Biosemiotics (2010) 3:177187 DOI 10.

1007/s12304-010-9086-9 O R I G I N A L PA P E R

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives for a Powerful Agency

Almo Farina & Brian Napoletano

Received: 24 September 2009 / Accepted: 26 October 2009 / Published online: 16 May 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

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. Keywords Landscape . Biosemiotics . Eco-field . General theory of resources . Well-being

A. Farina (*) Department of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Faculty of Sciences and Technologies, The University of Urbino, Campus Scientifico-Sogesta, 61029 Urbino, Italy e-mail: almo.farina@uniurb.it B. Napoletano Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA e-mail: bnapolet@purdue.edu

178

A. Farina, B. Napoletano

Introduction British plant ecologist Sir Arthur Tansleys (1935) revisions to the concept of the ecosystem and its relationship to individual organisms allowed it to become one of the most important paradigms with which to study the complexity of the environment and the flux of matter and nutrients (Golley 1993; Lindeman 1942; Odum 1969). Landscape ecology emerged several years later as a critical aspect of this approach that could incorporate the role of space and its perception into the ecosystem (Forman and Godron 1986; Naveh and Lieberman 1984). Landscape ecology initially evolved as a primarily geographical approach (Troll 1950), but quickly evolved into an integrative ecological approach (Nassauer 1997; Pickett and Cadenasso 1995; Risser et al. 1984) that could be used in planning, conservation, and management efforts, particularly in Europe (Forman 2008; Naveh 1990; Naveh 2000; Zonneveld 1995). Anthropologists, environmental psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to link the landscape to the social and perceptual-cognitive dimensions and have met with varying degrees of success (Bourassa 1991; Gibson 1986; Gould and White 1986; Ingold 2000; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Recently, biosemioticians have recognized that most of the processing of meaning pertains to the landscape (Farina 2008). By considering the landscape as an interface between organisms and resources (Farina and Belgrano 2004, 2005), biosemiotics was able to update von Uexklls concept of Umwelt (1982, 1992) with a more complete and descriptive understanding of an organisms perceptual and physical environment. Some politicians have also begun to recognize the landscape as a matrix where people develop a sense of community identity with shared perceptions like asthetics and values such as amenity (Barrett et al. 2009). This community identity becomes a critical component of an individuals sense of place, and often helps to establish a cultural identity. The European Landscape Convention (ELC), signed in Florence in 2000 by the European Union, is an extraordinary example of the growing political recognition of the role that the landscape plays in cultural development and the need to empower local communities to play a fundamental role in the decision process and its implementation (Priore 2009). Non-government organizations such as Uniscape and Civilscape, both products of the ELC, serve as examples of the ways in which implementation of the ELC can stimulate the involvement of local cultures and peoples. The 600 million acres of public land (40% of the national landscape) in the United States is managed by four federal management agencies, who have recently begun to make efforts to implement the sections of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that require them to include local stakeholders in the decision process (Kraft 2006). The remaining 60% of the landscape is managed primarily by municipal planning boards, which are largely driven by commercial development and tend to operate with minimal community participation. Although grassroots movements sometimes form around specific issues such as industrial livestock farming, landfill siting, and water extraction and export, no national legislation to empower communities to participate in the decision process in a manner similar to the ELC exists in the United States, nor does any such international agreement exist within the Americas (Innes and Booher 2004).

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives...

179

The fundamental mission of landscape ecology has been to understand the relationships between spatial patterns and ecological processes across explicit spatial and temporal scales (Risser et al. 1984; Turner 2005). This mission has emphasized the association of geographical attributes and features to plant and animal communities based on processes such as fragmentation, connectivity, and disturbances and on patterns such as heterogeneity, ecotones, and corridors (Collinge 2009; Hilty et al. 2006; Farina 2006). While these efforts have resulted in a large volume of literature that discusses spatial patterns and related processes, the concept of landscapes needs to be expanded to encompass the human dimensions of the system. Recently, landscape ecologists have attempted to incorporate the human cultural dimension and the natural ecological dimensions into a total human ecosystem concept (Naveh 2000), but such integration requires temporal synchronization between two asymmetrical dimensions and poses unresolved questions about metrics, application, and evaluation. This article will lay out a series of new theories, many of which were first presented at one of the authors keynote presentation in Salzburg at European IALE 2009, that approach the landscape as an active biosemiotic interface whose perceptual characteristics vary with each organism to generate a private landscape, instead of as a geographical/ ecological agency common to all species. By including the General Theory of Resources (Farina 2010) in the theoretical framework, this approach can help to reduce the traditional gap between human values and ecological processes, thereby improving the integration of human ecosystems into other ecological systems debated by Stepp et al. (2003) and recently by Liu et al. (2007).

