Discursive Relationships Between Landscape Science, Policy and Management Practice: Concepts, Issues and Examples - Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture - page 225

1. Identification of project scope: This moment occurs before the project can
begin. The institution(s) must become aware of a landscape management
problem. It is likely to be motivated by the interests and concerns of key
constituents, and previous studies might have defined underlying goals to be
achieved. At a deeper level, questions about normative versus exploratory and
deductive versus inductive approaches (Shearer 2005 ) will set the framework
for the study. During this moment, questions about what and why may have
lasting influence on the nature of communication throughout the project, and
upon its possible outcomes.
2. Selection and assembly of the planning team and planning method: There is a
wide variety in practice in the manner of selecting and assembling alternative
futures planning teams, as well as the institutions represented. The inclusion or
exclusion of particular disciplines or stakeholders will materially shape the
scope and nature of how the science undertaken, who is involved, and its pos-
sible findings, as well as the way these findings might be translated into actions.
3. Project design: Although alternative futures projects share common charac-
teristics (Baker et al. 2004 ) each focuses on unique ecological and social issues,
incorporates distinctive approaches to stakeholder groups and public agencies,
and utilizes its own data management system. Further, the fundamental rational
for approaching scenarios and assumptions is defined during project design.
4. Data selection and management: Steinitz ( 1990 ) identified a range of funda-
mental questions about landscape that drive the landscape planning and mod-
elling process. They include: How should the landscape be described? How
does the landscape function? How does one know whether it works well or not?
The responses shape the scope and character of the process.
5. Selection and testing assumptions of scenarios: Although there are an infinite
number of possible scenarios, it is only feasible to pursue plausible ones. The
makeup of those making these decisions and the process involved can deter-
mine the number of scenarios, the ease of modelling ecological and cultural
systems, and the degree of political acceptance of the report.
6. Assessing the effects of scenarios (futures): This phase uses science to predict
outcomes, and implies a range of value judgements—from the most basic
orientation of the process (is it testing hypotheses about normative futures, or
evaluating impacts of alternative scenarios upon a given landscape), to detailed
determination of criteria for evaluation.
7. Selection of implementation outputs and outcomes: This is perhaps the most
difficult moment to examine, given the length of time required for political
institutions to implement decisions, and the time required for implementation to
make on the ground changes in landscape conditions. Nonetheless, imple-
mentation processes and plans are profoundly political, and hence express the
values of the decision makers.
The implications of these moments for the nature of the landscape science and
its relationship with wider planning processes are profound. According to Stein
and Harper ( 2003 ) both a combination of 'internal' and 'external' perspectives is