Urban ecosystem cl�assi��cation – l�and �se based in�ormation
�or model�l�ing, comparison and management
�ürgen H. Bre�ste
University of Salzburg, �epart�ent of Geography and Geology,
�ivision Physical and Environ�ental Geography, Hellbrunner Strasse 34/III, �-5020 Salzburg, �ustria
e-�ail: ��uergen.breuste@sbg.ac.at
_________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract. �ifferent �ethodological procedures, scientific and practical questions concerning the urban environ�ent require a co��on spatial work basis. �he structuring of the city and its surrounding countryside into co�parable, classifiable spatial areas (“urban structure types “) has been developed in geography in contact with the spatial planning and ecology as a practicable and appropriate �ethod of the urban ecological research and �anage�ent. �he experiences of the landscape- ecological spatial di�ensions were successfully transferred to the specific urban conditions.
It can be showed that land use related infor�ation can be used for urban landscape classification. �his includes land use for�s as well as utilization intensities and land cover in differentiated for�. �his allows interlinking science and planning in a successful way.
�he classification syste� consists of urban structure types �arking areas of physiogno�ic ho�ogeneous develop�ent, those are predo�inantly characterized by clearly distinguishable characteristics in built up structures and open spaces (vegetation structure and soil sealing). �hey are to a large extent ho�ogeneous concerning specific, density and portions of the built-up areas of various for�s and of different develop�ents of the open spaces (soil sealing areas, vegetation types and urban forest).
Substantial ecological characteristics of the urban landscape can be described by the land use for� and the structural characteristic. Spaces with unifor� structural equip�ent and the sa�e land use for� exhibit co�parable habitat or landscape household function. Urban structural units/types allow state�ents to the habitat and vegetation structure, to the cli�ate conditions, the soil, soil sealing intensity or the ground-water renewal. �he urban ecosyste� classification su��arizes ecosyste�s of si�ilar environ�ental condition.
�he classification syste� allows co�paring structural units in different cities – a task to understand the ecosyste�
functionality in science, to adopt ecosyste� �anage�ent to ecosyste� conditions and to exchange relevant infor�ation between cities. �ifferent to co�parisons between cities with this tool different co�parable ecosyste� types can be co�pared in its consistency, functionality, �aintenance etc..
Key words: urban land use, classification, land cover, structural vegetation types, types of built-up areas, co�parison, structural and functional approach
Urban l�and-�se - basic in�ormation on �ow ��man infl�ence steers ecol�ogical�
features
Strong �anage�ent of urban syste�s requires an understanding of the nature of the different landscape co�ponents, how the features of the co�ponents influence the processes within the area, and how the co�ponents interact to �odify the influences or even create new ones. �his section will outline two of the current Klasyfikacja krajobrazu. Teoria i praktyka. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu. 2008, t. XX. 57-66.
approaches to investigating the urban landscape, and a third �ethod for describing landscape co�ponents which incorporates pattern and process.
Landscape co�ponents are currently described using the ter�s land-cover or land-use. �hese two ter�s are often used interchangeably, but this is incorrect as they represent funda�entally different aspects of the landscape co�ponent. �he first ter�, land-cover, describes the physical attributes of the space (“existing
�aterial ele�ents”), while the second ter� land-use describes how this space is being used by hu�ans (“for what?”). �ue to the funda�ental difference between these two ter�s, it is i�portant to clearly define which ter�
is being used, and the reason for using it. �he need for clear definitions is particularly i�portant for co�parative work as it will reduce co��unication proble�s, especially in the face of a wide variety of additional ter�s such as land-structure, actual use, spatial use, etc. For the purpose of this paper, land-use will be the �ain ter�
used to define landscape co�ponents, as this ter� encapsulates �ore of the social processes occurring in urban landscapes, and therefore can provide greater insight into the social drivers which deter�ine landscape structure and pattern.
Utilization is the funda�ental process of the deter�ination of space by hu�ans. It �eans the utilization of technical and natural conditions of the environ�ent by hu�ans at the level of the individual, group or society.
Utilization or land-use is not a condition, but a procedure. �he available space can be sub��ect to several require�ents for utilization at the sa�e ti�e. �his can be called �ulti-functional (targeting) utilization. Since land-use relates to procedures, there is also a te�poral di�ension co�posed of retrospective land-use (history) and pro��ected land-use in planning (e.g. �aster plan). �he utilization process itself is highly co�plex and in order to be �odeled �ust be reduced to selected para�eters. �he basic positions, procedures and goals of this reduction �ust be explained in each case, since otherwise the ter� land-use can be �isinterpreted.
�he co�plex ter� land-use covers co�pletely different things such as using open spaces or building use.