Landscape Composition: A Multiple Agency The most widely accepted conceptualization of the landscape is as an organized space or mosaic composed of patches of different shape and size (Turner 2005; Wu and Hobbs 2002). The nature and dimensions of these patches are determined by the feature of interest in the landscape (e.g. vegetation, topology, bedrock, soil composition). The landscape mosaic becomes readily visible when we are enough distant from the terrain to perceive the figures created by geo-morphological drivers (see Fig. 1a) or by human interventions (cultivated field and urban areas) (see Fig. 1b). Generally, mosaics generated by natural processes exhibit complex figures with irregular, articulated fractal-like margins and smooth inter-patch gradients. Anthropogenic mosaics, conversely, tend to exhibit a simplified linear geometry that reduces curves and edge complexity and steeper between-patch gradients. In terms of vegetation, anthropogenic mosaics tend to exhibit more patch intra-homogeneity, less spontaneous vegetation, and less corresponding soil diversity (Krummel et al. 1987). While such mosaics may exhibit higher levels of total patch heterogeneity, they tend to exhibit lower diversity levels than their natural counterparts. In addition to its visible physical characteristics, the mosaic of a landscape can be characterized by alternate patches of structured energy, including thermal, acoustic, and electromagnetic fields. Many organisms rely on multiple forms of sensory input when they interact with their environments, making these alternate landscape parameters part of their functional landscapes. The auditory landscape of a canine,

180

A. Farina, B. Napoletano

Fig. 1 a A satellite image of Artic tundra. Morphology and climate processes drive complex shapes between soil and water. b A satellite image of a North America cropland. Simplification of geomorphological attributes and the rectilinear borders of fields create a simplified scenario in which heterogeneity is the result of the spatial rotation of crops

the tactile landscape of a mole, the electrically charged aquascape of a fish, and the electromagnetic landscape of a nocturnal migratory bird all serve as empirical instances of these sensory landscapes within which organisms function. Of the different non-visual sensory landscapes, perhaps the most information-rich at least to more higher animalsis the auditory landscape, or soundscape (a term proposed by Schafer 1977). Sound energy occurs as an additive pressure wave, so in a biologically active region the sound energy from multiple organisms simultaneously producing audible signals blends by frequency and intensity into a dynamic soundscape. Mechanical devices constructed and operated by humans also generate sound energy, and in landscapes dominated by such technologies the signals blend to form a very different soundscape. To account for the differences in spectral and temporal features in these different types of soundscapes, Krause (1987) and his colleagues began to refer to the compositions of biological signals in the soundscape as the biophony and those of anthropogenic origin as the anthrophony. A third

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives...

181

type of symphony, geophony, refers to the collection of sounds originating in geophysical activity. For many animals, the ability to extract information from and deposit the same into the biophony is critical to their life cycles (Hopp et al. 1998). Birds, one of the most commonly recognized groups of vocally active organisms, rely on the soundscape to locate mating partners, delineate territories, reduce competitive encounters, and maintain various other social interactions (Marler and Slabbekoorn 2004; West et al. 2003). Additionally, some species use the soundscape to escape predators, navigate, and locate prey (Montgomerie and Weatherhead 1997). Humans also rely heavily on the soundscape for information, and the nature of the signals present often unconsciously affects a persons emotional state. For many, a local soundscape can become a relevant characteristic of a place, and can affect whether a place is appreciated or avoided (e.g. Hedfords and Berg 2003). The non-random distribution of objects in the landscape (sensu Stonier 1990, 1996) is a manifestation of its basic information content. The shapes, sizes, colors, and other physical attributes of these objects map to cognitive assessments like form, style, and asthetics (e.g. Barrett et al. 2009). Each organism navigates its landscape and tracks its required resources based on its cognition of this information (e.g. Rothenberg 2005). The objects that compose this cognitive map vary among individual species and organisms, and the perceptual meaning of any given object depends on the dominant resource requirements in the individual. Consequently, each organism interprets the landscape in a unique cognitive context and assigns meaning accordingly (e.g. Noth 2005). This role of the landscape as a carrier of meaning allows us to redefine our interpretation of features like size, shape, and contagion as categories of signals to which organisms respond in addition to observable patterns in the landscape (Farina 2008). The Private Landscape: A Semiotic Perspective The term private landscape refers to the configuration of objects around an organism that are perceived in the context of space, time, and history (including memory, experience, culture, etc.). This perceptual context shifts the notion of landscape from the popular notion of a large-scale spatial mosaic to a more dynamic entity whose scale and configuration depends both on the organisms being considered and their immediate resource requirements. The concept of a private landscape builds on Farina and Belgranos (2004, 2005) definition of the eco-field as the spatial configuration of objects that carry meaning in the landscape associated with the fulfillment of a specific need. Each perceived configuration is the product of a cognitive function that activates whenever a resource deficiency or requirement is identified. To the extent that the general set of resource requirements remains constant within a species, eco-fields can be characterized for an entire species based on their shared requirement sets. The selection of a particular cognitive template is based primarily on the dominant resource required at a particular moment, and several templates may be selected simultaneously. The cognitive template allows the organism to identify the objects in the landscape capable of providing the required resources in the context of its spatial configuration. This process therefore relies on the biosemiotic relationship between

