Epilogue: Toward a Transdisciplinary Science of
Ecological and Cultural Landscape Restoration
Zev Naveh1,2
Abstract
To bridge the gaps between restoration as a science and as
a practice, restoration ecology has to broaden its scope
toward transdisciplinarity in close cooperation with land-
scape ecologists and other holistic environmentally
oriented scientists, professionals, practitioners, and stake-
holders. For restoration, the ongoing transdisciplinary sci-
entific revolution has opened new insights to cope with
the complex bio-hydro- and human-ecological network
relations. The Total Human Ecosystem (THE), integrat-
ing humans with all other organisms and their total envi-
ronment at the highest level of the global hierarchy,
should become the unifying holistic paradigm for all syn-
thetic ‘‘eco-disciplines.’’ These should link ecological
knowledge, wisdom, and ethics with their scientific and
professional expertise from the natural and social sciences
and the humanities. As the tangible matrix for all or-
ganisms, including humans, our industrial Total Human
Landscape is the concrete spatial and functional system
of the THE. It forms a closely interlaced network of
solar energy–powered natural and seminatural biosphere
Introduction
Although the essays presented in this anthology cover
a broad range of conceptual and practical issues deserving
further consideration, this epilogue focuses mainly on the
conflict between restoration ecology (RE) and the practice
of restoration and rehabilitation, as raised by Eric Higgs
in his thoughtful essay (this issue). I agree that this is one
of the most crucial issues for the success of future restora-
tion efforts. Higgs rightly criticized the narrow positivistic
and mostly reductionistic concepts still ruling academic
education and research. As a subdiscipline of ecology he
regards RE as part of this narrow first ‘‘culture of the natu-
ral sciences.’’ But ecological and cultural restoration prac-
tices, in his opinion represent many aspects of the second,
much broader ‘‘humanistic culture.’’
My intention is to show that this conflict could be over-
come by bridging the gaps between both ‘‘cultures,’’ that is,
if RE were to be transformed into a broader holistic and
1
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lowdermilk Division of
Agricultural Engineering, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
32000, Israel
2
Address correspondence to Z. Naveh, email znave@tx.technion.ac.il
Ó 2005 Society for Ecological Restoration International
228
landscapes and fossil energy–powered urban and agro-
industrial technosphere landscapes. The self-organizing
and self-creative restoration capacities of biosphere land-
scapes are driven by mutually amplifying auto- and
cross-catalytic feedback loops, but the rapidly expanding
technosphere landscapes are driven by destabilizing ‘‘run-
away’’ feedback loops. To prevent a global breakdown
and to ensure the sustainable future for both humankind
and nature, these positive feedbacks have to be counter-
acted by restraining, cultural feedbacks of environmental
planning and management, conservation, and restoration.
As the theme of this special issue alludes to, this template
should become an integral part of an urgently needed
sustainability revolution, to which the transdisciplinary
landscape restoration could contribute its important
share.
Key words: auto- and cross-catalytic networks, autopoiesis,
biosphere landscapes, self-organizing systems, sustainability
revolution, technosphere landscapes, transdisciplinarity .
transdisciplinary restoration science (TRS). By adopting
TRS, better integration could be achieved between the
bio-ecological and human-ecological aspects of ecological
and cultural restoration. At the same time, the require-
ments for rigid scientific inquiry and research can be recon-
ciled with the needs and aspirations of those involved in
practical restoration projects. Restoration research and
practice could then, hopefully become part of the third
‘‘transdisciplinary culture,’’ emerging presently as the
result of an ongoing postmodern transdisciplinary scientific
revolution. According to Kuhn (1970), in such a revolution,
the existing theories of conceptual schemes can no longer
adequately explain reality, and paradigms of established
so-called normal science have to be replaced by new ones.
I have already pointed out the need for a holistic and
transdisciplinary approach to ecological and cultural resto-
ration (Naveh 1998). I outlined some of the major princi-
ples of holistic landscape ecology and provided a functional
landscape classification with clear distinction between solar
energy–powered, regenerative biosphere landscapes and fos-
sil energy–powered, throughput technosphere landscapes
and their major restoration and rehabilitation strategies.
This approach will be complemented here by a detailed dis-
cussion on the relevance of a shift toward transdisciplinar-
ity in restoration science and practice.
Restoration Ecology Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 228–234 MARCH 2005

The Role of Transdisciplinarity in Restoration
Although the term ‘‘holistic’’ was not mentioned explicitly,
holistic approaches to restoration were acknowledged and
addressed by most authors in this issue, in the context of
their studies for managing the coastal zone, incorporating
the social sciences in the restoration process, and present-
ing visions for sustainability. Without doubt, visionary
views are also required for realizing the importance of a
future-oriented TRS. However, the concept of ‘‘transdisci-
plinary,’’ was not spelled out, even for those projects where
such an approach might have provided the best solution.
To avoid any confusion between interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity, it is important to realize that their major
difference lies chiefly in the nature of the interactions
among participants, based in the latter instance on higher
levels of integration and cooperation. As the prefix ‘‘trans’’
indicates, interactions go not between but across and even
beyond the conventional disciplines and their related activ-
ities, creating a new ‘‘metadiscipline,’’ transcending those
of the ‘‘normal’’ sciences (Naveh 2002). In a hierarchical
systems model of successive steps Jantsch (1970) showed
that transdisciplinarity is the most complex interacting
multilevel and multigoal structure with an overarching
common systems goal. This goal could be the contribution
of TRS to ecological and cultural restoration and rehabili-
tation to the urgently needed sustainability revolution.
Such a revolution should be achieved mainly, according
to Brown (2001), by a new ‘‘eco-economy’’ and according
to Laszlo (2001), by a ‘‘Macroshift towards a sustainable
world.’’ Restoration and rehabilitation should be imple-
mented in close collaboration with holistic landscape ecol-
ogy and with other synthetic ‘‘eco-disciplines’’ (Naveh 2002)
that have already successfully integrated their disciplinary
social realms with ecological principles and knowledge. To
these belong not only ecological economy (Costanza 1991,
1996) but also eco-psychology (Roszak et al. 1995), social
ecology (Fischer-Kowalski & Haberl 1993), and urban ecol-
ogy (Breuste et al. 1998). See also Naveh (2002, 2004a,
2004b).
Transdisciplinary restoration thus involves an entirely
new type of knowledge, leading to new relationships be-
tween researchers, professionals, and practitioners involved.
This knowledge is derived from the specific expertise of
each participant sharing his competence for the sake of the
common goal. These experts should be open-minded and
acquire the capacity of relation-building dialogue. Bohm
(1996) characterized this dialogue as ‘‘a stream of meaning,
flowing among, through and between us.’’ Participants share
a common basis of holistic systems concepts and of bio- and
human-ecological literacy, rooted in creative plurality in sci-
entific ideas and theories, as promoted by Bohm and Peat
(1987).
None of this means that restorationists will have to
neglect their own unique disciplinary expertise. Rather,
they will have to share it with the professionals dealing
with land use planning, management, and decision-making
MARCH 2005 Restoration Ecology
Transdisciplinary Landscape Restoration Science
and with the public at large. For this purpose restoration
cannot be carried out as piecemeal work on isolated
patches of disturbed or degraded habitats, but it must be
closely connected with the science(s) dealing with the
landscape as a whole, and especially with holistic land-
scape ecology. This is even more important, if we broaden
further the scope of TRS to include not only strategies for
biological–ecological restoration but also human-ecologi-
cal–oriented cultural restoration in the enhancement of
the scientific, aesthetic, historical, and traditional land-
scape values. The specific restoration goal, and the ways
to achieve it, has to be determined within the broader sys-
tems context of its surrounding landscapes and in the con-
text of ecological and socioeconomical and cultural
functions and land use(s). In all these cases recognition of
the human history of the landscapes as a guide for restora-
tion strategies is not less important than that of the geo-
logical, hydrological, and biological history.
Genuine collaboration as required in transdisciplinary
enterprises is not easy to achieve. It requires the special
skill of network thinking. For this purpose the new systems
branch of systems learning, resulting from the capacity of
combining systems thinking with systems acting, is of
greatest value. It seeks to avoid formulating problems from
one particular perspective, to the exclusion of others. In
our case, both academic restoration researchers and the
practitioners involved in restoration and rehabilitation of
land- and seascapes will have to acknowledge the validity
and relevance of diverse knowledge and perspectives.
They will have to encourage genuine local participation
and capacity-building, as well as for building up their own
capacities (Ison et al. 1997). A very useful handbook has
been produced by Senge (1994), the founder and director
of the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT, on sys-
tems thinking and learning for organization and manage-
ment research. This publication may serve to inspire
creation of new innovative systems methodologies essen-
tial for cooperative transdisciplinary restoration projects
and for the communication with all stakeholders.
The Transdisciplinary Scientific Revolution and Its
Relevance for Restoration
The conceptual foundation for this scientific revolution is
rooted in a major paradigm shift from entirely reductionis-
tic and mechanistic approaches, to more holistic, organis-
mic and hierarchical ones, grounded in complex systems
network thinking and based on the need for dealing with
uncertainties. In this holistic and transdisciplinary revolu-
tion, exclusively linear and deterministic processes have
been replaced by new paradigms of nonlinear, cybernetic,
and chaotic processes. Recognizing the limits of human
knowledge, the almost irrational belief in the objectivity
of a science detached from people has been replaced by
a contextual view of reality. This scientific revolution is
presently culminating in a unified view of the world, as
229
Transdisciplinary Landscape Restoration Science
noted by Laszlo (1994): ‘‘We are witnessing a change of
the way scientists view the world. It is perceived not any-
more like a giant mechanism, but as vast organism, in
which every part affects every other.’’
Among the most important percepts for restoration are
the findings on the self-organization of living systems. The
spontaneous emergence of new order, exemplified by new
structures and new forms of behavior within network pat-
terns, is made possible by their self-regulating feedback
loops. On relatively high organizational levels—including
landscapes—such systems can renew, repair, and repli-
cate themselves as networks of interrelated component–
producing processes. Because the network itself is created
and recreated in a flow of matter and energy, the systems
may be referred to as autopoietic (from the Greek word
for self-creating or self-renewing) systems.