However, there are general patterns of use which �ake it possible to classify general land-use types. Land-use varies over ti�e and the ter� expresses the spatial orientation of utilization procedures (Richter 1989, Richter,
�ugler 1972, Haase, Richter 1980a).
�he develop�ent of ecological research in urban areas was also connected with the expansion of geographical landscape research, landscape ecology and ecological landscape planning in urban areas. �he early research in the 1970’s was largely in the field of geographical landscape research, although it did not precede without influence fro� biology, in particular the vegetation science. In the 1980’s the need to incorporate spatially explicit locations for results fro� different research disciplines beca�e a priority in an effort to gain a clearer understanding of the spatial distribution of ecological conditions within an urban area. Geographical landscape research tried to address this challenge drawing upon theories of landscape research fro� geography and landscape ecology which had already been well established fro� studies located outside of urban areas (Neef et al. 1961, Neef 1963). �his focus gave rise to a wave of landscape-ecological work conducted in cities (Breuste 1985, 1986, 1989, Haase, Richter 1980b, Huelbusch 1982, �aerkes 1985, 1987, Richter 1984, Schönfelder 1988), particularly through the i�ple�entation of habitat �apping. Land-use structures offered the�selves as initial �eans for the differentiation of co�ponents within the urban cultural landscape.
If one peruses the geographical research on land-use, it beco�es clear that it represents pri�arily a linkage of geography, biological sciences and spatial and regional planning. �he geographical landscape research strengthened investigations into the utilization process and its relationship to natural co�ponents of the landscape. �uring the course of this research, it beca�e apparent that the social function of areas was not of greatest i�portance for deter�ining spatial landscape pattern, and the “process of the landscape influence and change” or “the degree of transfor�ation of the natural balance of �atter and energy of a landscape”
(Schrader 1985, p. 24) beca�e the centre of interest. On the basis of land-use types, spatial ecological units, urban landscape units, urban structure units of ho�ogeneous physiogno�ic structure were developed for urban landscapes (e.g. Breuste 1985, 1986, 1989, �uh�e, Lecke 1986, �uh�e, Pauleit 1992, Leykauf et al. 1989).
Landscape ecology operates at a broader scale that that used for habitat �apping, and can be used in situations which require a broader level of investigation and reflection.
In the 1980’s �eso-scales were pri�arily used to provide an overview of the whole city or urban landscape.
�n exa�ple of this scale of research is the investigations of general urban cli�ate and the urban heat
Fig. 1. Idealized cross-section of a large city with varying ecological features (Sukopp 1973)
island (Oke 1982). With the develop�ent of the urban bio- and ecological cli�atology, it beca�e necessary to investigate the specific characteristics of s�aller areas. �his led to a shift to �icro-scale di�ensional research (cli�ate tops). �he sa�e process is reflected also in other braches of urban landscape ecological research (Breuste 2001).
Urban ecosystem cl�assi��cation based on l�and �se rel�ated in�ormation
�he two previous �ethods outlined for use in classifying the co�ponents of urban landscapes have been widely used as a basis for �odeling patterns within urban areas. However, while both of these �ethods are useful for describing patterns, they are less useful for exa�ining processes due to their general definitions and broad applications. One �ethod available when infor�ation is required at a finer spatial scale, is the use of “urban structural units”.
Urban structure types definite areas of ho�ogeneous physiogno�ic develop�ent, which are predo�inantly characterized fro� each other by clearly distinguishable characteristics in built up structures and open spaces (vegetation and soil sealing). �hey are, to a large extent, ho�ogeneous concerning the type, density and portions of the built-up areas of various for�s and of different co�ponents of open spaces (soil sealing areas, vegetation types and urban forest) (Breuste 2006, p. 6). Urban structure types offer an opportunity to co�bine the structural infor�ation available fro� the soil sealing classification syste�, with the utilization processes associated with the land-use classification syste�. �hey therefore allow �odeling of processes within the urban syste� at a finer level of detail than using the other �ethods, whilst �aintaining the advantages of co�prehensive and cost-efficient data collection.
Substantial ecological characteristics of a space can be described by the land-use for� and the structural characteristics. Spaces with unifor� structural equip�ent and the sa�e land-use for� exhibit co�parable habitat or landscape household functions. In this regard urban structural units su��arize spaces with si�ilar co�plex environ�ental conditions. �herefore they can be used as the basis for collecting infor�ation on the ecological or landscape characteristics of urban areas, as each unit has a predictable type of habitat and vegetation structure, cli�atic conditions, soil structure, intensity of soil sealing and rate of ground-water recharge
(Breuste 2006, p. 6).
�he �ain types of urban structural units found in urban areas are residential estates and areas of �ixed use, industry and co��ercial areas, areas of specific use, traffic areas, leisure and recreation areas, agricultural areas, forest areas, water bodies, derelict lands and land-fills, quarries and disposal sites (Wickop 1997). �hese structural units can be further divided on the basis of �ore specific for�s of develop�ent (Breuste 2006, p. 6).
Function-oriented land-use types (�aps, listings etc.) nevertheless lend the�selves to planning applications because of their broad application as reference level in the urban planning, which allow the� to be easily integrated into �anage�ent reco��endations. Indicator characteristics can be used to further differentiate the ecological conditions within urban structure types. Soil sealing as an indicator of hu�an influence is currently far
�ore advanced than the indicator vegetation structure. So far, data for the characteristics of the vegetation used in ecological urban spatial patterns, in particular habitat �apping, is often non-unifor� and partly a�biguous.
For the designation of this characteristic, the ter� “vegetation structure” (also called green areas) is frequently regarded as an indicator of utilization and �aintenance intensity. It is also used as an indicator for different kinds of utilization and �aintenance intensity of the areas outside of urban areas, with a cover of predo�inantly vegetation (Breuste 2006).
�here are �any co�peting definitions for the ter� vegetation structure (e.g. �unick 1974, Bornka�� 1980, Schacht 1981, �owarik 1983, Wittig, Schreiber 1983, �uhagen, Sukopp 1983, �repl 1984, Sch�idt 1985, Breuste 1986 and �rbeitsgruppe Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich 1986, 1993). So�e exa�ples of current definitions are shown in table 1.
�ue to the defining characteristics regarding utilization type and building structure there are direct relations between the scientific fra�ework of the urban structure types and the instru�ents of urban planning (as �aster plan, zoning plan and site/property planning). �hey provide a crucial �eans for understanding the environ�ental develop�ent of cities, and their utility has been de�onstrated in the cities of �unich (Blu� 1991, �uh�e, Pauleit 1992, 1994), Berlin (Stadt Berlin 1996), Leipzig (�abisch et al 1997) and Halle, where they have successfully used urban structure types for their environ�ental planning (Breuste 2006, p.6). �heir �onitoring has been facilitated by the develop�ent of new technologies, such as aerial photographs and satellite i�ages and the advent of co�puter progra�s with the ability to co�bine existing �aps and data (Breuste et al. 2002).
Fig. 2. Levels of urban ecosyste� classification
Needs and content of urban ecological comparative studies
�here is a strong need for the co�parison of urban ecological studies world wide. �his is necessary to separate local and individual results fro� broadly applicable general trends. On the other hand regional and local studies can only be valued if the spatial circu�stances (natural and anthropogenic) are clearly defined. � for�alized clear description of the spatial conditions of an investigation will allow for co�parisons between research conditions and the associated findings. �lso, the characteristics of the selected spaces can be co�pared between cities (for instance, residential estates in different countries) and even the spaces the�selves. New and interesting knowledge on urban ecosyste�s can be expected fro� undertaking co�parisons between different urban ecosyste�s (and their ele�ents) and between different research results in various locations.
comparison of general human influence on urban ecosystem on large spatial scale - land use as comparative factor
�he �ain factor of hu�an influence on urban ecosyste� is land-use (see above). It �akes sense to start co�parisons by definition and typesetting of this factor. �he target of this approach is to create categories which reflect different levels of hu�an influence on urban ecosyste�s at a large spatial scale (urban ecosyste�s, cities etc.). Following this, co�parisons between co�pletely different urban ecosyste�s, such as Warsaw and Berlin, are possible by describing their land use structure and ecological relevant characteristics. �he co�parison can be �ade on s�all scale at a structural level (overview). �he ob��ect of such co�parisons can be the identification, qualification and quantification of areas representing different degrees of hu�an influence.
�ifferent land use categories can be grouped to represent each of the categories high, �ediu� or low hu�an influence on ecosyste�. �his is an easy initial for� of assess�ent, which offers a lot of possible interpretations and answers to questions. �he following are exa�ples of questions which can be addressed at the level of the entire urban ecosyste�.
Co�parison of hu�an pressure on ecosyste�: How �uch space (square kilo�eters, per cent of the space etc.) of the urban ecosyste� is under high, �ediu� or low hu�an influence?
�his allows an initial quantification of hu�an input on the urban ecosyste� as a whole.
Co�parison of the spatial structure of the ecosyste�: How can the urban patterns in general be described?
Where in the urban ecosyste� are these areas located? What is the spatial structure of the landscape?
�his allows for the co�parison of structural infor�ation between cities. �he description can be �ade by �aps, by distance zone around the city centre (CB�) or even by �athe�atical �ethods (landscape �etrics etc.).
