Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307
DOI 10.1007/s10980-009-9326-z
PERSPECTIVES
Positioning aesthetic landscape as economy
Terry L. Barrett Æ Almo Farina Æ Gary W. Barrett
Received: 15 July 2008 / Accepted: 19 January 2009 / Published online: 31 January 2009

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Flexibility is required in modern times to
comprehend vast and fluctuating levelscapes of
information. The ability to observe, simulate, and
assimilate situations and circumstances from different
points of reference and view is paramount for
survival. This ability as preamble to consequence in
landscape is valid, and provides an impetus for
expanding landscape ecology from its traditional
realm of definitive terrafirma to an assimilation of
terraform (i.e. the process that alters an environment
capable of supporting life forms). The traditional
human-nature duplexity, regarding landscape ecol-
ogy, is simulated with real and virtual fields in a
noöspheric configuration. The involvement of culture
(i.e. by consensus of value) and history (i.e. by
sequencing relevancy) is a contributing determinant
of ‘‘real’’ (landscaper) and ‘‘virtual’’ (landscapev)
fields of existence and extinction. Within this
noöspheric network unique observations of landscape
ecology are possible (e.g. eco-field). Suggested in the
noöspheric network, aesthetics is an efficiency rele-
vant to life-support systems exemplified by value that
precludes aestheticism (i.e. typically limited to a
T. L. Barrett
G. W. Barrett (&)
Eugene P. Odum School of Ecology, University of
Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
e-mail: gbarrett@uga.edu
A. Farina
Institute of Biomathematics, University of Urbino,
Campus Scientifico-Sogesta, 61029 Urbino, Italy
dichotomy of beautiful and ugly). Aesthetics viewed
as a transcending process through levels of ecological
organization and as a transcending property of
transcending processes becomes understood as econ-
omy (energetic efficiency) capable of supporting
nonmarket and market units of valuation. The
consequence of these units of valuation articulates
as subjects or objects of criticism within an aesthetic
set point model, which measures individual or
societal tolerance.
Keywords Aesthetics
Economy of survival

