Ecological cartography and land-use planning: Trends and perspectives

Geoforum, Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 6942.1989 Printed in Great Britain

0

00&7185/89$3.00+0.00 1989 Pergamon Press

plc

Ecological Cartography and Land-use Planning: Trends and Perspectives

GERALD

DOMON* and MICHEL GARIl?PY,* Montreal, and ANDRE BOUCHARD,t Montreal, Canada

Canada,

Abstract: Ecological cartography has generated considerable interest. In the wake of this interest, several novel methodological approaches have been developed, but it is not obvious that these various approaches have significantly influenced the land-use planning process. In order to better understand this paradox, this paper first attempts to compare and categorize ecological-cartography approaches. On the basis of the principles according to which environmental variables are selected and of the type of treatment these variables subsequently receive, two main trends are identified and analysed: a selective-qualitative trend and a holistic-descriptive one. This paper then proceeds to look at some large-scale ecological-cartography projects which were designed for land-use planning. This analysis suggests that the interest generated by ecological cartography cannot be dissociated from the general planning context then prevailing which was centered on the macro-localization of activities. It is equally suggested that there is a tendency, in the various projects under consideration, to treat land-use planning essentially as a technical process. Their failure to sufficiently take into account the specificity of their implementation could explain the limited influence these approaches have exerted upon land-use planning. Finally, this double-edged analysis allows the authors to put forward what they see as the main issues confronting the future use of ecological cartography in planning. It is conceivable that planning will concern itself increasingly with the micro-localization and management of activities rather than with their macro-localization. The capacity of ecological cartography to answer emerging requests and the contribution of the data it generates need to be reassessed. More so, perhaps, the future usefulness of cartography for planning will be linked to the capacity of its initiators to integrate their efforts with the specific context at which the action is aimed.

(1984). These authors have proposed a number of approaches or methods. Explicitly conceived as planning tools (JURDANT etal., 1977), these approaches should ultimately help “to determine the combination of land-use activities which best accord with the properties of the natural land base, particularly in terms of productivity and stability of the ecosystems” (NORTON and WALKER, 1982). In other words, these approaches were devised to provide an ecological base to land-use planning (JURDANT et al. 1977). Despite the methodological interest raised by the various approaches proposed up to now, it is still uncertain whether they have had a significant influence on the planning of land-use designation. It seems that, even today, these approaches remain generally ignored for purposes of planning.

Introduction

Since the end of the 196Os, ecological cartography has raised much interest, witness the work of McHARG (1969) to that of BOUCHARD et al. (1985) and MOSS (1985), through the work of DANSEREAU (1976, 1985), DAVIS and HENDERSON (1976), JURDANT et al. (1977), AUSTIN and COCKS (1978), SELMAN (1982), VEILLETTE and DUCRUC (1983,1984) and HAMMOND and WALKER

* Institut QuCbec, t Institut QuCbec,

d’urbanisme, UniversitC de MontrCal, Montr&al, Canada H3C 37J. botanique, UniversitC de Montrkal, MontrCal, Canada H3C 3J7.

69

70

GeoforumNolume

20 Number

LABRADOR BAlE JAMES i

.Chibougomou

n

1.

J”“q”iere// 45

750

?b”

43

6b’

Figure 1. Ecological cartography: major projects conducted in Quebec: (1) ‘Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean’ [JURDANT et al. (1972), 24,560 km*]; (2) Montreal International Airport Area [DANSEREAU et af. (1975), 389 km’]; (3) James Bay [JURDANT et al. (1976), 350,OOkm*]; (4) ‘Contreforts de Beauport’ [BELANGER et al. (1983), 30 km’]; (5) Hibecourt and Roquemaure Counties, Abitibi [BERGERON et al. (1983), 150 km’]; (6) regional municipalities of Robert-Cliche and Desjardins [VEILLETTE and DUCRUC (1984), 1000 km*]; (7) regional municipality of Haut-Saint-Laurent [BOUCHARD et al. (1985), 1148 km*]; (8) Moyenne et Basse-C&e Nord [DUCRUC (1985), 225,000 km*]; (9) regional municipality of Bellechasse [GUILBAULTetal. (19X5), 1669 km’].

l/l989

GeoforumNolume

20 Number l/1989

What are the relationships between the numerous approaches to ecological cartography? Why has landuse planning tended to ignore these approaches? How are they to be employed in the future? These are some of the questions raised by ecological cartography 20 years after its development. This paper attempts to answer these questions. It stems from an applied research project that has been going on since 1984 and which looks at the integration into ecological cartography [see BOUCHARD et al. (1985)] of environmental dynamics and land-use planning. First the main tendencies within the approaches proposed to date will be indentified and their principal advantages and disadvantages discussed. Second, on the basis of a review of specific projects, the relationships between ecological cartography and land-use planning will be briefly described, and the difficulties encountered in the application of the former will be pointed out. Finally, on the basis of this review and in the context of present-day planning, the main issues that relate to the implementation of ecological cartography in years to come will be derived. In this paper, ecological cartography will be studied mainly from the perspective of land-use planning rather than strictly from the point of view of methodology. By ecological cartography is meant not only the mapping process as such but also the habitat surveys that underlie it and the land classifications and interpretations traditionally derived from it. Furthermore, although projects conducted in various countries will be considered, the main point of reference will be research done in Canada, more particularly in Quebec, where ecological cartography has raised much interest to date (Figure 1).

Ecological Cartography:

the Trends

Approaches to ecological cartography and classifcation: principal tendencies

The approaches adopted by the authors mentioned in the introduction share several common points, particularly with regard to the importance granted to the biophysical environment in land-use planning and the central role played by experts in the interpretation of habitat characteristics (MCALLISTER, 1980). Beyond these similarities, the various approaches may be classified on the basis of two main factors: the selection of environmental variables and the processing of data related to these variables. The combination of these factors leads to the suggestion of two