Co�parison of the speed of changes: How fast are the changing processes between these �ain categories?
Next to space, ti�e is the �ost i�portant factor for urban ecological changes. �he ti�e scale of ecological changes can be shown and co�pared.
Co�parison of the quality of changes: Is the quantitative spatial growth connected with qualitative changes?
�able 1. Exa�ples of types of vegetation structures used by working group on habitat �apping within urban areas (�rbeitsgruppe Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich 1993).
Vegetation str�ct�re type Description
�ecorative Green Flower beds, s�all lawn patches, bushes, hedges etc. (well cared for)
�cco�panying Green Green strips along traffic lines or as addition to fill up the space between apart�ent blocks
Gardens/Parks Urban open spaces, well �aintained
�llot�ents Privately used garden plots (allot�ents) territorially organized in groups 100 or �ore as closed-up area
Urban Lawns Large open lawns regularly �own for recreational uses
Urban Forests Forests as re�nants of for�er se�in-natural landscape in the urban areas, used for recreation
Urban growth is co��only �easured as the expansion of urban land use. �his infor�ation is not qualitative, whereas the altered configuration of land-use provides a �ore detailed and infor�ative �easure.
comparison of the intensity of human influence on urban ecosystem using selected indicators – example soil sealing indicating hydrological processes
�he research on selected hu�an influenced processes in urban ecosyste�s as cli�atic, hydrological or ecological processes is of high relevance. �ore and �ore urban ecological studies are oriented towards understanding hu�an influences on natural processes in order to to i�prove their �anage�ent or even to begin to �anage the�. �hese hu�an influences �ust be investigated on s�all scale level by �easuring the
�atter content (air, water, soil, vegetation etc.) and/or the fluxes of �atter and energy. �ost of these fluxes are influenced and regulated by the urban surfaces (“land cover”). �o co�pare investigations, the description of the physical consistency of these surfaces as a transfor�er of energy and �atter is necessary. One way to rapidly overco�e this hurdle to infor�ation is to identify and assess the transfor�ation properties of sealed soils (by different pave�ents). �his can be done on all level of investigation, by su��arizing infor�ation at a broad scale, by collecting structural infor�ation on a �ediu� scale (ecological pattern) and by collecting detailed infor�ation on pave�ent types at a s�all scale, e.g. hydrological assess�ents.
Sealed soils are a relevant approach to urban ecological co�parisons. �hey are typical for all cities, cover large areas in all cities world wide and they are an indicator for general “degradation/de-naturalization” of the urban ecosyste� as well as a specific steering factor of water cycle, �icro-cli�ate, habitat conditions etc. �his offers a lot of possible interpretations and answers to questions such as:
Quantitative approach on large scale: How �uch area of a city is occupied by sealed soils?
�his allows a co�parison between cities by using one �ain indicator which is widely applied world wide. � quantity in square kilo�eters or in percent of the total urban space can be given.
Growth rate of hu�an pressure on urban ecosyste�: How fast are these areas growing?
Sealed soils as a general category can be easily identified by interpretation of satellite i�ages or aerial photographs. � general overview on the whole urban area is possible for different ti�e sequences, which provides an excellent opportunity to exa�ine changes over ti�e.
Increasing pressure of hu�an influence on urban ecosyste�: Which areas are changed into sealed soils?
�he location of newly i�ple�ented sealed soils shows which ecological units are �ost susceptible to land- use conversion pressure. It shows which habitats (part of the urban and peri-urban ecosyste�s) co�e under stronger urban influence and which are spatially reduced.
Soil sealing as internal factor of urban pattern: What is the degree of soil sealing in different land use types?
Which land use types have the highest degree of soil sealing?
Soil sealing can be a factor of ecological differentiation between land use types. It can show the extent of change to specific land use types and which of these land-use types are really co�parable by the sa�e degree of soil sealing (e.g. residential areas, co��ercial areas etc.).
�ssociation of soil sealing: With what other ecological relevant factors is soil sealing connected?
�o understand how soil sealing is connected with other hu�an factors (i. g. econo�y, inco�e groups of population, age of built-up structures etc.) can be an i�portant point of co�parison between cities. �his co�parison can highlight the interactions between socio-econo�ic and ecological factors.
Determination and comparison o� �rban pattern q�al�i��ed by process indication
� relevant and accurate possibility to co�pare ecological conditions of cities is to define urban structural units (USU) in each investigated city. It allows a direct connection for data on land use and land cover, indicating natural processes. �his process is well established in �ediu� scale research in addition to s�all scale investigations.