182

A. Farina, B. Napoletano

the organism and its environment, whereby the eco-field acts as the representamen, the resource acts as the object, and the function that links the object to the eco-field acts as the interpretant (Farina 2008; Peirce 1955).

The General Theory of Resources The General Theory of Resources (GTR) is based on the fact that, like an ecosystem, every organism requires an input of resources (in the form of matter, energy, and information) to survive and maintain itself in an autopoietic status (Maturana and Varela 1980). Once depleted, a resource requires time to regenerate, which may explain why the term itself is based on the Latin word resurgere. The resources required by an organism may be material, such as herbs, fruits, and water, or immaterial, such as recreation, myths, and safety, and they can be cryptic, scarce, abundant, or heterogeneously distributed locally. The GTR, recently proposed by Farina (2008) sub.), consists of 20 principles (see Table 1).
Table 1 20 principles of the General Theory of Resources (from Farina 2008 sub)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The resource rises again after their utilization and an affective relationship originates between the resource and the organisms that uses it. The heterogeneous distribution of resources requires accurate mechanisms to be intercepted. Often, resources appear in a cryptic shape that increase the difficulty of finding them. The emergence of regularities allows the recognition of patterns using a process of meaning. The relationship between an organism and a living resource is called semetic interaction. Well-being and Ill-being are two distinct and opposite states indicating respectively presence or absence of the resources necessary to assure the individual autopoiesis. According to the degree of indispensability resources are distinct in: necessary, optional and accessory. Many rhythms are the result of the recovering time of resources after their use. The string (needsfunctionssemiotic interfaceresources) is the sequence necessary to acquire the resources. Every resource can be found using a semiotic interface that in general has a spatial pattern (eco-field).

10. The spatial configurations may be overlapped activating different processes of meaning in space and time. 11. The spatial configurations carrier of meaning (eco-field) does not guarantee the presence of a resource but only the context in which the resource should be. 12. The availability of the resource is not the parameter sufficient to regulate the amount of resource that a species can track, but are the reciprocal interferences to determine the total level of satisfaction. 13. A resource is called direct when is localized by only one process of meaning. When two or more processes of meaning to localize a resource are requested, the resource is called indirect. 14. Every resource localized by two or more species using the same meaning mechanisms produces competition between such species. 15. Several resources have in common an originative entity, and often the use of these resources can not be done at the same time. 16. An umbrella resource is defined as a resource that when used allows the availability of other resources associated. 17. When a resource is neglected it is lost contemporarily to the semiotic interface. 18. The expansion of the human semiotic niche favors the appearance of new resources otherwise not present and it requires equal investments in matter, energy and information. 19. Some resources like the biodiversity are of difficult sizing and specific cultural tools are requested for their definition and evaluation. 20. The habitat is the entire set of environmental conditions that assure the resources necessary to sustain a species.

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives...

183

While it is alive, an organism is constantly metabolizing matter into energy and acquiring information. This implies a consistent input of resources, even in species that utilize strategies such as diapause or hibernation, which requires certain minimum conditions, including safety, necessary to sustaining the organisms life. The interface between the resource and the organism is also the linkage between the eco-field hypothesis and the GTR: each resource is distributed within a particular spatial configuration that translates into an eco-field at the semiotic interface. It is also important to note that an eco-field only provides the context in which a resource should be situated, and does not guarantee the presence of the resource itself.