71

principal tendencies which will be called selectivequalitative and holistic-descriptive (Table 1). Within the selective-qualitative tendency, variables are usually selected according to the nature of the project; in other words, only the variables specifically affected by the project are taken into consideration. Moreover, little importance is placed on the description of habitats; instead, the variables selected are either briefly described, most often in a qualitative manner, or directly qualified in relation to the project. This position is well summarized by SELMAN (1982), “the first stage of an ecological evaluation should ideally, although not absolutely essentially, comprise an habitat survey”. When done, however, these surveys are conducted within a single discipline or multidisciplinary frameworks such as those defined by BASTED0 and THEBERGE (1983) and BELANGER et al. (1983). The work of McHARG (1969), SELMAN (1982) and TARLET (1984) is notably representative of the selective-qualitative tendency. Within the holistic-descriptive tendency, variables selected do not depend on the nature of a given project but rather on a theoretical framework related to the ecosystem concept. This explains why these approaches have been categorized as ‘ecological’ and, more recently, as ‘ecosystematic’ (BELANGER, 1981; BOUCHARD et al., 1985; DANSEREAU, 1985). Paradoxically, holistic-descriptive approaches can be characterized by their search for comprehensiveness even though they stem mainly from a project conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial and Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia, with the objective of rapidly mapping vast territories at the reconnaissance phase (MABBUTT, 1968; AUSTIN and BASINSKI, 1978; DAVIDSON, 1980). As shown by the work of HILLS et al. (1970), DANSEREAU (1976)) JURDANT et al. (1977) and BOUCHARD et al. (1985) among others, the postulate of the holistic-descriptive tendency seems to be that, before land-use planning takes place, every aspect of all active variables of the ecosystem must be known on a given scale of perception. Consequently, the knowledge and description of habitats from a multidisciplinary point of view are of great importance (BASTED0 and THEBERGE, 1983; BELANGER et al. 1983). Table 1 shows various examples of research that fall within this tendency. The two tendencies presented here must be considered as typical examples that will help one to understand and identify the various approaches. In

Holisticdescriptive

Selectivedescriptive

Selectivequalitative

Tendency

According to a certain concept of ecosystems

According to the considered project or action

Selection of variables

Processing of variables

Variables most often described quantitatively and interpreted in relation to the considered project or action

(1982) (1984)

(1984)

er ul. (19X3)

(1978)

MOSS (1985)

BOUCHARD~IUI.

(1985)

PARCS CANADA (1980) BERGERON et ul. (1983) VEILLETTE and DUCRUC 1984); GUILBAULTerul.

BELANGER

and COCKS

(1983. (19%)

DANSEREAUeral. (1975); DANSEREAU (1976) DAVIS and HENDERSON (1976) AUSTIN

(1970)

in land-use

HILLS et al. (1970) JURDANT er al. (1972, 1976.1977): DUCRUC (19X5)

JACOBS (1970,197l) GILIOMEE (1977) HAMMOND and WALKER

SELMAN TARLET

CANADA LAND INVENTORY DAVIDSON (1976)

(1969)

Authors

of the main tendencies

McHARG

and characteristics

Variables usually directly qualified in relation to the considered project or action

Characteristics

Table 1. Identification

Type of area

cartography

Rural area of Southern Ontario (Simcoe Region) Rural and wildland areas of Quebec (James Bay. Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, Moyenne et Basse Cote Nord) Predominantly agricultural rural area of Quebec (Montreal International Airport area) Wildland area of the American Mid-West (Monti Lasal National Forest) Rural and coastal areas of Southern Australia (south coast of New South Wales) Urban-peripheral forestry area (Contreforts de Beauport, Quebec) Canadian National Parks (Terra Nova. Auxuittuq) Forested areas of North-West Quebec (Abitibi) Predominantly agricultural and forestry rural areas of Quebec (regional municipalities of the districts of Bellechasse, Robert-Cliche and Desjardins) Predominantly agricultural rural areas in Quebec (regional municipality of the Haut St-Laurent district) Ecological regions and zones of Southern Ontario and Manitoba

Urban fringe in Nova Scotia (Halifax) Urban fringe in South Africa (Cape Town) Urban-peripheral area in South Africa (Northern Lebow)

Mostly urban-peripheral areas of Northeastern U.S.A. (Philadelphia Metropolitan Region, Valleys of Baltimore County, etc.) Settled area of Canada Predominantly agricultural rural area of Northeastern Scotland Rural area of Great Britain Mostly areas in the process of urbanization in Southern France

Examples

ecological

GeoforumNolume

20 Number l/1989

practice, selective-descriptive approaches may also be found, where the variables identified in relation to the project, are described quantitatively and put together to form a data base (Table 1). Naturally, this classification may be refined according to needs. For if within various holistic-descrfptive example, approaches the ideas of energy flow or productivity seem central, a distinction may be made as to whether the approaches are directly or indirectly focused on these ideas.

A first obstacle to using ecological cartography and cf~si~catio~ in land-use pfanning

Whatever the tendency, the first obstacle to the utilization of ecological cartography and classification in land-use planning is to correctly characterize the various habitats with regards to whatever actions and events are being considered. That is the role of indicators in conjunction

with interpretation keys.

Indicators play a crucial role. Indeed, the usefulness of the data collected and the accuracy of the interpretation depend on them. Moreover, the clarity and reliability of indicators and interpretation keys largely control the intensity of the black-box effect and the degree of freedom left to the expert, two points on which this type of analysis has been criticized [see, among others, NICHOLS and HYMAN (1980) and MCALLISTER (1980)]. In fact, a number of authors have noted important deficiencies in this respect. For example, analysts of approaches that favour the environmental dimension have deplored the lack of guidelines in the establishment of impact assessments (NICHOLS and HYMAN, 1980; MCALLISTER, 1980) and have noted the difficulties of weighting the variables (MACDOUGAL, 1975). For their part, users have pointed out problems in validating interpretation keys (GANTCHEFF et al., 1979). FORTIN (1980), while emphasizing these problems, noted the subjectivity in the selection of variables, the difficulty in establishing categories of valid significance and the temporal instability of certain resource potentials. More recently, HAMMOND and WALKER (1984) concluded that: An important point emerging from this study is that we have very little detailed knowledge of the functions of the land as a complete ecological system. It was extremely difficult to find out what it is about that determines its capability to support various types of land use.

The experience of AUSTIN et af. (1978, p_ 82) in New

73 South Wales shows the scope of the issue. It was seen in this project that a small modification in the categories used can lead to considerable differences of interpretation: for example, a 5% difference in slope (relaxation of the slope from 10 to 15%) led to an increase of approximately 45% in the surface area of arable lands, whereas in the case of improved pastures the modification resulting from a 10% difference (relaxation from 20 to 30%) was of the order of 134%. Under such conditions, even though the ultimate responsibility of identifying indicators lies with the various experts involved (BOUCHARD et al., 198.5)) it seems essential for the planner to constantly question the technical knowledge and the accuracy of the tools upon which he relies.

The relationship between the selective-qualitative approaches

and

holistic-descriptive

In order to define the relationship between the selecapproaches, it is necessary to take into account the specific conditions surrounding their origins. From this point of view, marked differences are apparent. They seem to stem from the fields of expertise and the institutional context within which the various approaches were devised, and the biophysical characteristics of the areas for which they were developed. Consequently, most of the selective-qualitative approaches seem to come from research related to the landscape of landuse planning, and lie within the framework of special projects designed for populated areas such as the northeastern part of North America and European countries (Table 1). On the other hand, the holisticdescriptive approaches seem to come from the biophysical sciences which emphasize the description and analysis of natural habitats; they were established within governmental or university research projects addressing vast, sparsely populated areas such as Australia, Canada and the American Mid-West [see Table 1 and WERTZ and ARNOLD (1975)]. tive~~afitative and holfstic~es~riptive

Although brief, these comments help to understand better two major distinctions between the main tendencies. First, it would appear that, despite various proposals to consider more populated areas [AUSTIN et al. (1978)) BBLANGER et al. (1983) etc.], the holistic-descriptive approaches remained linked to scantly populated areas or at the very least to activities directfy dependent on resources. BASTED0 and THEBERGE (1983) have discussed this aspect at

GeoforumNolume

74 length, whereas DAVIDSON (1984), who criticized quite severely the Canadian approach to ecological cartography and classification, pointed out that such an approach: . . . seem(s) to be for broad inventory and planning in the northlands. The technique is well suited to such regions which are extensive, are virtually natural and where much use can be made of remote sensing imagery (pp. 73-74). Most likely because their development was achieved within the context of special or particular projects, the selective-qualitative approaches attach less importance to the permanency of cartography and classification than do proponents of the hufist~c~escriptive tendency, who seem to rely on the fact that: All the interest of such an ecological map resides in its permanency and the stability and immovability of its basic data, at least for the span of one human life [JURDANTetul. (1977, p. Xl)]. They focus on specific projects or activities, those arising at a specific time, whereas the holistic-descriptive approaches aim at providing a data base likely to serve a gamut of purposes within an indefinite time frame.

20 Number

l/1989

area which allows for the re-evaluation and updating of interpretations. Updating becomes mandatory when indicators are improved, and even more so when disagreements arise over the classification and weighting methods used in a study. Second, the significance of the change that occurred in the context of land-use planning over the last 15 years, at least in North America, cannot be ignored. This new context appears to grant much less importance to the small-scale land-use planning process, what in this paper is designated the macro-localization of activities and infrastructure, focussing instead on their micro-localization and management, or largescale land-use planning. Thus, the concern is no longer with the designation of vast areas for specific uses (agricultural, recreational etc.), but instead to determine how a territory already designated for a given purpose should be used in order to meet objectives, such as maximum yield or sustainable development. Consequently, questions raised will most likely be more precise and specific, and will require a more sophisticated data base. This important point will be discussed further. Given these two elements, the issue of choosing between qualitative and descriptive approaches no longer creates such an acute problem. Nevertheless, one must consider whether a descriptive approach should also be holistic.

Qualitative vs descriptive: a convergence? The interest aroused by the work of McHARG led to the publication of several analyses of sefective-qualitative Selective vs holistic. The existing holistic-descriptive approaches (BELKNAP and FURTADO, 1968; approaches seem to draw upon a certain notion of the LITTON and BODER, 1971; GOLD, 1974; Macecosystem in order to identify and arrange variables DOUGALL, 1975; FALQUE et ai., 1976; as the basis of the classi~cation and cartography. It NICHOLS and HYMAN, 1980; MCALLISTER, may prove useful to distinguish among this set of 1980). The main advantages of these approaches are approaches two main categories according to whether therefore already known; they are flexible and easy to their theories focus directly or indirectly on the apply both to natural habitats and populated areas; notions of energy flow and productivity. The they provide a global perspective of the environment approach proposed by DANSEREAU (1976, 1985) since ecological, historical and cultural aspects are illustrates clearly the first category. Written from a taken into account. Similarly, their principal disadperspective similar to that of ODUM (1971, pp. vantages are well known; their visual presentation 58--60), this approach is based on an ecosystem (McHARG’s in particular) obscures the relative pattern called by the author ‘.boule-de-fl~ches” value of indicators, which often makes results inaccu(Figure 2). This pattern is made up of *‘six trophic rate [see MacDOUGALL (1975)j; they usually rely on a cursory analysis of the habitat and they often USC levels crossed by an internal energy flow that must be maintained by external inputs and is capable of varia general ordinal scale that is not valid in surveying ous outputs” (DANSEREAU, 1985). It is one of the synthesis maps (HOPKINS, 1977) etc. These disadmost powerful tools presently available for the synopvantages are mostly of a technical nature and could be tic analysis of habitats since it graphically depicts the partly overcome,’ but two fundamental elements relative importance of each trophic level and the stand out with respect to qualitative approaches. movement of resources between these levels. HowFirst, given the magnitude of the already mentioned ever, because it refers directly to concepts such as problem of indicator reliability, it seems essential to productivity, cycle ratio or autarky, resources, prodhave available a descriptive data base on the study

GeoforumNolume

75

20 Number l/1989

In Canada, the holistic approach is often associated with the work of the Canadian Committee on Ecological Land Classification (RUBEC, 1979) and has been particularly well presented by the Department of Regional Ecological Studies (DRES) of Environment Canada (JURDANT et al., 1977). The approach taken by the DRES, which parallels that developed by the CSIRO (AUSTIN et al., 1978), was recently reviewed by BOUCHARD et al. (1985). Given that the principles behind these holistic approaches have been discussed frequently and at length (JURDANT et al., 1977; WIKEN and IRONSIDE, 1977b; DUCRUC et al., 1978; BASTED0 and THEBERGE, 1983; BOUCHARD et aZ., 1985), and since the methods involved and the resulting products have often been explained in the literature, the present discussion will be limited to highlighting their essential points in an effort to clearly identify their advantages and disadvantages. Zootrophy

CC)

Figure 2. Six trophic levels. The main energy flow rises from level I to level VI, while resource intakes at each level are indicated on the left and resource reinvestment on the right, within the sphere. Imports from other systems enter the sphere on the left while losses flow out on the right. [See DANSEREAU (1985).]

ucts and processes, one must recognize that this approach creates considerable difficulties in a landuse planning context: the planning proposals that come out of the group ‘Ecologic de la zone de l’aeroport international de Montreal’ (EZAIM) (MARSAN et al., 1972; DANSEREAU et al., 1975) apparently made little use of Dansereau’s approach. It thus remains to be seen in the future if applications of this approach will be able to transcend its descriptive and perspective value to fulfill prospective and prescriptive planning demands (DANSEREAU, 1985). Holistic approaches

focusing indirectly on notions of energy flow and productivity partly try to overcome these difficulties by using a set of biophysical indicators to characterize and classify the land. ROWE (1979) and ROWE and SHEARD (1981) have already given an account of the theoretical grounds underlying this method by showing that the indicators can reflect the energy flow patterns of various habitats. Also, more recently, MOSS (1985) studied the relevance of indicators and tried to refine his maps by using data on the productivity and hydrology of habitats.

It may seem at first glance that the approach taken by the DRES simply borrows a set of methods from other fields (pedology, geomorphology etc.), but in fact, it is quite different in that it refers to two concepts: the ecosystem defined as a ‘portion of the territory which may be spatially delimited and mapped’ and the a priori integration of the elements that comprise this territory. Keeping these two concepts in mind and carefully considering factorial and interpretive maps produced by projects using this approach, some of its characteristics which are applicable to land-use planning will be pointed out. First, and this may be both its greatest strength and weakness, this approach seems to rely considerably on data as a guarantee of the quality of decision making. This characteristic is also found in other approaches in environmental planning (GARIEPY, 1982) and is perhaps most obvious in the proposal recently submitted by BOUCHARD et al. (1985); it is the main justification for the importance of the descriptive phase. The usefulness of information can hardly be doubted, but, in comparison with data provided through less detailed approaches, does it justify the associated efforts and costs? Second, the nature of variables considered to be decisive (climate, bedrock, relief, biotic factors and time) shows clearly that this approach is closely linked to sparsely populated areas or to resource-based activities (agriculture, forestry, recreation in natural habitat, etc.). Its relevance for land-use planning in

Geoforum/Volume

76 highly populated demonstrated.

areas

has

not

yet

been

Third, the reliance on ecosystem concepts and a priori integration leads to the production of a more functional division where cartographic outlines always remain the same. Therefore, through this approach, a double cartographic standardization occurs, since both the scales and the outlines of identified units are standardized. Fourth, at a much more fundamental level, these two concepts, as indicated by PARCS CANADA (1980) and BOUCHARD et al. (1985) among others, should promote a better understanding of interrelations between the components of the habitat. Concerning sampling and fundamental knowledge, much has been said about n priori integration, but its contribution to land-use planning has not been fully defined. The use or interpretation of data does not change according to whether data are produced within an ecosystematic framework or not. In any case. indicators will have to be linked to a given function, and categories of potential of contraint will have to be determined; it will be necessary to return to the basic variables (drainage, slope etc.) in order for these indicators to apply. and finally the results obtained for each indicator will have to be combined either by the overlay technique or according to the rules of logical combination (HOPKINS, 1977). Consequently, there is no evidence that this approach helps to better assess habitat dynamics or compatibility with respect to activities. Furthermore, this type of integration may introduce a serious limitation when data systems do not permit the review of each fundamental datum. In anticipation of this problem. DAVIS and HENDERSON (1976) suggested the use of basic variables quite similar to those adopted by the DRES, but without the a priori integration. More recently. BASTED0 and THEBERGE (1983) have advocated a certain “disintegration” of data.

Main Relationships between raphy and Land-use Planning

Ecological Cartog-

Examples of the utilization of ecological cartography in land-use planning are not numerous (DUCRUC. 1979; BELANGER, 1981; BOUCHARD et af., 1985). Therefore, one does not possess an expertise comparable to that in the field of impact studies, which would enable one to expound the relationships between ecological cartography and land-use planning. Inasmuch as one seeks to clarify these relation-

20 Number

l/1989

ships, one must rely mainly on the analysis of certain large cartography projects undertaken from a landuse planning perspective. Reference is made here principally to the work of McHARG (1969), JACOBS (1970, 1971), the DRES at Saguenay-LacSt-Jean (JURDANT et al., 1972) and James Bay (JURDANT et al., 1976, 1977): the EZAIM team (DANSEREAU et al., 1975; DANSEREAU, 1976) and the CSIRO project in New South Wales.’ The spin-off from most of these studies3 are yet to be analysed, although in most cases and sometimes according to the project directors,” they did not seem to have modified substantially the land designation classification process. It is to be noted that, for studies conducted in Quebec, there has been a “divorce between the ecological research and the designation and planning processes” (BOUCHARD &al., 1985). A preliminary assessment of the above-mentioned projects should help bring to light the relationships between ecological cartography and land-use planning and should lead to some explanation about the apparently limited spin-off of these studies and the restricted utilization of ecological cartography. The various converging elements of these projects prompt us to consider the relationships between ecological cartography and land-use planning from two main points of view: the general context of the projects and the characteristics of the methods employed.

The general cmtext One of the first observations is that the projects under consideration were all conducted within a rather limited period, that is between 1969 and 1978. Naturally. cartographic coverage was undertaken afterwards. In Quebec for example, certain studies were carried out, or at least undertaken since the beginning of the present decade (see Figure 1). They differ, however, from their counterparts of the 1970s in that they do not seek to integrate the various phases of the planning process or to come up with proposals concerning the designation of land uses. Rather, they are confined to describing the territory or, at best, assessing its potential with respect to specific activities. Why was research on the utilization of ecological cartography in land-use planning so popular in the period 1969-1978? What is the explanation for the apparent change of orientation in the few subsequent studies? The

answer

can only

be found

by considering

the

Geoforum/Volume

77

20 Number 111989

planning context of those years, which was closely linked to the general situation of the Western countries in the 1960s. After the economic and demographic boom of the post-war years, this context was characterized by a profound transformation of the biophysical environment (DOMON et al., 1987). Cities were sprawling to the detriment of rural activities (agriculture, forestry) and there was multiple infrastructure mega-projects (autoroutes, airports, hydroelectric powerstations), the need for recreational space was expanding, etc. In this context, the most pressing questions were asked in terms of macro-localization of activities. The point was to determine which vast areas were to be designated for various functions in such a way as to maximize positive spin-off and minimize negative impacts. In this context, ecological cartography seemed to be the ideal tool to collect and analyze the information required by the decision-making process. Such a tool was at the time all the more useful given that the pressures of development were most often felt by rural or ‘wild’ areas (i.e. the rural belt surrounding towns or the vast territories of James Bay and New South Wales). Ten years later, this context totally changed, at least in several parts of North America. Demographic growth has drastically decreased, the process of urban sprawl has slowed and there are fewer infrastructure mega-projects. In this new context, questions related to macro-localization of activities are less numerous and less pressing. Therefore, it seems that both the popularity of ecological cartography in the 1960s and 1970s and the subsequent decrease of research on its utilization in land-use planning may be attributed to the overall context of the era.

The characteristics of the methods employed

If the characteristics of the methods employed in these projects are examined, a number of converging elements will once again be found. In all cases, the process consists in describing habitats in relation to various activities, collecting a set of policies or objectives and then designating land use according to these policies and the characteristics of the habitat. It is worth noting that these land-use designations are always done in the most ‘mechanical’ or objective way possible, either by the differential weighing of values attributed to each resource (JURDANT et al., 1977) or, in the more sophisticated cases (AUSTIN

and COCKS, 1978), through puterized process.

an objective

com-

Two elements are to be considered about this type of process. The first regards the propensity to make land-use planning an essentially technical if not scientific process, which would consist of distributing activities on the bases of predetermined policies or preferences and the characteristics of the habitat. Here, the observation made by WERTZ and ARNOLD (1975) following their review of various systems of ecological cartography takes its full meaning: “The art of land-use planning is becoming a science-a science requiring accuracy of definition and clarity of understanding.” However, several authors have pointed out the difficulties that this view is likely to create in practice. SCHGN (1983) with his distinction between “problem setting” and “problem solving” showed that planning is not so much a matter of solving technical problems as of accurately defining them. In a similar perspective, FORESTER (1982) indicated that a planner could not aspire to an application of standard procedures; rather, he must constantly reformulate problems in adjusting to an ever changing context. The second element deals with the incompatibility between an essentially rational process and the process of decision-making. In this respect, the difficulties encountered within ecological cartography are somewhat similar to those of procedures dealing with environmental issues. In matters that pertain to environmental follow-up procedures, CALDWELL (1982) stated that the reticence of the American Congress: . reflects, at least in part, a belief that too much scientific knowledge could be politically unwelcome. It could make political compromise more difficult (. . .) When science has come up with the “wrong” answers to problems for which expedient solutions are sought, it has not been popular, especially not with politicians.

Planning is not only a ‘technical’ or scientific reasoning process; in trying to understand the planning done in a given place, one simply cannot ignore individuals and their preferences. Of course, approaches such as those taken by the DRES, the EZAIM team and the CSIRO are likely. to conflict with the usual decisionmaking mechanisms because their decisions about land-use planning are founded on a strict set of rules that clearly would show how land should be designated if, for example, citizens’ priorities were to be considered.

GeoforumNolume

78 Finally, these two elements emphasize the importance of taking the specific context into account. It is not sufficient to define scenarios and patterns, to evince their absolute advantage? and then to rely on the ‘good will of the various concerned parties’ for their implementation. It is important to know who these concerned parties are, to understand their motivations, and to accommodate them within the chosen scenario.

The holistic-descriptive ties

approaches:

specific dijj‘icul-

DUCRUC (1979) offered an explanation, widely agreed upon by those who contributed to the elaboration of holistic-descriptive approaches, that tells why they are seldom used in planning. He claims that it mainly stems from an “almost complete ignorance of the content of the ecological map by a large part of professional planners”. During the second half of the 197Os, this hypothesis led to an attempt at publicising holistic-descriptive approaches either through the organization of conferences (WIKEN and IRONSIDE, 1977a; RUBEC, 1979), the publication of popularizing pamphlets (ANONYMOUS, 1980) or an increase in the number of test projects. In all likelihood, ignorance still contributes to the underutilization of these approaches; however, we perceive now that this trend is perhaps linked less to the ignorance of the holistic-descriptive methods than to certain of their elements, noted by various authors: massive data base, difficulties in processing such data and distributing the information, etc. (BASTED0 and THEBERGE, 1983; DAVIDSON. 1984). Two other important factors are to be considered with respect to the utilization of holistic-descriptive approaches in land-use planning. First, as previously mentioned, they rely more on the value of detailed quantitative information than other approaches do. However, the real contribution of this type of information, by comparison with more fragmentary information where variables are chosen according to specific uses, is still to be explored. Second, these approaches were meant to produce a tool for planning, but, ironically, this tool was developed within disciplines that excluded planners. Under these circumstances, one cannot help but wonder whether the product is relevant to and adequately answers the ever changing needs of today’s planners.

20 Number

l/1989

Ecological Cartography in Future Land-use Planning: issues and Perspectives The analysis in the preceding section brings to light two major points. On the one hand, it suggests that the popularity first enjoyed by ecological cartographic research cannot be dissociated from the general context of the 1960s and 1970s. On the other hand, it emphasizes the importance of taking into account the specific context within which research is applied and, by so doing, it helps to identify the main issues related to the utilization of ecological cartography in future land-use planning.

The capacity to adequately

answer new requests

As has been seen, the development of various approaches to ecological cartography was in full swing when questions related to macro-localization of activities were particularly numerous and pressing. These approaches provided the information required to assess the compatibility of activities and habitats; they also provided a graphic representation which helped visualize the distribution and relative rarity of habitats and evaluate the rhythm of their disappearance. Given the present low demographic growth and the relative stability of the spatial distribution of activities, it seems that, in the years to come, land-use planning will be mainly linked to the management of activities rather than to their localization. As pointed out in the comparison of qualitative and descriptive approaches, in this new context there will not be a great need to designate the use of vast areas but there will be a need to identify the exact means to attain certain objectives with respect to development. For example, sustaining development and renewing opportunities for future generations are two objectives that presuppose maintaining essential ecological processes (IUCN, 1980). From this point of view, the issue will not be to identify, as in the past, lands best suited to agriculture, forestry or other uses; instead, future research will endeavour to determine how to use agricultural or forestry land in order to assure the continuance of these activities. Presumably, requests to use ecological cartography in the years to come will be more specific and will require information that is more precise. They will include such matters as determining soil susceptibility to erosion, predicting maximum harvest levels and devising methods for resource harvesting, etc. In Canada, this change of context can be perceived in a series of recent publications (COOTE, 1983; WEETMAN, 1983;

Geoforum~olume ANONYMOUS, 1986).

79

20 Number 111989 1984, 1985; DUMANSKI

et al.,

Consequently, the use of ecological cartography in the future seems to be closely related to its ability to adequately answer requests emerging from the ‘new’ planning context. In this regard, holistic-descriptive approaches, which seemed overdetailed in a macrolocalization-orientated context, might be favoured in a management-oriented context.

The true contributive of reformation ecologicui cartography

resulting from

The spatial distribution of activities is likely to remain relatively stable; therefore, requests for information are not likely to derive from projects involving the localization of activities or equipment in ‘natural’ habitats. Most probably, these requests will come from intervention projects on lands already allocated to definite uses. In this respect, the knowledge that residents and users have about these lands cannot be, at least a priori, ignored. Indeed, users are likely to know the characteristics of the area where the intervention is to take place; such knowledge could be put to good use. ACRES (1984) has shown that, even in so-called underdeveloped or undereducated countries, local users know their area quite well and that such empirical knowledge complements the more deductive knowledge derived from scientific analysis and survey. It seems that the contribution of ecological cartographic information can no longer be assessed merely in terms of its ability to answer certain requests; assessments must now include an accurate evaluation of information that local users add to existing data.

Taking the speciJic context of intervention into account

As shown above, the justification for research in ecological cartography is linked to its ability to answer new requests and to augment data with information supplied by local users; however, its true role in terms of land-use planning might well depend on the ability of researchers to take into account the specificcontext of intervention. A review of projects implemented in the 1970s shows that it is not sufficient to identify land-use or land-management patterns and then rely on the good will of the parties involved to ensure implementation. These projects bring to light the necessity to know who the involved parties are and to

understand their motives in order to identify the uses and management methods that are most likely to be implemented considering environmental social characteristics. Thus, it is not enough to produce an ecological map as a basis for the identification of management methods most suitable to sustainable development. There must be a link between such studies and the environment involved; the motivations of the various parties must be understood and taken into account in the identification of programs that favour sustainable development which can actually be implemented. Obviously, addressing an issue of such considerable importance is a complex undertaking. If planning questions are to be asked in terms of management, it will be easier to confront the issue. In a context of activity localization, analysis done in the perspective of resource enhancement should be centered on the understanding of mechanisms and goals at various political levels. In a management-oriented context, the analysis must give greater consideration to the land users who are the ultimate decision makers in these matters. The studies of BOUDIER (1983), COLBY SALIBA (1985)) GRAMANN et al. (1985) and KREUTZWISER and PIETRASZKO (1986) focused directly on the attitudes and motivations of individuals; by doing so, they established the basis of a better understanding and knowledge of certain groups of users whose actions are likely to have important environmental impacts. The utilization of ecological cartography in land-use planning and resource management will be increased if research is conducted within a similar framework.

Conclusion

The review of numerous approaches to ecological cartography reveals the existence of major tendencies (selective-qualitative, selective-descriptive and holistic-descriptive) that differ in regard to the selecting and processing of variables. In retrospect, no matter what approach is considered, the popularity of ecological cartography in the 1960s and 1970s cannot be segregated from the context that prevailed at the time. When the biophysical environment was being profoundly transformed, ecological cartography provided an ideal tool for collecting and analyzing information required for the decision-making process. Some 20 years later, this context is greatly changed, at least in North America. Now, land-use planning issues are raised in terms of the

80

GeoforumrVolume

management rather than in terms of the macrolocalization of activities, and they require more specific and more sophisticated information. It would appear that in the future descriptive approaches will be favoured over qualitative approaches, but the contr~buti~~n of ecological cartography as a whole is still to be assessed. At one level, this contribution seems to depend on the ability of ecological cartography to answer new requests for information and its potential to contribute to the knowledge of areas undergoing intervention. At another level, however, the analysis of a number of projects done in the 1960s and 1970s suggests that the contribution of ecological cartography might very well depend on granting more consideration to the parties involved, more particularly to their attitudes and motivations. Up until now the efforts of ecological cartography have focused on the creation of diversified and improved approaches, but in the years to come they should be orientated towards the integration of these two dimensions within the existing approaches. Ac~nowiedgements-Thy authors are very grateful to Peter Jacobs for his comments on the manuscript. They are grateful as well to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (453-81-0181). Claudette Blanchard typed the manuscript and traced Figure 1.

Notes 1. See. for example, the computerized graphic superimposition made by HAMMOND and WALKER (1984). 2. Though, to a lesser degree, the following work can also be taken into consideration: YOUNG (1973), YOUNG and GOLDSMITH (1977), FORTIN (1980). BGLANGER (1981) and various recreational planning projects {LUFF and O’JAMAA (1979), ANONYMOUS (1979) etc.]. 3. There are few exceptions, such as the analysis of McHarg Brandywine Valley Plan done by O’RIORDAN and TURNER (1983, pp. 143-145). 4. See, for example, DANSEREAU (1976, pp. 22-23 and 266-267). 5. See O’RIORDAN and TURNER’s (1983) analysis of the Brandywine Valley Plan of McHarg.

References ACRES, B. D. (1984) Local farmer’s experience of soils combined with reconnaissance soil survey for land use planning-an example from Tanzania, Soil Survey Lund EvAluAtion,4(3),77-86.

ANONYMOUS potent& Qu$bec.

(1979) Cu~uc~~r~~f~~~e~boo-physiques et r&rkative. Part du Mont-Orford,

d’utilisation

ANONYMOUS

(1980) Invent&e

du capital-nature

abrkg6

20 Number

l/1989

de la m~t~todologie. Service des inventaires Ccologiques, Ministkre de I’Environment du Qukbec, Quebec. ANONYMOUS (1984) Nos sols dtgradks. ComitC sCnatorial permanent de l’agriculture, des p6ches et des for&s au S&at du Canada, direction des comit&s et de la 16gislation privCe, le S&at du Canada. Ottawa. ANONYMOUS (1985) Britir une for@t pour I’uvenir. La poiitique forest&e. Minis&e de 1’Energie et Ressources. Gouvernement du QuCbec, Qukbec. AUSTIN. M. P. and BASINSKI, J. J. (1978). Bio-physical survey techniques, In: Land he on the South Coast of New South Wufes, Vol. 1, pp. 24-34, M. P. Austin and K. D. Cocks (Eds). CSIRO, Melbourne. AUSTIN, M. P. and COCKS, K. D. (Eds) (1978) Land Use on the South Coust of New South Wales. CSIRO, Melbourne. AUSTIN M. P., COCKS, K. D. and BASINSKI. J. J. (197X) Application of exclusion rules, In: Lund U.se on the South Coast of New South Wales, Vol. 1, pp. 80-97, M. P. Austin and K. D. Cock (Eds). CSIRO, Melbourne. BASTEDO. J. D. and THEBERGE, J. B. (1983) An appraisal of interdiscipljnary resource surveys (ecological land classification), Lundsc. P&n., 10,317-334. BELANGER, L. (1981) Inventaire Pcologique des contreforts de Beauport: adaptation et application d'r4ne mkthode, Th&se M.Sc., UniversitC Laval, QuCbec. B&LANGER, L.. DUCRUC, J.-P. and PINEAU. M. (1983) Proposition d’une In~thodologic d’inventajrc Ccologiquc adaptke au territoire forestier p&iurbain. Naturuliste can., 110,459-476. BELKNAP, R. K. and FURTADO. J. G. (1968) Hills. Lewis, McHarg methods compared, Landsr. Archit., 58.145-147. BERGERON, Y., BOUCHARD. A.. GANGLOFF, P. and CAMIRl?, C. (1983) LA clussijication tcologique des milieux forestiers de la partie oaest des cantons d’H&bPcourt et de Roquemaure. Laboratoire d’6cologie forest&e, Etudes Ccologiques. No. 9, LJniversitC Laval, Qugbec. BOUCHARD, A., BERGERON, Y., CAMIRI?, C.. GANGLOFF, P. and GARIGPY, M. (1985) Proposition d’une mCthodologie d’inventaire et de cartographie tcologique: le cas de la M.R.C. du Haut SaintLaurent, Cah. Gkogr. &ut;b., 29(76), 79-95. BOUDIER. H. (1983) L’eF~vironnement vu par les producfears agricoles: leur perception, leurs attitudes et leurs comportements. MinistPre de 1’Environnement du QuCbec. QuCbec. CALDWELL, L. K. (1982) Science cud the Nufiorin/ environmental Policy Act. University of Alabama Press, University, AL. CANADA LAND INVENTORY (19713) The Canada Lund Inventory: Objectives, Scope arrd Organization. ReportNo. 1, Department of Reg. Econ. Exp., Ottawa. COLBY SALIBA, B. (1985) Comparative measures of effectiveness in farm-Ievel soil conservation. Soil USC? Mgmt, 1,106-109. COOTE, D. R. (1983) D&gradation des terres par suite d’une utilisation agricole intensive, In: Le.r terres du Canada: stress et impacts, pp. 246-275, W. SimpsonLewis. R. McKennie and V. Newmanis (Eds). Direction de la recherche et du dCveloppement en mat&e de politique, Direction g&&ale des terres, Environnement

Canada. Ottawa.

GeoforumNolume

81

20 Number l/1989

P. (1976) Le cadre d’une recherche Pcologique inter-disciplinaire. Les Presses de I’Univer-

DANSEREAU,

site de Montreal, Montreal. DANSEREAU, P. (1985) Essai de class~~cation et de cartographie Pcologique des espaces. Laboratoire d’ecologie forest&e, Etudes Ccologiques, No. 10, Universitt Laval, Quebec. DANSEREAU, P., CLIBBON P. B. and PARE, G. (1975) EZAIM: ecologic de la zone de l’aeroport international de Montreal-Atlas EZAIM. Les Presses de I’Universitc, Montreal. DAVIDSON, D. A. (1976) Terrain evaluation: testing a technique in Lower Deeside, Scott. geogr. Mug., 92, 108-119.

DAVIDSON, D. A. (1980) Soils and Land Use Planning. Longman, London. DAVIDSON, D. A. (1984) Recent Canadian advances in land evaluation, Soils Survey Land Evaluation, 4,71-76. DAVIS, L. S. and HENDERSON, J. A. (1976) Ecosysm: a Classification and Information System for Management of Wildland Ecosystems: the Conceptual Framework.

Department of Forestry and Outdoor Recreation through the Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT. DOMON, G., GARIBPY, M. and BOUCHARD, A. (1987) La planification Ccologique: analyse critique et mise en relation a la planification environnementale, Cah. Gtogr. Q&b., 30,21-40.

DUCRUC, J. P. (1979) Principales utilisations de l’inventaire et de la classification Ccologique du territoire au Quebec, In: Applications of Ecological (Biophysicaf) Land C~~si~cation in Canada, pp. 201-208, C. D. A. Rubec (Ed.). Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 7, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa. DUCRUC, J. P. (1985) L’inventaire du Capital-Nature de la Moyenne-et-Basse-C&e-Nord. Division des inventaires Ccologiques, Ministere de I’Environnement du Quebec, Quebec. DUCRUC J. P., GERARDIN, V. and BERUBE, D. (1978) Pour une utilisation optimale de la carte e’cologique darts le cadre d’un amenagement integre du territoire (reservoir Opinaca). Rapport ETBJ 37, Ser-

vices des etudes ecologiques, Environnement Canada, Ottawa. DUMANSKI, J., COOTE, J. R., LUCRUCK, G. and LOK, C. (1986) Soil conservation in Canada, 1. Soil Wat. Conserv., 41,204-210.

FALQUE,

M., JACOBS,

P. and MARSAN,

A. (1976)

L’evaluation des impacts des activites humaines sur l’environnement. Secretariat d’Etat a l’Environnement,

Paris. FORESTER, R. J. (1982) Understanding planning practice: an empirical practical and normative account, 1. Plann. Educ. Res., 1,59-71. N. (1980) Localisation environnementaie d’un reseau routier: une approche par systeme informatise.

FORTIN,

Centre des recherches sur les transports, Publication No. 223, Universite de Montreal, Montreal. NORMANDEAU, P. and GANTCHEFF, G., GLAUDE, P. (1979) Les applications de l’inventaire ecologique de la baie James: une appreciation des gestionnaires, In: Applications of Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification, pp. 251-261, C. D. A. Rubec (Ed.). Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 7, Lands Directorate. Environment Canada Ottawa.

GARIEPY, M. (1982) L’etude des impacts des projets, programmes et politiques et le systeme de planification, In: Prospects for Planning: Coming to Grips with New Realities, pp. 249-25’7. S. B. Wellar (Ed.). Proceedings of the 1982 National Conference of the Canadian Institute of Planners, Hull, Quebec. GILIOMEE, J. H. (1977) Ecological planning: method and evaluation, Landsc. Plann., 4,185-191. GOLD, A. J. (1974) Design with nature: a critique, J.A.I.P.,

40,284286.

GRAMANN, J. H., MARTY, I. and KURTZ, W. B. (1985) A logistic analysis of the effects of beliefs and past experience on management plans for non-industrial private forest, J. envir. Mgmt., 20,347-356. GUILBAULT, J. L., DUCRUC, J. P. and VEILLETTE, D. (1985) Le cadre ecologique de reference de la MRC de Bellechasse et ses appiications. Direction des r&serves ecologiques et des sites naturels, Minis&e de I’Environnement du Quebec, Quebec. HAMMOND, C. M. and WALKER, B. H. (1984) A procedure for land capability analysis in Southern Africa, based on computer overlay techniques, Landsc. Plann., 11,269-291.

HILLS, G.-A.* LOVE, D. V. and LACATE,

D. S. (1970)

Developing a Better Environment: Ecological Land-use Planning in Ontario. A Study of Methodology in the Development of Regional Plans. Ontario Economic

Council, Toronto. HOPKINS, L. D. (1977) Methods for generating land suitability maps: comparative evaluation, J.A.Z. P., 43, 386-400.

IUCN

World Conse~a~on Strategy: Living Conservation for Sustainable Development.

(1980)

Resource

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. JACOBS, P. (1970) Site Planning Process. I. Activity Allocation. Technical College, Halifax, Nova Scotia. JACOBS, P. (1971) Landscape development in the urban fringe. A case study of the site planning process, T. Plann. Rev., 42,342-360.

JURDANT, DIONNE,

M., BEAUBIEN, J., BELAIR, J. L., J. C. and GERADIN, V. (1972) Carte

tcologique de la region du SaguenaylLac St-Jean. Notice explicative. Vol 1: L’environnement et ses ressources: identi~cation, anaiyse et evaluation. Rapport d’informa-

tion Q-F. V-31, Centre de recherches forestibres des Laurentides, Environnement Canada, Quebec. JURDANT, M., BELAIR, J. L., GERARDIN, V. and DUCRUC, J. P. (1977) L’inventaire du capital nature. Serie de la classification Ccologique de territoire, No. 2, Ministere des Approvisionnements et Services, Ottawa. JURDANT, M., DUCRUC, J. P., GERARDIN, V. and BELAIR, J. L. (1976) La cartographic Ccologique integree du territoire de la baie de James, In: Symposium Environnement Baie-James, pp. 65-80. Societd d’energie et de developpement de la Baie-James. KREUTZWISER, R. D. and PIETRASZKO, L. J. (1986) Wetland values and protection strategy: a study of land owner attitudes in Southern Ontario, J. envir. Mgmt, 22, 1-12. LITTON, R. B., JR. and BODER, R. E. (1971) Book review of design with nature, J. A. I. P., 37,50--52. LUFF, D. 0. and O’JAMAA, P. M. (1979) The value of ecological (bio-physical) land classification in land use

82

Geoforu~~~lume an Alberta case study, In: Applications of Ecological (Bjophysicul) Lund Classification in Canada, pp. 303-317, C. D. A. Rubec (Ed.). Ecological Land planning:

20 Number 14989

RUBEC, C. D. A. (Ed.) (1979) Applications ofEcological (Biophys~cal) Land Classi$cation in Canada. Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 7, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa. SCHON, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, New York. SELMAN, P. (1982) Rural planning and biotic resource assessment, Tn Plann. Rev., 53,293-315. TARLET, J. (1984) La plan~~~a~ion~co~og~que~m~thodes et techniques. Economica, Paris. VEILLEmE. D. and DUCRUC, J. P. (1983) Cadre

Classification Series, No. 7, Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa. MacDOUGALL, E. B. (1975) The accuracy of map overlays, Landsc. Plann., 2,23-30. MABBUTT, J. A. (1968) Review of concepts of land classification, In: Land Evuiua~~orz, pp. 11-28, G. A. Stewart (Ed.). Papers of a CSIRO Symposium organized in cooperation with UNESCO, 26-31 August 1968, Macmillan, Melbourne. ~~oIog~que de rifkrence adapt& pour ~‘~laboratio~~des schkmas d’am~nagemen~ des M. R. C. Service des invenMARSAN, A., FONTAINE, C., FONTAINE, J. and taires Ccologiques, Minis&e de I’Environnement du MICHAUD, J. R. (1972) Ecologic et dtveloppement: essaie d’une mkthodologie d’inttigration. Centre de QuCbec, Quebec. recherches &ologiques de Montr@al, UniversitC de VEILLETTE, D. and DUCRUC, J. P. (1984) Un cadre Montr~aI, Montreal. Pcotogique de rkf&ence pour ~‘am~nagement du territoire MCALLISTER, D. M. (1980) Eva~uu~~unin ~~zviron~~en~a~ des rr~~~n~~~pa~~~~s r~giona~es de comk: exenlp~es des Ptanning: Assessing Environmentaf, Social, Economic M. R. C. de Desjardins et de Robert Cliche. Service des and Political Trade-offs. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. inventaires &ologiques, Minis&e de 1’Environnement du QuCbec, QuCbec. McHARG, I. (1969) Design with nature. Doubleday. Natural History Press, New York. WERTZ, W. A. and ARNOLD, J. F. (1975) Land stratifiMOSS, M. R. (1985) Land processes and land classification, cation for land-use planning, In: Forest Soils und Foresr Lana’ Management, pp. 617429. B. Bernier and C. H. J. envir. Mgmt., 20, 259-319. NICHOLS, R. and HYMAN, E. (1980) A Review and Winget (Eds). Presses de I’UniversitC Lava]. Ste-Foy, Anaiysis of Fifteen ~erhodologjes for En~liron~rlen~al Quebec. Assessment. Center for Urban and Regional Studies. WEETMAN, G. F. (1983) Mkthodes de foresterie et contraintes exerckes sur les terres forest&es canadiennes, University of Nor&h Carolina, Raleigh, NC. NORTON, G. A. and WALKER, B. H. (1982) Applied In: Les terres du Canada: stress et impacts, pp. 280-321. ecology: towards a positive approach. I. The context of W. Simpson-Lewis, R. McKennie and V. Neimaris (Eds). Direction de la recherche et du d~veloppement applied ecology, J. envir. Mgmt., 4,309-326. ODUM, H. T. (1971) Environment, Power and Society. cn mat&e politique, Direction g&&ale des terres, Environnement Canada, Ottawa. Wiley-Interscience, New York. O’RIORDAN, 1. and TURNER, R. K. (Eds) (1983) An WIKEN, E. B. and IRONSIDE. G. R. (Eds) (1977a) Annotated Reader in Environmental Planning and Management. Pergamon Press, Oxford. PARCS CANADA (1980) Les inven~a~res&cologiques dans les parts nationaux: concept ef mkthodologie. Parts

Canada, Division des Ressources Naturelles. ROWE J. S. (1979) Revised working paper on methodology/philosophy of ecological land classification in Canada, In: Applications of Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Canada, pp. 23-30, C. D. A. Rubec (Ed.). Ecological Land Classification Series, No. 7? Lands Directorate, environment Canada, Ottawa. ROWE, J. S. and SHEARD, J. W. (1981) Ecologicaf land classification: a survey approach, Envir. Mgmt, 5, 451464.

Ecological (Biophysical) Land Classification in Urban Areas. Ecoiogical Land Classification Series, No. 3,

Lands Directorate, Fisheries and Environment Canada. WIKEN, E. B. and IRONSIDE, G. R. (1977b) The development of ecological {biop~ysical) land classification in Canada, Lnndsc. P/arm., 4,273-275. YOUNG, A. (1973) Soil survey procedures in land development planning, Geogr. J. 139. YOUNG, A. and GOLDSMITH, P. F. (1977) Soil survey and land evaluation in developing countries: a case study in Malawi, GeogrlJ., 143,407-438.