It allows the assess�ent of not only a general degree of hu�an i�pact on the urban ecosyste� but also a detailed spatial view, which includes the assess�ent of relevant hu�an influenced natural processes (such as cli�ate, hydrological and ecological processes etc.). Especially the definition of additional characteristics
of land cover (soil surfaces) as sealed soil types, building types and types of vegetation can give a clear view on the �ain ecological factors of an area as representative of a spatial type. �his can be used for a sharp and clear co�parison of �any other further characteristics and even allows an assess�ent of the structure and co�ponents of the urban ecosyste�. �his offers a lot of possible interpretations and begins to address such questions as:
Structural approach: How differentiated are the land use classes in an ecological sense? Which ecological types of urban structural units are useful to define?
�he identification, �apping or use of urban structural units in GIS allows the characterization and assess�ent of its (internal) characteristics in different directions. �his can even be used for a detailed and co�plete overview of the urban ecosyste�.
Stability approach (internal changes): Which USU are in its characteristics generally stable over �any years and which are rapidly changing their characteristics?
�he urban transfor�ation is not only connected by external growth but also by strong internal changes of urban ecological characteristics. �hese changes can be quantified in ter�s of changes to the characteristics of the urban structural units. It can be shown which of the� are stable over �any years. �his provides i�portant infor�ation on ecological conditions and allows the ecological stability of cities to be evaluated.
Growth approach (external growth): Which USU are the �ost i�portant in the urban growth process and which ecological consequences are connected with the�?
When it can be identified which urban structural units are consistently constructed on large newly created areas in the urban fringe zones of cities, a qualitative assess�ent of the growth process and its ele�ents is possible.
�his allows an increased understanding of the urban growth process.
Co�parison of detailed s�all scale investigations: Which are the ecological circu�stances characterizing detailed local investigations (often by �easure�ents) of cli�atic, hydrological, ecological etc. factors to co�pare the results between cities?
� very i�portant question is the co�parison of detailed studies, for exa�ple on urban cli�ate, distribution of plants and ani�als, pollution of water, soil or air etc. Previous studies in different cities have not sufficiently described the conditions under which they had been undertaken. Even where the description is �ore detailed, a co�parison with other studies is not possible because of the singularities of the locations. �he use of urban structural units would facilitate urban ecological investigations and their co�parison between cities.
Conclusion
�he landscape-ecological �odeling of urban landscapes has grown substantially over the past 35 years, yet there is still roo� for further i�prove�ent. While the �onitoring �ethods are now largely auto�ated (e.g.
utilization of the re�ote sensing techniques), there is still the need for substantial research focusing on �odeling process rather than structure. �his research is not necessarily to the detri�ent of structural �odels, as these two types of research are intricately related. Progress in the ability to �odel processes will also help to refine the structural �odels of urban landscapes. Categories of land-use in urban landscapes continues to be an i�portant criterion for the de�arcation and characterization of ecologically ho�ogeneous areas.
�he contribution that land use �akes in ter�s of acting as �a��or influence on ecological syste�s in urban areas and indicator of associated processes is confir�ed in a broad sense. However there is still only li�ited research into the utility of this syste� as an indication of process. It is i�portant to use and further develop the existing �ethods of landscape research and to adapt the� to urban conditions. �he existing and wide spread application of land-use based �odeling is only partly effective, and should be extended by the addition of further characteristics. �epending on the questions being addressed, a further differentiation of the existing land- use based urban ecological structures �ay be reco��ended, using the �ethods for creating urban structural units.
It is also i�portant to re�e�ber that the urban landscape is not strictly separated fro� other cultural and natural landscapes. �hus �odels need to include and further exa�ine natural characteristics which can be used to refine the �ethods for quantifying landscape pattern. �here are currently �ethodological deficiencies in using general
landscape-ecological �ethodology and with the current syste� of selecting, differentiating and evaluating the ecological characteristics of the urban landscape. �hese deficiencies have far-reaching consequences beyond those associated with the practical planning process, so it is i�portant to obtain accurate and scientific results.
Nature protection and ecologically oriented urban develop�ent will benefit fro� the further develop�ent of co�prehensible landscape-ecological �ethods of analysis and evaluation of the urban landscape structure.
References
�rbeitsgruppe �ethodik der Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich, 1986. Flächendeckende Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich als Grundlage einer ökologisch bzw. a� Naturschutz orientierten Planung:
Grundprogra�� für die Bestandsaufnah�e und Gliederung des besiedelten Bereichs und dessen Randzonen. Natur und Landschaft 61, vol. 10, 371-389.
�rbeitsgruppe �ethodik der Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich, 1993. Flächendeckende Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich als Grundlage einer a� Naturschutz orientierten Planung: Progra�� für die Bestandsaufnah�e, Gliederung und Bewertung des besiedelten Bereichs und dessen Randzonen:
Überarbeitete Fassung 1993. Natur und Landschaft 68, vol. 10, 491-526.
