

Leffers D (2018) Real estate developers’ influence of land use legislation in the Toronto region: an institutionalist investigation of developers, land conflict and property law. Urban Stud 55(14):3059–3075CrossRef

Lestrelin G, Castella JC, Bourgoin J (2012) Territorialising sustainable development: the politics of LUP in Laos. J Contemp Asia 42(4):581–602CrossRef

Lippe M, Bithell M, Gotts N, Natalini D, Barbrook-Johnson P, Giupponi C, Hallier M, Hofstede GJ, Le Page C, Matthews RB, Schlüter M (2019) Using agent-based modelling to simulate social-ecological systems across scales. GeoInformatica 23(2):269–298CrossRef

Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M, DeFries R, Dietz T, Fu F, Hertel TW, Izaurralde RC, Lambin EF, Li S, Martinelli LA (2013) Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc 18(2)

Liu J et al (2018) Spillover systems in a telecoupled Anthropocene: Typology, methods, and governance for global sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 33:58–69CrossRef

Lombardo N, Wideman TJ (2018) Recentering land use: value and exclusion in relationships of property and planning. City 22(5–6):856–866CrossRef

Long H, Qu Y (2018) Land use transitions and land management: a mutual feedback perspective. Land Use Policy 74:111–120CrossRef

Lundsgaard-Hansen LM, Schneider F, Zaehringer JG, Oberlack C, Myint W, Messerli P (2018) Whose agency counts in land use decision-making in Myanmar? A comparative analysis of three cases in Tanintharyi Region. Sustainability 10(10):3823CrossRef

Ma LJ (2002) Urban transformation in China, 1949–2000: a review and research agenda. Environ plann A 34(9):1545–1569CrossRef

Magliocca NR, Rudel TK, Verburg PH, McConnell WJ, Mertz O, Gerstner K, Heinimann A, Ellis EC (2015) Synthesis in land change science: methodological patterns, challenges, and guidelines. Reg Environ Change 15(2):211–226PubMedCrossRef

Malek Ž, Verburg PH (2020) Mapping global patterns of land use decision-making. Glob Environ Chang 65:102170CrossRef

Mazza L (2010) Strategic planning and republicanism. Spatium 22:1–10CrossRef

McLoughlin JB (1969) Urban and regional planning: a systems approach. Faber and Faber, London

Moroni S (2007) Introduction: land-use, planning and the law. Plan Theory 6(2):107–111CrossRef

Moroni S (2010) Rethinking the theory and practice of land-use regulation: towards nomocracy. Plan Theory 9(2):137–155CrossRef

Moroni S (2019a) Constitutional and post-constitutional problems: reconsidering the issues of public interest, agonistic pluralism and private property in planning. Plan Theory 18(1):5–23CrossRef

Moroni S (2019b) Critically reconsidering orthodox ideas: planning as teleocratic intervention and planning as a rational decision method. Plan Theory Pract 20(3):323–338CrossRef

Moulaert F (2005) Institutional economics and planning theory: a partnership between ostriches? Plan Theory 4(1):21–32CrossRef

Munroe DK, Batistella M, Friis C, Gasparri NI, Lambin EF, Liu J, Meyfroidt P, Moran E, Nielsen JØ (2019) Governing flows in telecoupled land systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 38:53–59CrossRef

Mustafa A, Van Rompaey A, Cools M, Saadi I, Teller J (2018) Addressing the determinants of built-up expansion and densification processes at the regional scale. Urban Stud 55(15):3279–3298CrossRef

Needham B, Segeren A, Buitelaar E (2011) Institutions in theories of land markets: illustrated by the Dutch market for agricultural land. Urban Stud 48(1):161–176CrossRef

Newig J, Lenschow A, Challies E, Cotta B, Schilling-Vacaflor A (2019) What is governance in global telecoupling?. Ecol Soc 24(3)

Pacheco P (2012) Actor and frontier types in the Brazilian Amazon: assessing interactions and outcomes associated with frontier expansion. Geoforum 43(4):864–874CrossRef

Parker DC, Hessl A, Davis SC (2008) Complexity, land-use modeling, and the human dimension: fundamental challenges for mapping unknown outcome spaces. Geoforum 39(2):789–804CrossRef

Pasour EC Jr (1983) LUP: Implications of the economic calculation debate. Journal of Libertarian Studies 7(1):127–139

Puttaraju ST (2020) Strategies for LUP in democracies: an inclusive approach. In: Urbanization and regional sustainability in South Asia. Springer, Cham, pp 289–296

Qasim M, Hubacek K, Termansen M (2013) Underlying and proximate driving causes of land use change in district Swat, Pakistan. Land Use Policy 34:146–157CrossRef

Qian Z (2015) Land acquisition compensation in post-reform China: evolution, structure and challenges in Hangzhou. Land Use Policy 46:250–257CrossRef

Rantanen A, Rajaniemi J (2020) Urban planning in the post-zoning era: from hierarchy to self-organisation in the reform of the Finnish Land Use and Building Act. Environ Plan B Urban Anal City Sci 47(2):321–335CrossRef

Ratcliffe J (1981) An introduction to town and country planning, 2nd edn. Hutchinson, London

Rauws W (2017) Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning: exploring an adaptive planning approach for guiding urban transformations. DisP Plan Rev 53(1):32–45CrossRef

Seto KC, Reenberg A, Boone CG, Fragkias M, Haase D, Langanke T, Marcotullio P, Munroe DK, Olah B, Simon D (2012) Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(20):7687–7692PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Sheydayi A, Dadashpoor H (2022) The public interest-schools of thought in planning. Prog Plan 165:100647CrossRef

Sheydayi A, Dadashpoor H (2023) Conducting qualitative content analysis in urban planning research and urban studies. Habitat Int 139:102878CrossRef

Sikor T, Auld G, Bebbington AJ, Benjaminsen TA, Gentry BS, Hunsberger C, Izac AM, Margulis ME, Plieninger T, Schroeder H, Upton C (2013) Global land governance: from territory to flow?. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5):522–527CrossRef

Slaev AD (2016a) Property rights and methods of nomocratic planning. Plan Theory 15(3):274–293CrossRef

Slaev AD (2016b) Types of planning and property rights. Plan Theory 15(1):23–41CrossRef

Slaev AD (2017) The relationship between planning and the market from the perspective of property rights theory: a transaction cost analysis. Plan Theory 16(4):404–424CrossRef

Slaev AD (2018) The theory of nomocracy as a useful method of analysis and managing private, common, as well as mixed real-world property rights. Plan Theory 17(2):301–304CrossRef

Slaev AD (2020) Complex private-common property rights in institutional and planning theories. Plan Theory 19(2):193–213CrossRef

Sonter LJ, Barrett DJ, Moran CJ, Soares-Filho BS (2015) A land system science meta-analysis suggests underestimate intensive land uses in land use change dynamics. J Land Use Sci 10(2):191–204CrossRef

Steel G, van Noorloos F, Klaufus C (2017) The urban land debate in the global South: new avenues for research. Geoforum 83:133–141CrossRef

Talen E (1996) Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. J Plan Lit 10(3):248–259CrossRef

Tellman B, Magliocca NR, Turner BL, Verburg PH (2020) Understanding the role of illicit transactions in land-change dynamics. Nat Sustain 3(3):175–181CrossRef

Tewdwr-Jones M, Allmendinger P (1998) Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environ Plan A 30:1979–1989CrossRef

Tilt JH, Cerveny L (2013) Master-planned in exurbia: examining the drivers and impacts of master-planned communities at the urban fringe. Landsc Urban Plan 114:102–112CrossRef

Van Assche K, Duineveld M, Beunen R (2014) Power and contingency in planning. Environ Plan A 46(10):2385–2400CrossRef

Van Vliet J, Magliocca NR, Büchner B, Cook E, Benayas JMR, Ellis EC, Heinimann A, Keys E, Lee TM, Liu J, Mertz O (2016) Meta-studies in land use science: current coverage and prospects. Ambio 45(1):15–28PubMedCrossRef

van der Sluis T, Arts B, Kok K, Bogers M, Busck AG, Sepp K, Loupa-Ramos I, Pavlis V, Geamana N, Crouzat E (2019) Drivers of European landscape change: stakeholders’ perspectives through fuzzy cognitive mapping. Landsc Res 44(4):458–476CrossRef

van Dijk T, van der Vlist A (2015) On the interaction between landownership and regional designs for land development. Urban Stud 52(10):1899–1914CrossRef

van Oosten C, Moeliono M, Wiersum F (2018) From product to place—spatializing governance in a commodified landscape. Environ Manag 62(1):157–169CrossRef

van Straalen FM, Janssen-Jansen LB, van den Brink A (2014) Delivering planning objectives through regional-based LUP and land policy instruments: an assessment of recent experiences in the Dutch provinces. Eviron Plan C Gov Policy 32(3):567–584CrossRef

Verburg PH, Crossman N, Ellis EC, Heinimann A, Hostert P, Mertz O, Nagendra H, Sikor T, Erb KH, Golubiewski N, Grau R (2015) Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: a global land project perspective. Anthropocene 12:29–41CrossRef

Walsh D, Downe S (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs 50(2):204–211PubMedCrossRef

Wang W, van Noorloos F, Spit T (2020) Stakeholder power relations in land value capture: comparing public (China) and private (US) dominant regimes. Land Use Policy 91:104357CrossRef

Warren PS, Ryan RL, Lerman SB, Tooke KA (2011) Social and institutional factors associated with land use and forest conservation along two urban gradients in Massachusetts. Landsc Urban Plan 102(2):82–92CrossRef

Watson V (2009) Seeing from the South: refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Stud 46(11):2259–2275CrossRef

Wideman TJ, Lombardo N (2019) Geographies of land use: planning, property, and law. Geogr Compass 13(12):e12473CrossRef

Yang T, Pan H, Hewings G, Jin Y (2019) Understanding urban sub-centers with heterogeneity in agglomeration economies—where do emerging commercial establishments locate? Cities 86:25–36CrossRef

Yin J, Zhao X, Zhang W, Wang P (2020) Rural land use change driven by informal industrialization: evidence from Fengzhuang Village in China. Land 9(6):190CrossRef

Title: A review of the necessity of a multi-layer land-use planning
Authors: Hashem Dadashpoor
Leyla Ghasempour
Publication date: 19-01-2024
Publisher: Springer Japan
Published in: Landscape and Ecological Engineering / Issue 2/2024
Print ISSN: 1860-1871
Electronic ISSN: 1860-188X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-023-00584-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2024

Anthropogenic pressures and spatio-temporal dynamics of forest ecosystems in the rural and border municipality of Kasenga (DRC)

Research on the coupling coordination of land use and eco-resilience based on entropy weight method: a case study on Dianchi Lake Basin

Effects of forest damage on rainfall thresholds to initiate bedload transport in mountain watersheds, Republic of Korea

Land use characteristics affect the sub-basinal scale urban fish community identified by environmental DNA metabarcoding

Correction: Nine-year bird community development on Radovesická spoil heap: impacts of restoration approach and vegetation characteristics

Assessing the characteristics and seasonal changes of mangrove forest in Dong Rui commune, Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam based on multispectral UAV data