The Trade-Off Hypothesis While every organism attempts to track its needed resources, competing requirements (e.g. between the need to gather food and to remain safe from predation) place substantial limits on resource utilization. Therefore, resource utilization typically consists of a balancing act between competing requirements where the utilization of one resource either depletes another or exacerbates another requirement until it supersedes the one being satisfied. For instance, Farina (unpl.) found that the frequency of visits by European robins (Erithacus rubecula) to offered food across a regular matrix of foraging platforms is regulated by a compromise with distance from shrubs that represent safe places against predation by the Eurasian Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) (see Fig. 2). The inherent trade-off involved in fulfilling a particular resource requirement is analogous to the notion of fundamental and realized niches in classical ecology.

A New Definition of Habitat The conceptualization of the landscape as the sum of all the spatial configurations that carry meaning (i.e. eco-fields) recognized by a species bases on resource requirements effectively dissolves the traditional separation between landscape and habitat. Because the landscape becomes the space in which a species locates necessary resources, the concept of landscape and habitat become functionally synonymous. Intra-specific variability, however, can reintroduce a functional separation between the two terms when the variability follows climate, vegetational, and other physical gradients. This is particularly apparent in species that are broadly distributed across such gradients. Well-Being Versus Ill-Being Landscape We define a well-being landscape as a space in which the resources required to satisfy an organisms multiple requirements are readily available. In human societies, this well-being is achieved when food, job, democracy, health care, shelters, safety, spirituality, cultural values, social values, and sense of place are available. In every human society, this well-being must be maintained through the accomplishment of

184

A. Farina, B. Napoletano

Safety eco-field Safe Frequent visits

Foraging

Unsafe

Rare visits

1 European Robin

Safety eco-field

Fig. 2 Experimental evidence of the trade-off hypothesis as strategy used by European robin (Erithacus europaeus) to track food and safety resources (Farina, unpl.)

several functions carried out in high-quality/energy contexts and according to ethical principles. The satisfaction of larger numbers of ethical needs requires more complex and higher quality landscape interfaces. When modern societies concentrate on the acquisition of a small number of abundant or artificially restricted resources, they neglect several others, bringing about ill-being, which first appears as discomfort. The complicated relationships between people, development and biodiversity are more readily understood when we adopt the paradigm of the human well-being. It is easy to demonstrate that societies foster greater levels of biodiversity when they focus on local resource utilization. While this may appear somewhat counterintuitive in light of many statements regarding the difficult relationship between humanity and its environment (Mooney et al. 2009), a more objective examination of rural regions with a long history of human habitation such as the Mediterranean demonstrates that biodiversity is strongly linked to diversity in resource utilization (Blondel and Aronson 1999; Grove and Rackham 2001). These regions offer novel perspectives and real possibilities to restore non resource oriented landscapes into resource oriented landscapes. Today, many of these traditional rural landscapes face abandonment and are imperiled by urban sprawl, biodiversity collapses and by large scale disturbances (e.g. Burchell et al. 2005; Forman 2008). The common factor in this loss of landscape wellbeing is the misuse, neglected and restricted use of critical resources. When resources

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives...

185

are ignored by a society they tend to be usurped by other resource requirements and they degrade and eventually vanish. The recent large scale wild fires in Greece, Spain, Portugal, and California are signals that people have abandoned the culture of local resources. Both land abandonment and woodland advance, coupled with a demand for urban lifestyles in rural areas, create the conditions for destructive forest fires. For instance, by abandoning rural practices and eliminating livestock (e.g. sheep and goats), humans allow shrubland to develop into dense patches of successional vegetation that are extremely fire prone (Rundel 1998).

Discussion Our thesis has been the conceptualization of landscape in terms of individual resource requirements that vary among species and cultures. These private landscapes are based on both genetically determined resource requirements (usually at the species level) and on cultural mechanisms (see also Whiten and Schaik 2007). In addition, individual physiological and cognitive needs influence individual perception and therefore ensure that each organism perceives a unique private landscape. On the other end of the conceptual chain lies the resources required to fuel the autopoietic process and sustain an organisms life. Biosemiotic mechanisms allow organisms to situate available resources within spatial configurations that carry meaning (i.e. eco-fields). A landscape is the area circumscribed and defined by these eco-fields. This framework allows us to incorporate both material and immaterial resources into the landscape by linking both categories to ecological mechanisms at the ecofield interface. In this way, an immaterial resource like the sense of place or the land identity of a local human community is represented by landmarks and traditional activities. These two elements are tangible, measurable, can be managed by local governmental actions, and can supplement economic accounting (e.g. Donovan et al. 2009). The landscape becomes the physical context resulting from genetic, cognitive and cultural interactions, and the GTR becomes a powerful conceptual tool that can assign common dimensions to material and immaterial resources. This integration raises the possibility of evaluating different actions based on their contributions to the well-being status of plants, animals, and humans, and it may represent a feasible approach to activating mechanisms of real sustainability. Improving our knowledge of local resources should encourage us to respect them. When resources are connected with others in a cascade mechanism, they provide premises that should assure that matter, energy and information are available to local human communities and that local biodiversity assemblages are maintained.