�uhagen �. U., Sukopp H., 1983. Ziel, Begründung und �ethoden des Naturschutzes i� Rah�en der Stadtentwicklungspolitik von Berlin. Natur und Landschaft 58, vol. 1, 9-15.
Blu� P., 1991. Stadtstruktureinheiten als räu�liches Bezugssyste� für die städtische U�weltplanung. Eine Untersuchung zur Erhebung und Bewertung u�weltbezogener �aten - dargestellt a� Beispiel �ünchen-
�oosbach (unveröffentlichte �iplo�arbeit a� Lehrstuhl für Landschaftsökologie an der �echnischen Universität �ünchen Weihenstephan). Freising.
Böcker, R. (1985): Bodenversiegelung - Verlust vegetationsbedeckter Flächen in Ballungsräu�en - a� Beispiel von Berlin (West). Landschaft und Stadt 17, 57-61.
Bornka�� R. (1980): He�erobie und Landschaftsplanung. Landschaft und Stadt 12, Vol. 2, 49-55.
Breuste J., 1985. �ethodische �spekte der �nalyse und Bewertung der urbanen Landschaftsstruktur. (In:) Inst. of Experi�ental Biology and Ecology, Center of bilogical-Ecological Sciences, Slovak �cade�y of Sciences (Hrsg.): VII. Intern. Sy�posiu� über die Proble�atik der ökologischen Landschaftsforschung, Panel 1, vol. 10, 10.
Breuste J., 1986. �ethodische �nsätze und Proble�lösungen bei der Erfassung der urbanen Landschaftsstruktur und ihrer ökologischen und landeskulturellen Bewertung unter Berücksichtigung von Untersuchungen in Halle/Saale. �iss. (B), Fak. f. Naturwiss., Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Halle
Breuste J., 1989. Landschaftsökologische Struktur und Bewertung von Stadtgebieten. Geogr. Berichte 131, vol.
2, 105-116.
Breuste J., 1996. Landschaftsschutz - ein Leitbild in urbanen Landschaften. In: Bork, H.-R., G. Heinritz, R.
Wießner (eds.). 50. �eutscher Geographentag Potsda� 1995, 1, 134 – 143
Breuste J., 2000. Nutzung als Untersuchungsgegenstand und Rau�bezug der Stadtökologie. Natur und Landschaft 33(2/3), 95 – 100
Breuste J., 2001. Nutzung als Untersuchungsgegenstand und Rau�bezug der Stadtökologie. Natur und Landschaft 33, vol. 2./3., pp. 95 – 100.
Breuste J., 2002. Urban Ecology. In: Bastian O., Steinhardt U. (eds.), �evelop�ent and Perspectives of Landscape Ecology. �luwer �cade�ic Publishers, �ordrecht. 405 – 414
Breuste J., 2006. Urban landscapes in transfor�ation - European challenges, experiences fro� Ger�any. (In:) Regionalne Studia Ekologiczno-�ra��obrazowe: Proble�y Ekologii �ra��obrazu, to� XVI, Warszawa. 1 Breuste J., �eurer �., Vogt J., 2002. Stadtökologie – �ehr als nur Natur in der Stadt. (In:) Leser, Hart�ut, -12.
�anfred Ehlers (Hrsg.): Geographie heute – für die Welt von �orgen, Gotha/Stuttgart, 36 – 45.
Breuste J., Böh� U. P., 1997. Stadtstrukturtypen der Stadt Leipzig. In: �abisch, S., �indler �., Rink �., Sozialatlas der Stadt Leipzig. �arte 4.1. Leipzig.
Breuste J., �eidel �., �einel G., �ünchow B., Netzband �. et al., 1996. Erfassung und Bewertung des Versiegelungsgrades befestigter Flächen. (=UFZ-Bericht 12/1996). Leipzig.
Brunner, �., �uh�e F., �ück F., Patsch J., Weinisch U. F., 1979. �artierung erhaltenswerter Lebensräu�e in der Stadt. Gartena�t 28, vol. 1, 1-8.
�uh�e F. Pauleit U. S., 1992. Naturschutzprogra�� für �ünchen: - Landschaftsökologisches Rah�enkonzept.
Geographische Rundschau 44, vol. 10, 554-561.
�uh�e F., Lecke U. �h., 1986. Zur Interpretation der Nutzungstypenkarte �ünchen. Landschaft und Stadt 18, vol. 4, 174-185.
�uh�e F., Pauleit S., 1992. Strukturtypenkartierung als Instru�ent der räu�lich-integrativen �nalyse und Bewertung der U�weltbedingungen in �ünchen. �eil 1: Ziele und �ethodik. Freising.
�uh�e F., Pauleit S., 1994. Strukturtypenkartierung als Instru�ent der räu�lich-integrativen �nalyse und Bewertung der U�weltbedingungen in �ünchen. part 2: Erprobung der Strukturtypenkartierung in eine� �estgebiet. Freising.
Haase G., Richter U. H., 1980b. Geographische Landschaftsforschung als Beitrag zur Lösung von Landeskultur- und U�weltproble�en. - Sitzungsber. d. �dW d. ��R 5 N, Berlin, 23-51.
Haase G., Richter U. H., 1980a. Entwicklungstendenzen und �ufgabenstellungen in der Landschaftsforschung der ��R. Geograficky Casopis. 231-247.
Hesse �., Sch�itz S. 1998. Stadtentwicklung i� Zeichen von „�uflösung“ und Nachhaltigkeit. Infor�ationen zur Rau�entwicklung 7/8, 435 – 453
Hülbusch, �.-H., 1982. Landschaftsökologie der Stadt. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege zwischen Erhalten und Gestalten: Referate und Ergebnisse des �eutschen Naturschutztages 1982 vo� 19.-23. �ai 1982 in �assel. - Jahrbuch. f. Naturschutz u. Landschaftspflege, Bonn 33, 38 – 61.
�abisch S., �indler �. Rink �., 1997. Sozialatlas der Stadt Leipzig 1997. Leipzig.
�aerkes W. �., 1985. Stadtökologie - Landschaftsökologie der Stadt? �oku�ente u. Infor�. zur Schweizerischen Orts-, Regional- und Landesplanung, E�H Zürich. Nr. 80/81 (=Sondernr. Stadtentwicklung), 36-41.
�aerkes W. �., 1987. Zur ökologischen Bedeutung urbaner Freiflächen - dargestellt an Beispielen aus de�
�ittleren Ruhrgebiet. (= �aterialien zur Rau�ordnung), vol. XXXV, Bochu�.
�aule G., 1975. �artierung schutzwürdiger Biotope in Bayern. Erfahrungen 1974. Verh. Gesell. f. Ökol. 3, 257-260.
�owarik I., 1983. Flora und Vegetation von �inderspielplätzen in Berlin (West) - ein Beitrag zur �nalyse städtischer Grünflächentypen. Verh. Berl. Bot. Ver., Berlin (West). 2, 3-49.
�rönert R. et al., 1985. Rah�entechnologie zur Erfassung von Flächennutzungsstrukturen sowie Prinzipien zur Herstellung von Flächennutzungskarten aus Luft- und Satellitenbildern. Forschungsber. des Inst. f.
Geogr. u. Geoök. d. �dW d. ��R, Leipzig.
�unick W., 1974. Veränderung von Flora und Vegetation einer Großstadt, dargestellt a� Beispiel von Berlin (West). - �U Berlin (West), �iss. Berlin (West)
�unick W., 1978. Stadtbiotopkartierung Berlin-�reuzberg Nord. Unpublished �anuscript, �echn. Univ. Berlin.
Landesanstalt für Ökologie, Landschaftsentwicklung und Forstplanung Nordrhein-Westfalen. 1989.
Biotopkartierung Nordrhein-Westfalen: �ethodik und �rbeitsanleitung zur �artierung i� besiedelten Bereich (= Naturschutz: Praktisch: Beiträge zu� �rtenschutzprogra�� N�: Grundlagen des Biotop- und �rtenschutz, No. 31). Recklinghausen
Leykauf J., Nieber J., Villwock G., Walossek W., 1989. �er �ufbau eines �atenspeichers für ein Geographisches Infor�ationssyste� “Stadtregion Halle”. Peter�. Geogr. �itt. 1133, vol. 4, 245-254.
�äding H., 1997. Entwicklungsperspektiven für die Stadt – �rends und Chancen. �ifu-aktuelle Infor�ation,
�ec. 1997, 1 – 11.
�üller N., Waldert R., 1981. Erfassung erhaltenswerter Lebensräu�e für Pflanzen und �iere in der Stadt.
�ugsburg Stadtbiotopkartierung. Natur und Landschaft 56, vol. 2, 419-429.
�ünchow B., Schra�� �.,1997. Per�eable pave�ents–an appropriate �ethod to reduce stor�water flow in urban sewer syste�s? In: Breuste J., Feld�ann H., Uhl�ann O. (eds.), Urban Ecology. Leipzig.
183–186.
Neef E., 1963. �opologische und chorologische �rbeitsweisen in der Landschaftsforschung. Peter�. Geogr.
�itt. 107, 249-259.