Levels of organization
Noösphere

Set point
Transcending processes

Virtualsphere
Introduction
The dialogue regarding aesthetics has traditionally
been concerned with aestheticism, that is, the critic of
objects or subjects within a dichotomy of beautiful
and ugly. We offer that aesthetics be understood as
economy essential to survival. Because the economy
of nature is a long-term concept proposed by the
German biologist, Ernst Haeckel (1869), and because
the noösphere concept (Vernadsky 1945) encom-
passes the geological history of evolutionary change
in the biosphere brought about by humans, we model
the noösphere on multi-dimensions to integrate
aesthetic landscape as economy of survival. This
description will position noösphere as marker,
123
300
transcending processes as signifier, and aesthetics as
referent (Krauss 1983; Ulmer 1983).
Noösphere as marker
Barrett (1985) recognized the noösphere concept
(Vernadsky 1945) as a model unit of study in
integrating biological, physical, and socioeconomic
parameters within a holistic, systems framework (f.i.,
Teilhard de Chardin 1966; Birx 1972). Barrett (1981)
and Naveh and Lieberman (1984) place significance
of noösphereic-cultural influences on resource man-
agement in landscape ecology (e.g. addressing the
need to establish an ecological currency for the long-
term management of energy resources).
Because survivorship and reproductive success of
a species is measured in multi-dimensions of time
and space (Brown 1995), particular focus is placed on
a noöspheric model to include real and virtual fields
[e.g. biogenetic-noogenetic (Boulding 1993)].
Fig. 1 Noösphere, within
the golden mean,
configuring a human–nature
duplexity with real and
virtual fields
123
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307
Figure 1 implies interaction among five integrated
spheres that comprehend the function and signifi-
cance of aesthetics in survival: (a) atmosphere, the
gaseous envelope or whole mass of air surrounding
Earth; (b) hydrosphere, the aqueous envelope of
Earth, including bodies of water and aqueous vapor in
the atmosphere; (c) lithosphere, the rocky material of
the Outer Crust of Earth; (d) technosphere, human–
built systems, such as the agro–urban complex
(Barrett et al. 1999) or the industrial-garden city
(Le Corbusier 1987), telecommunications (Kargon
and Molella 2008; McDowell 2008; Sanjay 2008), or
human genome (Mehlman 1998; Venter 2007), and
(e) virtualsphere, as focus of a system forming
images that simulate an environment, such as cyber-
space or mathematical abstraction [e.g. fractal
patterns that calibrate landscape indicating self-sim-
ilarity in evolving urban growth (Batty 2008)].
Within the noösphere, an exemplary eco-field
recognizes the determinants of landscapev and land-
scaper fields relevant to life-support systems. ‘‘The
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307
eco-field hypothesis presents a new possibility to
describe landscape processes [terraform] according to
an organismic-centered-view’’ (Farina and Belgrano
2006, p. 5). Landscapev places individual cognitive
perceptions with specific points of reference as an
emergent eco-field, that is, ‘‘a spatial configuration
carrier of a specific meaning perceived when a
specific living function is activated. A species-
specific cognitive landscape is composed of all the
spatial configurations involved for all the living
functions for a particular organism’’ (Farina and
Belgrano 2006, p. 5). Therefore the eco-field, as a
carrier of meaning, determines species existence and
extinction in which value is implicit.
‘‘Organisms have two principal different possibil-
ities to locate the spatial configurations carriers of
meaning: the eco-field spatial configuration to search
around and to find different spatial configurations in
the same locality—spatial overlap, or to search some
specific spatial configurations in nonoverlapping
locations—spatial distinctiveness’’ (Farina and Bel-
grano 2006, p. 10). Landscaper is referenced by eco-
field as the spatial navigation of organisms through
the environment, which provides a panorama that
elicits responses facilitating their survival.
Human perception and response
Living beings process for their survival by decipher-
ing an undifferentiated background (Ahl and Allen
1996) or perhaps, immersed in a nondifferentiated
matrix (Baer 1988) of which the quality of an entity is
undistinguishable from all others. Hierarchy theory
[i.e. a systems model (O’Neill et al. 1986)] suggests
that context or undifferentiated background is
implicit in the observation although not directly part
of the measurement of value that fixes the scale of
experience (Ahl and Allen 1996). Baer (1988, p. 217)
notes the holomovement (i.e. a meanings model
formulated by Bohm 1980) as an example of the
nondifferentiated matrix in which, ‘‘Life … is
enfolded in a vast sea of energy which is ‘all present’
but in different codes (enfoldments) only some of
which are manifest (i.e. explicate). All living beings,
indeed everything that ‘shows itself’ (phenomena) are
explicate differences of what implicitly is one and
nondiffentiated.’’ Bohm (1980, p. 151) states, ‘‘Thus,
the holomovement is undefinable and immeasur-
able.’’ Although the foci of aesthetics vary, intrinsic
301
in this process, human impressions upon the envi-
ronment (Sanderson et al. 2002) and reciprocating
networks (Patten 1994) encompass within the noö-
sphere concept.
Human cognitive landscapes
Urban development is an imprint of historical rele-
vance upon the landscaper, which configures varied
style and time period architecture that effectively
maps the previous success or pass failure of a city
(e.g. the natural city, Mumford 1961). The recipro-
cating network of history selects for efficiency in
survival by sequencing relevancy that is, by chron-
icling scenarios of past human predicament and
determination. Comprehension of these scenarios
cues the next generation with valuable knowledge
upon which to efficiently determine its own selection
of resources (Boulding 1993).
Whether as a determinant of cityscape or cyber-
space, culture determines effectiveness in survival by
consensus of value. Culture decides what is perceived
as precious or essential by creating desire or by
inventing demand. Here human value is brought
about by the intrigue of the subject, biotic or abiotic
(Eaton 1997). It comes less from scarcity, which
represents an insufficient number of individuals or
low abundance, than from a cultural decision that the
subject is exceptional or uncommon. For example,
species are presently revalued having market value as
living contributors to biodiversity (e.g. carbon print)
and curiosity (e.g. behaviour study), not necessarily
for pelage or human consumption. Scarcity is
frequently based on a particular culture’s anticipated
level of an optimal abundance or quantity of a
selected resource. Therefore, rarity denoted from this
definition of scarcity is a disruption of the continu-
ation of an essential resource, or norm, insufficient to
satisfy the need or demand of that culture. Fre-
quently, an indicator species or a rare commodity is
uniquely reciprocal to a changing system of value
(Barrett and Barrett 2008).
Aesthetic set-point model
Each culture represents an aesthetic set-point model
(Barrett and Barrett 2008). The set point in ecological
systems is frequently referred to as optimum carrying
capacity [Ko (Barrett and Odum 2000)]. An aesthetic
123
302 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307

set point within an anthropogenic system is defined as

the measure of optimum tolerance [To (Barrett and
Barrett 2008)], which is exhibited by an individual
based on his/her behaviour within a specific regional
landscape and system(s) of belief [e.g. regional
tolerance level indices (Florida 2002)]. Positive and
negative feedback maintain optimum carrying capac-
ity (Ko) and optimum tolerance (To) within a normal
operating range in a healthy or sustainable system.
Feedback may be elicited when factors lie outside
the level of tolerance or ‘‘normal operating range’’ of
a specific society. A positive feedback is typically
expressed as resource. Negative feedback may ini-
tially be interpreted as nonresource (i.e. that which is
not used in the immediate or present, however, is not
harmed or extinguished beyond use as a resource by
others or at a later time) or nonessential (i.e.
harmful). For example, challenges to totalitarian
principles and practices within centralized, absolute
governmental control may be considered nonessen-
Fig. 2 a Level-of-organization concept with aesthetics as a
tial, whereas broader systems of governments transcending process. b Aesthetics as a transcending property
respond to and internalize the tensions and external- of transcending processes. After Odum and Barrett (2005)
ities creative economy implies (Florida 2005).
an aesthetic property of ‘‘manner of acting.’’ Sociality
is a particular manner of acting that emerges as an
Transcending process as signifier aesthetic that is favourable to specific species
survival. Aesthetics serves as optimality criteria
An epistemology redefining aesthetics as economy, (i.e. a set of best alternatives, measured by the fitness
which precludes aestheticism [e.g. aestheticism (He- or profitability of the species). Philosophically,
gel 2006; Berleant and Carlson 2007; Godlovitch aesthetic landscape emerges as transcendental in
2008)] is considered here. Barrett et al. (1997) nature (Barrett and Barrett 2008); exemplary are the
described how seven processes (behaviour, develop- intuitive and spiritual of Emerson (1903), the sim-
ment, diversity, energetics, evolution, integration, plicity ventured by Thoreau (1854), and a land ethic
regulation) transcend eleven ecological levels of espoused by Leopold (1989). The cultural and
organization ranging from the cellular to the eco- spiritual discipline of farming embraced by Berry
sphere. Aesthetics as a process also transcends these (1997) and the scientific vision framed by Wilson
levels of ecological organization, including landscape (1998) in Consilience emerge as modern aesthetic
(Fig. 2a). For example, efficiency in flight as evident landscape.
from the proportional structure patterns of winged
maple seeds, Acer spp. to the common skimmer, What frequency is the terraform?
Rynchops niger (Doczi 1994), and in regulated,
sustainable states of systems from homeostasis at When viewing regional landscape aesthetic, time is
the organism level and below to homeorhesis at the not necessarily uninterrupted (i.e. history repeats
population level and above (f.i., Odum and Barrett itself). The revaluation of bison and their reintroduc-
2005). tion to the Uinted States is a modern example. And
Figure 2b illustrates aesthetics as a transcending place is not necessarily contiguous geographically
property of transcending processes. For example, (e.g. metapopulations, Kaplan and Kaplan 1982;
sociality could be the aesthetic emergent when the Hanski and Gilpin 1997), but may be intermittent
transcending process of behaviour is paralleled with throughout the world such as the appreciation or

123
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307
value of the rice- or the maize-based cultures.
Terraform allows flexibility to negotiate an environ-
ment that is conducive to different patterns of
perceptions and facilitates different perceptions of
patterns. Any number of matrices may occur at these
points of incidence. This dynamic imminently
embodies as a model of position. Mary Daly’s
investigation of histories are spiral in nature; Derri-
da’s superimprinting of text, as palimpsest allowing
for elliptical sight, forms an imperfect tracing of
repeated circles; Peter Eisenman’s simultaneous
castings of historical and present architectural cues
(i.e. the stairs that go nowhere) are realized as an
incongruent layering of structural entrances in vari-
ous time periods; or a position of circumstance/
consequence emerges as regional landscape aesthetic
(Barrett 1997).
Figure 3 illustrates two parallel models of posi-
tion/landscape exemplary of a specific weave of the
African–American fanner basket that was developed
in winnowing (i.e. separating the grain from the
chaff) rice. The Anasazi basket weave satisfies the
need to carry Mesoamerican corn; some were woven
tight enough to hold water—an essential in the early
irrigation of the Four Corners. Each model of position
represents the rice- and maize-culture matrix respect-
fully, because the form and function of the weave are
Fig. 3 Two matrices of
weave representing
‘‘winnowing’’ from a rice
culture, and ‘‘containing’’
from a maize culture
respectfully, as aesthetic
emergents in a landscapev.
Lowcountry fanner basket,
and Anasazi container
basket representing objects
of aestheticism in a
landscaper
303
distilled from each particular culture. The receptacle
or vessel (basket) is shaped to suit its intended
content of rice or maize, and becomes an aesthetic
currency appropriate to the economy of each culture.
For example, from the history and culture of the Rice
Coast of Africa to the Lowcountry of Georgia and
South Carolina [regional landscape aesthetic], the
winnowing [aesthetic process], and the weave [aes-
thetic emergent], economy of survival is intrinsic to
each level of human expression as the aesthetic. Note:
the basket, the object of aestheticism (spectrum of
beautiful and ugly), accommodates as a unit with
market value for each culture (f.i., Coakley 2005;
Morris 1941). The materials selected to weave the
fanner basket (e.g. bulrush, sweetgrass, pine needle,
palmetto leaf) and container basket of the Anasazi
(e.g. yucca fiber) correlate directly with the location,
perception, and selection of the resource in each
landscape over a period of time reflecting the history
of each culture.
Aesthetics in market and nonmarket capital
Considering the field of aesthetics as an accurate
evaluation and effective management of nonmarket
and market capital might allow humans to ‘‘external-
ize the internalities,’’ that is to put the contributions
123
304 Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307

of economy on the same basis as the work of the
environment expressed as ecosystem services (Daily
et al. 1997; Odum and Odum 2000). Thereby,
providing an equation that is simpatico with the
valuation of nonmarket and market capital (Barrett
and Barrett 2008).
Watt (1973) described five ecological variables as
energy, diversity, matter, space, and time. He intro-
duced 24 principles describing the interactions of
these variables, including mechanisms of self-regu-
lation in ecological systems. Barrett (1994) described
how these ecological variables have been degraded or
mismanaged during the past century, implicating a
rethinking of these interrelationships that are vital to
a sustainable future. In Table 1 five selected aesthetic
processes or functions are related to each major
ecological variable. We portray an aesthetic emer-
gent, including a corresponding unit or method of
measurement, resulting from this interaction. From
ancient wealth astride pack animals along the Silk
Road to across an Artic of modern container ships,
the common denominator is currency. The aesthetic
emergent is an application of valuation with quanti-
tative units that is a specific response to the particular
Table 1 Five aesthetic processes with possible emergent
applied to Watt’s (1973) perception of five ecological variables
Ecological Aesthetic Aesthetic emergent with unit of
variable process valuation
Energy Convert Thermodynamics (thermal unit)
Diversity Select Genetic engineering (genome)
Matter Design Architecture (mass)
Space Negotiate Landscape (pixel)
Time Manipulate Sequence (iamb)
interaction of the ecological variable with the
aesthetic process.
Aesthetics as referent
What people perceive as ‘‘beautiful’’ is utopian
situation prescribed by their particular culture based
on the health of their natural circumstance or environ-
ment at that time, and is repeated through their history.
Economy (energetic efficiency) at each level of
organization is appealing to humans. Each perception
is an aesthetic archetype, designed and manufactured
by a consensus, to equip the individual with survival
skills for a particular situation and present circum-
stance. Disruptions in this economy or process may be
interpreted as ‘‘ugly’’ and, therefore, frequently are
determined to be nonessential. That is, in nature when
flow of energy is impaired or retarded, it obstructs or
inhibits the prescribed pattern (Odum 1996). In
artificial systems, disruption in the flow of information
is initially interpreted as chaos or ‘‘ugly’’ (Arnheim
1971; Barrett 1997; Barrett and Barrett 2008).
What enhances the health of the ecological system
increases the efficiency (i.e. the survivorship and
reproductive success of the individual). Table 2
summarizes how positive and negative feedback
mechanisms across levels of organization are regu-
lated in mature, sustainable systems. Examples range
from homeostasis (anabolism/catabolism = 1) to ho-
meorhesis (production/respiration = 1) at the
ecosystem and landscape levels (Odum 1969, 1985;
Odum and Barrett 2005). Likewise, regulatory con-
cepts such as optimum carrying capacity and
optimum diversity, typical of older, maturing, sus-
tainable systems represent an emergent aesthetics

Table 2 Maturation set points of sustainable system(s)

Component Positive feedback Negative feedback Regulated, sustainable mature state

Organism dynamic Anabolism (A) Catabolism (C) A/C = 1

Population dynamic Exponential growth Environmental resistance Carrying capacity
Community dynamic Mutualism Competition Optimum diversity
Ecosystem dynamic Productivity (P) Respiration or maintenance (R) P/R = 1
Landscape dynamic High heterogeneity or habitat diversity Decreased habitat diversity Optimum landscape diversity
Human dynamica Creativity (C) Degradation (D) C/D = 1
a
Human dynamic defined here as a logical consequence of the manipulation of the natural world by humans (Barrett and Barrett
2008)

123
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307
resulting from the interaction of ecological variables
with representative aesthetic processes (Barrett and
Barrett 2008). Regulated, sustainable, mature states
are emergent landscape properties that are dynamic
and complex both ecologically and aesthetically
(Odum 1971; Patten 1994).
‘‘The relations among the technical, mythic,
economic, political, formal, textual, historical, and
organic are not causal. But the articulations are
consequential: they matter. Implosion of dimensions
implies loss of clear and distinct identities but not
loss of mass and energy’’ (Haraway 1997, p. 222).
Within the realm of human survival, ‘‘the careful
divide between what is cultural and what is natural is
not that interesting: culture and nature are the
consequences, not the causes, of the relays, networks,
and alliances’’ (Kull 2001, p. 56). Encoded in the
aesthetics of a postmodern landscape (Foster 1983),
landscapev is perceived as a dynamic component with
landscaper. For example, ‘‘…technonature, including
its invented and copyrighted organisms, inhibits the
borderland—totally natural and totally cultural simul-
taneously—thus making it impossible to define nature
in opposition to culture, human activity, or techno-
logical interventions anymore’’ (Kull 2001, p. 52).
Conclusion
Aesthetics has frequently been focused on concerns
relating to evaluation of objects or subjects—aes-
theticism. We propose, based on the evolution of
culture, energetic efficiency, and systems develop-
ment, that aesthetics be revalued as an economy of
survivorship transcending levels of ecological
organization.
Positioning landscape aesthetics as economy is
related to (a) valuation of ecosystem services and
natural capital (Costanza et al. 1997; Barrett and Odum
2000; Daily et al. 2000), (b) integration of ecology and
economics (Barrett and Farina 2000; Farina 2000), (c)
the eco-field concept describing species-specific cog-
nitive approaches to the landscape by which species
perceive and adapt to their environment based on
biosemiotic mechanisms (Farina and Belgrano 2006),
and (d) emergence of integrative science for addressing
problems related to resource management and global
sustainability (Barrett 2001).
305
Acknowledgments We thank the United States Regional
Association of the International Association for Landscape
Ecology, Madison, Wisconsin committee for organizing the
23rd symposium, Landscape Patterns and Ecosystem
Processes. Gary and I thank Almo Farina, session chair of
Landscape Patterns and Ecosystem Processes: The Role of
Human Societies for his invitation to present our scholarship.
We appreciate the contribution of Jianguo Wu, Editor-In-Chief
of Landscape Ecology, for his time and interest regarding this
publication.
References
Ahl V, Allen TFH (1996) Hierarchy theory: a vision, vocab-
ulary, and epistemology. Columbia University Press, New
York
Arnheim R (1971) Entropy and art: an essay on disorder and
order. University of California Press, Berkeley
Baer E (1988) Medical semiotics. University Press of America,
Lanham
Barrett GW (1981) Stress ecology: an integrative approach. In:
Barrett GW, Rosenberg R (eds) Stress effects on natural
ecosystems. Wiley, New York, pp 3–12
Barrett GW (1985) A problem-solving approach to resource
management. Bioscience 35:423–427. doi:10.2307/1310022
Barrett GW (1994) Restoration ecology: lessons yet to be
learned. In: Baldwin AD Jr, Deluce J, Pletsch C (eds)
Beyond preservation: restoring and inventing landscapes.
University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota, pp 113–126
Barrett TL (1997) The emperor’s moth. In: Gowaty PA (ed)
Feminism and evolutionary biology: boundaries, inter-
sections, and frontiers. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp
554–561
Barrett GW (2001) Closing the ecological cycle: the emer-
gence of integrative science. Ecosyst Health 7:79–84. doi:
10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.007002079.x
Barrett TL, Barrett GW (2008) Aesthetic landscapes of the
golden mouse. In: Barrett GW, Feldhamer GA (eds) The
golden mouse: ecology and conservation. Springer, New
York, pp 193–222
Barrett GW, Farina A (2000) Integrating ecology and eco-
nomics. Bioscience 50:311–312. doi:10.1641/0006-3568
(2000)050[0311:IEAE]2.3.CO;2
Barrett GW, Odum EP (2000) The twenty-first century: the
world at carrying capacity. Bioscience 50:363–368. doi:
10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0363:TTFCTW]2.3.CO;2
Barrett GW, Peles JD, Odum EP (1997) Transcending pro-
cesses and the levels-of-organization concept. Bioscience
47:531–535. doi:10.2307/1313121
Barrett GW, Barrett TL, Peles JD (1999) Managing agroeco-
systems as agrolandscapes: reconnecting agriculture and
urban landscapes. In: Collins WW, Qualset CO (eds)
Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
pp 197–213
Batty M (2008) The size, scale, and shape of cities. Science
319:769–771. doi:10.1126/science.1151419
Berleant A, Carlson A (eds) (2007) The aesthetics of human
environments. Broadview Press, New York
123
306
Berry W (1997) The unsettling of America: culture and agri-
culture. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco
Birx HJ (1972) Pierre Tielhard de Chardin’s philosophy of
evolution. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield
Bohm D (1980) Wholeness and the implicate order. Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London
Boulding KE (1993) Spaceship Earth revisited. In: Daly HE,
Townsend KN (eds) Valuing the Earth: economics, ecol-
ogy, and ethics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, pp 311–313
Brown JH (1995) Macroecology. University of Chicago Press,
Illinois
Coakley JV (2005) Sweetgrass baskets and the Gullah tradi-
tion. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M,
Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J,
Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of
the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
387:253–260
Daily GC, Alexander S, Ehrlich PR, Goulder L, Lubchenco J,
Matson PA, Mooney HA, Postel S, Schneider SH, Tilman
D, Woodweil GM (1997) Ecosystem services: benefits
supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Ecol
Soc Am Issues Ecol 2:2–15
Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P,
Ehrlich PR, Folke C, Jansson AM, Jansson BO, Kautsky
N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler KG, Simpson D, Starrett
D, Tilman D, Walker B (2000) The value of nature and
the nature of value. Science 289:395–396. doi:
10.1126/science.289.5478.395
Doczi G (1994) The power of limits: proportional harmonies in
nature, art, and architecture. Shambhala Publications,
Boston
Eaton MM (1997) The beauty that requires health. In: Nassauer
JI (ed) Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology.
Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 85–106
Emerson RW (1903) Nature: conduct of life, nature, addresses
and lectures. Collier, New York (Originally published in
1836)
Farina A (2000) The cultural landscape as a model for the inte-
gration of ecology and economics. Bioscience 50:313–320.
doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0313:TCLAAM]2.3.
CO;2
Farina A, Belgrano A (2006) The eco-field hypothesis: toward
a cognitive landscape. Landscape Ecol 21:5–17. doi:
10.1007/s10980-005-7755-x
Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it’s
transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life.
Basic Books, New York
Florida R (2005) Cities and the creative class. Routledge, New
York
Foster H (1983) The anti-aesthetic: essays on postmodern
culture. Bay Press, Seattle
Godlovitch S (2008) Valuing nature and the autonomy of
natural aesthetics. In: Carlson A, Lintott S (eds) Nature,
aesthetics, and environmentalism: from beauty to duty.
Columbia University Press, New York, pp 268–285
Haeckel E (1869) Über entwickelungsgang und aufgabe der
zoologie. Jenaische Z Med Naturwissenschaft 5:353–370
123
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307
Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (eds) (1997) Metapopulation biology:
ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San
Diego
Haraway DJ (1997) Mice into wormholes: a comment on the
nature of no nature. In: Downey GL, Dumit J (eds)
Cyborgs and citadels: anthropological inventions in
emerging sciences and technologies. School of American
Research Press, Santa Fe, pp 209–243
Hegel GWF (2006) The philosophy of art. Hastie W (trans)
Barnes & Noble, New York (Originally published in
1886)
Kaplan S, Kaplan R (1982) Humanscape: environments for
people. Ulrich’s Books, Ann Arbor
Kargon RH, Molella AP (2008) Invented Edens: techno-cities
of the twentieth century. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge
Krauss R (1983) Sculpture in the expanded field. In: Foster H
(ed) The anti-aesthetic: essays on postmodern culture. Bay
Press, Seattle, pp 31–42
Kull A (2001) The cyborg as an interpretation of culture-nat-
ure. Zygon 36:49–56
Le Corbusier (1987) The city of to-morrow and its planning.
Etchells F (trans) Dover, New York (Originally published
in 1929)
Leopold A (1989) The land ethic. In: a Sand County almanac:
and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp 201–226 (Originally published in 1949)
McDowell SD (2008) Managing the infosphere: governance,
technology, and cultural practice in motion. Temple
University Press, Philadelphia
Mehlman MJ (1998) Access to the genome: the challenge to
equality. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC
Morris EH (1941) Anasazi basketry, Basket maker II through
Pueblo III, a study based on specimens from the San Juan
river country. Publication 533, Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington, DC
Mumford L (1961) The city in history: its origins, its trans-
formations, and its prospects. Harcourt, Brace &
Company, New York
Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1984) Landscape ecology: theory and
application. Springer, New York
O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A
hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University
Press, Princeton
Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development.
Science 164:262–270
Odum HT (1971) Environment, power, and society. Wiley-
Interscience, New York
Odum EP (1985) Trends expected in stressed ecosystems.
Bioscience 35:419–422
Odum HT (1996) Environment accounting: eMergy and envi-
ronmental decision making. Wiley, New York
Odum EP, Barrett GW (2005) Fundamentals of ecology, 5th
edn. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont
Odum HT, Odum EP (2000) An energetic basis for valuation of
ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3:21–23
Patten BC (1994) Ecological systems engineering: toward
integrated management of natural and human complexity
in the ecosphere. Ecol Model 75(76):653–665
Landscape Ecol (2009) 24:299–307 307

Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo
AV, Woolmerg G (2002) The human footprint and the last
of the wild. Bioscience 52:891–904
Sanjay K (2008) Business models for sustainable telecoms
growth in developing economies. Wiley, Chichester
Thoreau HD (1854) Walden; or, life in the woods. Ticknor and
Fields, Boston
Tielhard de Chardin P (1966) Man’s place in nature. Collins,
London
Ulmer GL (1983) The object of post-criticism. In: Foster H
(ed) The anti-aesthetic: essays on postmodern culture. Bay
Press, Seattle, pp 83–110
Venter JC (2007) A life decoded: my genome; my life. Viking,
New York
Vernadsky WI (1945) The biosphere and the noösphere. Am
Sci 33:1–12
Watt KEF (1973) Principles of environmental science.
McGraw-Hill, New York
Wilson EO (1998) Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Knopf,
Random House, New York

123