Adrian,

You have raised a very relevant and timely question. It is probably a good idea to go back to the concept of landscape ecology: “Landscape ecology emphasizes the interactions between spatial patterns and ecological processes, that is, the causes and consequences of spatial heterogeneity in a range of scales” (Turner et al. 2001). Historically landscape ecology has focused on large-scale processes and people tend to use the term landscape scale for large-scale studies (large scale defined in ecology  large areas rather than the cartographic scale, which is the inverse and both are accepted nomenclature). Hence, people tend to use the term landscape to refer to regional, national or continental studies. However, I think it is more accurate to refer to landscape level at a particular scale. So for example, if you are looking at spatial structure of a landscape, the analysis can be done at the patch level (e.g. individual patches and their variability), class level (e.g. forest, agriculture, urban), or at the landscape level (all classes considered together). These analyses can be conducted at different spatial scales, depending on the processes involved or the species being studied. When linking animal movements and landscape structure for example, home ranges and stocking rates can be excellent proxies to identify scales at which areas of interest (i.e. landscapes) can be defined.

 I hope you find this information useful and happy to further discuss the topic. Very interesting question!

Humberto

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Landscape as “all the visible features of an area of land, often considered in terms of their aesthetic appeal”. This traditional interpretation put emphasis on the visual and aesthetic proprieties. It suggests that landscape scale is “as far as you can see”, which will vary according to the type of landscape being experienced.

The European Landscape Convention introduced a new definition of landscape: “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”

There is no single accepted definition of “landscape scale”; rather, it is a term commonly used to refer processes that covers a large spatial scale, usually addressing a range of ecosystem processes, conservation objectives and land uses. The “right scale” might need to take in account the perception of those involved, aesthetic or cultural characteristics and natural features.

Scale has two related aspects: area extent (km square) and map scale (dimensionless ratio of distance on the map/distance on the ground; distance in cm; in digital grid/raster/pixel images, the resolution on the ground (e.g. 30m, 1 km or 5 km square) could considered an element of scale; in practice the tendency is evidently, the larger the area extent, the coarser the map scale and/or the ground resolution. Digital maps can be easily stretched, making map scale a redundant concept in contemporary ecology (but not in land administration). 

Looking at the extent of my research areas (see my RG Contributions), I would say most articles represent research at landscape scale; I have also done some work at other scales, i.e. over larger areas (Kalahari in Botswana; technical report) and cross-continental (Mediterranean Spain/Australia; in prep.) as well as on the local scale (plant population; plant "community" or, in forestry: "stand").

I you find my answer useful, we can explore the issue further.

For detailed study of land scape features can be obtained from the map scale 1:50,000 is best (large scale)

for regional level 1:250,000 is best for wast areas (small scale)

Adrian,

You have raised a very relevant and timely question. It is probably a good idea to go back to the concept of landscape ecology: “Landscape ecology emphasizes the interactions between spatial patterns and ecological processes, that is, the causes and consequences of spatial heterogeneity in a range of scales” (Turner et al. 2001). Historically landscape ecology has focused on large-scale processes and people tend to use the term landscape scale for large-scale studies (large scale defined in ecology  large areas rather than the cartographic scale, which is the inverse and both are accepted nomenclature). Hence, people tend to use the term landscape to refer to regional, national or continental studies. However, I think it is more accurate to refer to landscape level at a particular scale. So for example, if you are looking at spatial structure of a landscape, the analysis can be done at the patch level (e.g. individual patches and their variability), class level (e.g. forest, agriculture, urban), or at the landscape level (all classes considered together). These analyses can be conducted at different spatial scales, depending on the processes involved or the species being studied. When linking animal movements and landscape structure for example, home ranges and stocking rates can be excellent proxies to identify scales at which areas of interest (i.e. landscapes) can be defined.

 I hope you find this information useful and happy to further discuss the topic. Very interesting question!

Humberto

If I don't misunderstand your question,  you asked about spatial extent of a landscape. The extent will depend on the organism who view the landscape. basically there is no exact number how large is a landscape. It can be 100 m2 for insect or a hundred hectars for human. A rough guidance is it should match between observed ecosystem process and organism distribution.  

Dear Adrian,

It depends on which Details you want to use -observe. As larger is the scale (eg. 1:5000)as more details can be observed and the observated area is smaller(m2) . On the contrary, as smaller is the scale (eg.1:500.000) as less details are being observed and the studied area is larger (hectares).

I hope I covered you!!!

I think that the landscape scale is dependent on the scale at which the focal species operates. For example small mammals explore the landscape in a much more finer detail than large predators. As connectivity is dependent on the dispersal ability of the species, I think that the "landscape scale" is dependent upon the home range.

I would define 'landscape scale' as that which is between local scale and regional scale. This would be the scale which would include sufficient elements of the landscape to provide ecosystem services, i.e. water catchment, a range of aspects and topography,  varied climatic conditions, sufficient species richness and ecosystem function to allow for multifunctionality of interactions, a number of habitats (e.g. woodland and grassland) and sufficient area to permit the ingress of plant species and movement of vectors and animals.

I would be interested how landscape scale could relate to community explorations. I have been working with communities to look at a social topography. I get the community to define the landscape scale for the social topography during the process of creating a participatory map.

Interesting and informative inputs, thanks to everyone.

It seems that there is not a stright rule or a specific scale value. An area with reasonable variations in the considered factors to study can be defined as a landscape unit.

Defining the landscape area is strongly depend on the study objective and zonation scheme, which is illustrated in the attached screen from some point of views.