Neef E., 1967. �ie theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Gotha
Neef E., Sch�idt G., Lauckner u. �., 1961. Landschaftsökologische Untersuchungen an verschiedenen Physiotopen in Nordwestsachsen. �bh. d. Sächs. �kad. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, �ath.-nat. �l., Berlin 47, vol. 1
Oke �. R., 1982. �he Energetic Basis of the Urban Heat-Island. In: Quaterly Journal of the Royal �eteorological Society. 108, 1-24
Pietsch J., �a�ith H., 1991. Stadtböden. Entwicklungen, Belastungen, Bewertung und Planung. �aunusstein Reidl �., 1992. Flora und Vegetation als Grundlage für den Naturschutz in der Stadt. �eil 1: �ethodik und
Ergebnisse der �artierung a� Beispiel Essen. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 4, 136-141.
Richter H., 1984. Land-use and Land �ransfor�ation. GeoJournal 8, vol.1, 67-74.
Richter H., 1989. �ie Stellung der Flächennutzung in der �erritorialstruktur. Geogr. Berichte 131, vol. 2, 91-103.
Richter H., �ugler u. H., 1972. Landeskultur und landeskultureller Zustand des �erritoriu�s. Soz. Gesellschaft und �erritoriu� in der ��R. Wiss. �bh. d. Geogr. Gesell. d. ��R, vol.. 9, 33-46.
Schacht H., 1981. Erfassung schutzwürdiger und entwicklungsfähiger Landschaftsteile und Ele�ente in Wien.
– vol. 1/2, Wien.
Sch�idt H., 1985. U�gestaltungsprozesse räu�licher Stadtstrukturen. Hall. Jahrb. f. Geowiss.., Gotha/Leipzig.
10, 103-114.
Schönfelder G., 1988. �ufgaben, Inhalte und For�en landschaftsökologischer �arten städtischer Verdichtungen - ein Beitrag zur Stadtkartographie. Peter�. Geogr. �itt. 132, vol. 1, 47-59.
Schrader F., 1985. Zu arealen, vertikalen und zeitlichen �erk�alen der Flächennutzung und zur flächennutzungsbezogenen �nalyse und �iagnose von Naturressourcen- und Natureffekt-Beziehungen agrarisch-forstlicher Landschaften bei Potsda�. �ispp. (B) Potsda�.
Schulz �., 1982. �er �ÖH-Wert, �odell einer ko�plexen, planungsrelevanten Zustandserfassung. Infor�. z.
Rau�entwicklung, 847-863.
Sieverts �., 1998a. �ie Stadt in der Zweiten �oderne, eine europäische Perspektive. Infor�ationen zur Rau�entwicklung 7/8, 455 – 473
Sieverts �., 1998b. Zwischenstadt: zwischen Ort und Welt, Rau� und Zeit, Stadt und Land. 2. ed.
Braunschweig/Wiesbaden.
Stadt Berlin (Eds.) (1996): U�weltatlas Berlin. Berlin.
Stadt Halle/Saale, �ezernat für U�welt und Naturschutz (eds.), 1994. Landschaftsplan der Stadt Halle/Saale - Vorentwurf. Halle.
Sukopp H., 1973. �ie Großstadt als Gegenstand ökologischer Forschung. Schr. Verbreitung naturwiss.
�enntnisse Wien 113, 98 - 140
Sukopp H., �repl u. L., 1990. Naturschutz in Großstädten. Unpublished �anuscript, �U Berlin.
Sukopp H. Weiler u. P., 1986. Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich der Bundesrepublik �eutschland.
Landschaft und Stadt 18, vol. 1, pp. 25-38.
Sukopp H., �unick W., Schneider Ch., 1979. Biotopkartierung in der Stadt. Natur und Landschaft 54, vol. 3.
Sukopp H., �unick W., Schneider u. Ch., 1980. Biotopkartierung i� besiedelten Bereich von Berlin (West): �eil II: Zur �ethodik von Geländearbeit. Garten und Landschaft 7, 565 – 569.
�repl L., 1984. Flora und Vegetation: - In: Sukopp, H. et al., 1984. Ökologisches Gutachten Rehberge Berlin.
- Berlin (West):., (= Landschaftsentwicklung und U�weltforschung, Nr. 23), 52-69.
Wickop E., 1997. Environ�ental quality targets for urban structural units in Leipzig with a view to sustainable urban develop�ent. In: Breuste, J., H. Feld�ann, O. Uhl�ann (eds.): Urban Ecology. Leipzig. 49 - 54.
Wittig R., Schreiber u. �.-F., 1983. � quick �ethod for assessing the i�portance of open spaces in towns for urban nature conservation. Biological Conservation, London 26, vol. 1, 57-64.
