Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives for a Powerful Agency

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An ecological description of a landscape transcends its geographical definition to characterize it in terms of a complex agency composed of a spatial mosaic, structured energy, information and meaning. Because the dimensions of the landscape encompasses both natural and human processes, it requires a more robust set of theories that incorporate the material components and their perceptual meaning. A biosemiotic approach defines the landscape as the sum of its organisms’ eco-fields, which are spatial configurations that carry meanings connected to specific needs and related functions. In this perspective, the new postulated General Theory of Resources, offers a substantial contribution to complete the paradigmatic framework of a “private landscape” species-, individual- and function-specific. From this theory resources are considered every material (f.i. food) or immaterial elements (f.i. safety) necessary to fullfill individual needs. The habitat becomes the “private landscape” and the well-being versus the ill-being are the emergent conditions of each individual under the environmental constraints. Definitively space is the entity on which material and immaterial resources are distributed and the dimension on which individuals species are interacting by using biosemiotic mechanisms.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barrett, T. I., Farina, A., & Barrett, G. W. (2009). Aesthetic landscapes: an emergent component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology, doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9354-8.

  • Blondel, J., & Aronson, J. (1999). Biology and wildlife of the mediterranean region. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourassa, S. C. (1991). The aesthetics of landscape. London: Belhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, R. W., Downs, A., McCann, B., & Mukherji, S. (2005). Sprawl costs. Economic impact of unchecked development. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge, S. K. (2009). Ecology of fragmented landscape. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, et al. (2009). Reconciling social and biological needs in an endangered ecosystem: the Palouse as a model for bioregional planning. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 9. on line.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A. (2006). Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Toward a science of landscape. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A. (2008). The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources. Biosemiotics, 1(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A. (2010) Ecology, Cognition and Landscape. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2004). The eco-field: a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecological Research, 19, 107–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2005) The eco-field hypothesis: toward a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecology (doi:10.1007).

  • Forman, R. T. T. (2008). Urban regions. Ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambrideg: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R. T. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to the visual perception. London: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golley, F. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, P., & White, R. (1986). Mental maps. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, A. T., & Rackham, O. (2001). The nature of Mediterranean Europe. An ecological history. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedfords, P., & Berg, P. G. (2003). The sounds of two landscape settings: auditory concepts for physical planning and design. Landscape Research, 28(3), 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z., Jr., & Merenlender, A. M. (2006). Corridor ecology. Washington: Island ress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopp, S. L., Owren, M. J., & Evans, C. S. (Eds.). (1998). Animal acoustic communication. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Essays in livehood, dwelling and skill. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5, 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, M. E. (2006). Environmental policy and politics. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, B. (1987). The niche hypothesis: how animals taught us to dance and sing. Whole Earth Review 57 (winter).

  • Krummel, J. R., Gardner, R. H., Sugihara, G., O’Neill, R. V., & Coleman, P. R. (1987). Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos, 48, 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, R. L. (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23, 399–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marler, P., & Slabbekoorn, H. (Eds.). (2004). Nature’s music. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomerie, R., & Weatherhead, P. J. (1997). How robin find worms. Animal Behaviour, 54, 143–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, H., Larigauderie, A., Cesario, M., Elmquist, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lavorel, S., et al. (2009). Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer, J. I. (Ed.). (1997). Placing nature culture and landscape ecology. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, Z. (1990). Landscape ecology as a bridge between bioecology and human ecology. In H. Svobodova (Ed.), Cultural aspects of landscape. Pudoc Wageningen.

  • Naveh, Z. (2000). What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naveh, Z., & Lieberman, A. S. (1984). Landscape ecology. Theory and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noth, W. (2005). Semiotics for biologists. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1, 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odum, E. P. (1969). The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164, 262–270.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1955). Synechism, fallibilism, and evolution. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 354–360). New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (1995). Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science, 269, 331–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Priore, R. (2009). No people no landscape. La convenzione europea del paesaggio: luci e ombre nel processo di attuazione in Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risser, P. G., Karr, J. R., & Forman, R. T. T. (1984). Landscape ecology. Directions and approaches. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 2, Champaign, Illinois.

  • Rothenberg, D. (2005). Why birds sing. New York: Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundel, P. W. (1998). Landscape disturbance in Mediterranean-type ecosystems: An overview. In P. W. Rundel, G. Montenegro, & F. M. Jaksic (Eds.), Landscape disturbance and biodiversity in Mediterranean-type ecosystems (pp. 3–22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, R. M. (1977). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester: Vermont, Destiny Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepp, J. R., Jones, E. C., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Casagrande, D., & Zarger, R. K. (2003). Remarkable properties of human ecosystems. Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 11. online.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonier, T. (1990). Information and the internal structure of the universe. London: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonier, T. (1996). Information as a basic property of the universe. BioSystems, 38, 135–140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetation concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troll, C. (1950). Die geographisched Landschaft und ihre Erfoschung. Studium Generale, 3, 163–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. G. (2005). Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 36, 319–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. 1982 (1940). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 25–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Uexküll, J. 1992 (1934). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. Semiotica, 89(4), 319–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. J., King, A. P., & White, D. J. (2003). Discovering culture in birds: the role of learning and development. In F. B. M. de Waal & P. L. Tyack (Eds.), Animal social complexity: intelligence, culture and individualized societies (pp. 470–492). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiten, A., & van Schaik, C. P. (2007). The evolution of animal “cultures” and social intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 603–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., & Hobbs, R. (2002). Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratics synthesis. Landscape Ecology, 17, 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld, I. S. (1995). Landscape ecology. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences and Technologies, The University of Urbino, Campus Scientifico-Sogesta, 61029, Urbino, Italy

    Almo Farina

  2. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Brian Napoletano

Authors
  1. Almo Farina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Napoletano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Almo Farina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farina, A., Napoletano, B. Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives for a Powerful Agency. Biosemiotics 3, 177–187 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9086-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-010-9086-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation