14 03 2017



1.     Birge, T., M. Toivonen, M. Kaljonen, and I. Herzon. 2017. Probing the grounds: Developing a payment-by-results agri-environment scheme in Finland. Land Use Policy 61:302-315. HSA
2.     Blicharska, M., R. J. Smithers, M. Hedblom, H. Hedenås, G. Mikusiński, E. Pedersen, P. Sandström, and J. Svensson. 2017. Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services 23:55-70. HSA
3.     Chen, C., S. Wu, C. D. Meurk, M. Ma, J. Zhao, m. Lv, and X. Tong. 2017. Effects of local and landscape factors on exotic vegetation in the riparian zone of a regulated river: Implications for reservoir conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 157:45-55. HSA
4.     Colléony, A., A.-C. Prévot, M. Saint Jalme, and S. Clayton. 2017. What kind of landscape management can counteract the extinction of experience? Landscape and Urban Planning 159:23-31. HSA
5.     Dawson, L., M. Elbakidze, P. Angelstam, and J. Gordon. 2017. Governance and management dynamics of landscape restoration at multiple scales: Learning from successful environmental managers in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management 197:24-40. HSA
6.     de Krom, M. P. M. M. 2017. Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Regionalisation and the role of bridging social capital. Land Use Policy 60:352-361. HSA
7.     Ford, R. M., N. M. Anderson, C. Nitschke, L. T. Bennett, and K. J. H. Williams. 2017. Psychological values and cues as a basis for developing socially relevant criteria and indicators for forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 78:141-150. WQM
8.     Forejt, M., J. Skalos, A. Pereponova, T. Plieninger, J. Vojta, and M. Šantrůčková. 2017. Changes and continuity of wood-pastures in the lowland landscape in Czechia. Applied Geography 79:235-244. WQM
9.     Fuhlendorf, S. D., T. J. Hovick, R. D. Elmore, A. M. Tanner, D. M. Engle, and C. A. Davis. 2017. A Hierarchical Perspective to Woody Plant Encroachment for Conservation of Prairie-Chickens. Rangeland Ecology & Management 70:9-14. WQM
10.           Garrido, P., M. Elbakidze, P. Angelstam, T. Plieninger, F. Pulido, and G. Moreno. 2017. Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60:324-333. WQM
11.           Hewlett, D., L. Harding, T. Munro, A. Terradillos, and K. Wilkinson. 2017. Broadly engaging with tranquillity in protected landscapes: A matter of perspective identified in GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 158:185-201. WQM
12.           Ives, C. D., C. Oke, A. Hehir, A. Gordon, Y. Wang, and S. A. Bekessy. 2017. Capturing residents’ values for urban green space: Mapping, analysis and guidance for practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 161:32-43. WQM
13.           Jung, S., L. V. Rasmussen, C. Watkins, P. Newton, and A. Agrawal. 2017. Brazil’s National Environmental Registry of Rural Properties: Implications for Livelihoods. Ecological Economics 136:53-61. SWI
14.           Langhammer, M., V. Grimm, S. Pütz, and C. J. Topping. 2017. A modelling approach to evaluating the effectiveness of Ecological Focus Areas: The case of the European brown hare. Land Use Policy 61:63-79. SWI
15.           Leibenath, M. 2017. Ecosystem services and neoliberal governmentality – German style. Land Use Policy 64:307-316. SWI
16.           Lund, J. F., and F. S. Jensen. 2017. Is recreational hunting important for landscape multi-functionality? Evidence from Denmark. Land Use Policy 61:389-397. SWI
17.           Nguyen, V. D., L. A. Roman, D. H. Locke, S. K. Mincey, J. R. Sanders, E. Smith Fichman, M. Duran-Mitchell, and S. L. Tobing. 2017. Branching out to residential lands: Missions and strategies of five tree distribution programs in the U.S. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 22:24-35. SWI
18.           Reed, J., J. van Vianen, J. Barlow, and T. Sunderland. 2017. Have integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the tropics? Land Use Policy 63:481-492. SWI
19.           Rinalduzzi, S., L. Farroni, A. Billi, L. De Filippis, C. Faccenna, P. P. Poncia, and G. Spadafora. 2017. Geocultural landscaping: Guidelines and conceptual framework to design future scenarios of exploited lands. Land Use Policy 64:258-281. KAS
20.           Secco, L., M. Favero, M. Masiero, and D. M. Pettenella. 2017. Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: Observations from Italy. Land Use Policy 62:79-100. KAS
21.           Stelling, F., C. Allan, and R. Thwaites. 2017. Nature strikes back or nature heals? Can perceptions of regrowth in a post-agricultural landscape in South-eastern Australia be used in management interventions for biodiversity outcomes? Landscape and Urban Planning 158:202-210. KAS
22.           Tieskens, K. F., C. J. E. Schulp, C. Levers, J. Lieskovský, T. Kuemmerle, T. Plieninger, and P. H. Verburg. 2017. Characterizing European cultural landscapes: Accounting for structure, management intensity and value of agricultural and forest landscapes. Land Use Policy 62:29-39. KAS
23.           Ungaro, F., I. Zasada, and A. Piorr. 2017. Turning points of ecological resilience: Geostatistical modelling of landscape change and bird habitat provision. Landscape and Urban Planning 157:297-308. KAS
24.           Westerink, J., P. Opdam, S. van Rooij, and E. Steingröver. 2017. Landscape services as boundary concept in landscape governance: Building social capital in collaboration and adapting the landscape. Land Use Policy 60:408-418. KAS
25.           You, H. 2017. Agricultural landscape dynamics in response to economic transition: Comparisons between different spatial planning zones in Ningbo region, China. Land Use Policy 61:316-328. KAS