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.

186

A. Farina, B. Napoletano

Bourassa, S. C. (1991). The aesthetics of landscape. London: Belhaven Press. Burchell, R. W., Downs, A., McCann, B., & Mukherji, S. (2005). Sprawl costs. Economic impact of unchecked development. Washington: Island Press. Collinge, S. K. (2009). Ecology of fragmented landscape. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 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. Farina, A. (2006). Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Toward a science of landscape. Dordrecht: Springer. Farina, A. (2008). The landscape as a semiotic interface between organisms and resources. Biosemiotics, 1 (1), 7583. Farina, A. (2010) Ecology, Cognition and Landscape. Dordrecht: Springer. Farina, A., & Belgrano, A. (2004). The eco-field: a new paradigm for landscape ecology. Ecological Research, 19, 107110. 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. Forman, R. T. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to the visual perception. London: Erlbaum. Golley, F. (1993). A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gould, P., & White, R. (1986). Mental maps. London: Allen and Unwin. Grove, A. T., & Rackham, O. (2001). The nature of Mediterranean Europe. An ecological history. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hedfords, P., & Berg, P. G. (2003). The sounds of two landscape settings: auditory concepts for physical planning and design. Landscape Research, 28(3), 245263. Hilty, J. A., Lidicker, W. Z., Jr., & Merenlender, A. M. (2006). Corridor ecology. Washington: Island ress. Hopp, S. L., Owren, M. J., & Evans, C. S. (Eds.). (1998). Animal acoustic communication. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment. Essays in livehood, dwelling and skill. New York: Routledge. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5, 419436. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraft, M. E. (2006). Environmental policy and politics. New York: Pearson Education Inc. 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., ONeill, R. V., & Coleman, P. R. (1987). Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos, 48, 321324. Lindeman, R. L. (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23, 399428. Liu, J., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 15131516. Marler, P., & Slabbekoorn, H. (Eds.). (2004). Natures music. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel. Montgomerie, R., & Weatherhead, P. J. (1997). How robin find worms. Animal Behaviour, 54, 143 151. 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, 4654. Nassauer, J. I. (Ed.). (1997). Placing nature culture and landscape ecology. Washington: Island Press. 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, 726. Naveh, Z., & Lieberman, A. S. (1984). Landscape ecology. Theory and Application. New York: SpringerVerlag. Noth, W. (2005). Semiotics for biologists. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1, 183198. Odum, E. P. (1969). The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164, 262270. Peirce, C. S. (1955). Synechism, fallibilism, and evolution. In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce (pp. 354360). New York: Dover.

Rethinking the Landscape: New Theoretical Perspectives...

187

Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (1995). Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science, 269, 33134. Priore, R. (2009). No people no landscape. La convenzione europea del paesaggio: luci e ombre nel processo di attuazione in Italia. Milano: Franco Angeli. 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. 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. 322). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Schafer, R. M. (1977). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Rochester: Vermont, Destiny Books. 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. Stonier, T. (1990). Information and the internal structure of the universe. London: Springer-Verlag. Stonier, T. (1996). Information as a basic property of the universe. BioSystems, 38, 135140. Tansley, A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetation concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284307. Troll, C. (1950). Die geographisched Landschaft und ihre Erfoschung. Studium Generale, 3, 16381. Turner, M. G. (2005). Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 36, 319344. von Uexkll, J. 1982 (1940). The theory of meaning. Semiotica, 42(1), 2582. von Uexkll, J. 1992 (1934). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. Semiotica, 89(4), 319391. 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. 470492). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Whiten, A., & van Schaik, C. P. (2007). The evolution of animal cultures and social intelligence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 603620. Wu, J., & Hobbs, R. (2002). Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratics synthesis. Landscape Ecology, 17, 355365. Zonneveld, I. S. (1995). Landscape ecology. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing.