Details zur Publikation |
| Kategorie | Textpublikation |
| Referenztyp | Zeitschriften |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.027 |
| Titel (primär) | Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration |
| Autor | Vermaat, J.E.; Eppink, F.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Barendregt, A.; van Belle, J. |
| Quelle | Ecological Economics |
| Erscheinungsjahr | 2005 |
| Department | CLE |
| Band/Volume | 52 |
| Heft | 2 |
| Seite von | 229 |
| Seite bis | 237 |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Abstract | Grain and extent of spatially explicit studies in landscape ecology and spatial economics have been reviewed in an assessment of differences between these two disciplines and possibilities for integration. In the latter field, (1) such papers were substantially less frequently found, and (2) median study area grains as well as extents were higher. We found no evidence of a different definition of spatial scale, but did find major differences between the two fields in embedding in theory (well-developed in spatial economy) and spatial realism (better in landscape ecology). Where studies integrated both fields, matching of the spatial scales was generally imposed by the data bases available and kept implicit in the derivation of research aims. In multidisciplinary environmental assessment, explicit matching of scales is often neglected. We evaluate three possible approaches to guide this matching exercise, and conclude that a local compromise for a specific landscape is probably the best achievable. We found no evidence for the existence of a limited set of convergent and globally overarching spatial scales that is of practical use. |
| dauerhafte UFZ-Verlinkung | https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=20939&ufzPublicationIdentifier=3859 |
| Vermaat, J.E., Eppink, F., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Barendregt, A., van Belle, J. (2005): Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration Ecol. Econ. 52 (2), 229 - 237 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.027 |
|