Bogor, 7 Maret 2017

MK Pengelolaan Lanskap

Dr. Kaswanto, SP, MSi

Tugas Bacaan LOLA 2017 – Judul Artikel

MG V Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

14 03 2017

MG V Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

MG V Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

Week Date Topic PIC
I 14 Feb 2017 Introduction to Landscape Ecology HSA
II 21 Feb 2017 FOUNDATION:Times Changes, Objective HSA
III 28 Feb 2017 Development of Landscape Ecology;Landscape Ecology Today HSA
IV 7 Mar 2017 Patches KAS
V 14 Mar 2017 Edges and Boundaries  KAS
VI 21 Mar 2017 Mosaics SWI
VII 28 Mar 2017 Corridors and Connectivity  SWI
VIII Mid-term Exam (UTS)



E1. Keragaman Struktur Edge

Edge tanaman dengan keragaman struktur yang tingi, baik vertikal maupun horizontal, lebih banyak memiliki spesies hewan Edge.


E2. Ketebalan Edge

Ketebalan / Kelebaran Edge berbeda di sekeliling patch, dengan Edges yang lebih lebar berada pada bagian yang menghadap arah angin dan cahaya.


E3. Batas Ekologi Administratif dan Alami

Batas administratif atau politik tidak bertepatan dengan batas ekologi, kawasan diantara boundary sering menjadi berbeda dan bisa menjadi zona penyangga (Buffer Zone), mengurangi pengaruh sekelilingnya terhadap interior Kawasan Lindung (Protected Area).


E4. Edge sebagai penyaring (Filter)

Patch Edge biasanya berfungsi sebagai penyaring (filters), yang mana mengurangi/mereduksi pengaruh sekeliling terhadap patch interior.


E5. Kecuraman Edge

Kecuraman Edge yang meningkat cenderung meningkatkan pergerakan sepanjang Edge, sementara Edge yang tidak curam cenderung membuat pergerakan melintasi sebuah Edge.


Materi MG V Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

V Landscape Structure – Edge and Boundaries KAS 2017

MG IV Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

14 03 2017

MG IV Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

MG IV Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017


Week Date Topic PIC
I 14 Feb 2017 Introduction to Landscape Ecology HSA
II 21 Feb 2017 FOUNDATION:

Times Changes, Objective

III 28 Feb 2017 Development of Landscape Ecology;

Landscape Ecology Today

IV 7 Mar 2017 Patches KAS
V 14 Mar 2017 Edges and Boundaries  KAS
VI 21 Mar 2017 Mosaics SWI
VII 28 Mar 2017 Corridors and Connectivity  SWI
VIII Mid-term Exam (UTS)



  • Obyek yang memiliki sifat seperti PATCH, termasuk quilts (selimut), MOSAICS, tanah, bercak pada Dalmation, dan awan di atas langit.
  • Suatu permukaan area yang non-linear yang berbeda penampilannya dari area sekitarnya.
  • Bervariasi dalam ukuran, bentuk. tipe, heterogeneity, dan boundary characteristics.
  • Sering dikelilingi oleh MATRIX, yaitu area sekitar yang memiliki perbedaan struktur jenis atau komposisinya.



  • Land use – what is the minimum patch size needed to accomplish a particular objective?
  • What is the optimum patch size?
  • The answers to these questions are crucial to the understanding and management of landscape.
  • The primary characteristics considered are ecological: energy, mineral nutrients, and species. Others: the ability to operate planting and harvesting machinery, the distance to habitations and market, or topographic variation.


Materi MG IV Pengantar Ekologi Lanskap 2017

IV Landscape Structure – Patches KAS 2017