These findings have also opened the way for realizing
that evolution toward increasing complexity and organiza-
tion is the result of structural fluctuations and innovations.
These traits can appear suddenly as ‘‘bifurcations’’ (from
the Greek furca = fork) in previously stable systems and
drive it subsequently to a new regime at a more complex
state. For further, more detailed information on these new
insights, see also Naveh (2004a, 2004b) and Naveh and
Carmel (2004).
Fortunately the most important insights, gained from
many findings of these revolutionary paradigm shifts, have
been synthesized lucidly by Capra (2002) as ‘‘Hidden Con-
nections,’’ integrating the biological, cognitive, and social
dimensions of life into a ‘‘science of sustainability.’’ In a
more formal and far-reaching study Laszlo (2002) has of-
fered a coherent global hypothesis of connectivity between
quantum, cosmos, life and consciousness, and their rele-
vant scientific fields. This study can be regarded as the
most significant conceptual breakthrough for such a genu-
ine unified theory of the world. The formal expression of
a coherent unified universe by a general mathematical
model has put it without doubt on the cutting edge of the
transdisciplinary scientific revolution and its emergent
postmodern complexity sciences (see also Naveh 2004c for
a more extensive review of this book).
The theoretical and philosophical roots of this scientific
revolution can be found in general systems theory (GST).
Its conceiver Bertalanffy (1968) did not succeed in creat-
ing the foundations for a unified scientific systems meta-
theory—as a theory above all discipline-oriented theories.
But GST has opened the way for further developments of
contemporary systems concepts of ordered wholeness and
complexity. Laszlo (1972) has regarded it ‘‘as an attempt
for a new transdisciplinary paradigm of contemporary
thought.’’
The systems approaches that evolved from GST have
branched out into many diverse scientific fields. It inspired
the development of a broad spectrum of pure and applied
systems sciences, having their roots in the natural or social
sciences. Its greatest merit was the struggle to overcome
academic and professional barriers not only between the
230
‘‘two cultures’’ of science and humanities but also between
these and the techno-economic and political ‘‘cultures’’ in
which decision-making in sustainable land uses and natu-
ral resources has to be carried out.
Such a holistic and transdisciplinary paradigm shift is
already changing the science and practice of adaptive re-
sources management and has inspired emergence of new
theories for sustainable futures (Holling 2000). An im-
portant outcome was the ‘‘Resilience Project’’ (Walker
2000)—an attempt to develop integrative understanding
of complex ‘‘social–ecological systems’’ among econo-
mists, ecologists, social scientists, and mathematicians.
These have much in common with our Total Human Eco-
system (THE) concept discussed below. Another impor-
tant attempt to develop an integrative theory of
transformations in human and natural systems, from the
angle of resilience and adaptive cyclic changes, has yielded
a truly transdisciplinary collection of essays (Gunderson
& Holling 2002). In landscape ecology there are also many
promising signs for such changes toward a transdisciplinary
landscape science (Klijn & Vos 2000; Kroenert et al. 2001;
Palang & Fry 2003; Tress et al. 2003, 2004) and especially
Bastian and Steinhardt (2002), who presented a compre-
hensive presentation of practical holistic and transdisci-
plinary approaches to landscape study, planning, and
management, with much relevance for TRS.
The impacts of this scientific revolution are not limited
only to the strictly scientific field. As a result of these para-
digm shifts we are witnessing now the emergence of
a ‘‘third culture’’ of profound cultural transformations,
changing so many of the ideas, beliefs, and perceptions
that still dominate western society with far-reaching prac-
tical implications for human society and its sustainable
future. Restorationists too should be aware of these devel-
opments because they open new vistas for the role of hu-
mans and nature as an integral part of an all-embracing
conception of synthetic cosmic, geological, biological, and
cultural evolution. Because they afford us a better scien-
tific understanding of the complex network relations
involved in the restoration of cultural land- and seascapes,
such as estuaries, they could also help to develop innova-
tive transdisciplinary research methodologies. The devel-
opment of such methodologies for the unique restoration
problems faced in each situation will be a great challenge
for restorationists. These have to do justice not only to the
physical and biological realities but also to the socioeco-
nomical, psychological, and mental, and the cultural and
spiritual realities in which our work is carried out.
The THEs as a Holistic Core Concept
The hierarchical view of humans and their landscapes, as
presented by Naveh and Lieberman (1994), fits very well
into the holistic systems view of the coherent self-organiz-
ing and coevolving, hierarchical organized universe pre-
sented above. In this universal systems hierarchy humans
Restoration Ecology MARCH 2005

together with all other organisms, their populations, and
ecosystems occupy the global ecological level, forming
together with their environment an indivisible entity of an
ecological and sociocultural supersystem, the THE. For
restoration, the importance of THE lies in perceiving hu-
mans and their ecological, cultural, social, political, and
economic dimensions and actions as an integral part of the
highest coevolutionary geo-bio-anthropical level of the
ecological hierarchy in which restoration is carried out.
THE should also be considered an overarching systems
metatheory (a theory above all others) for our physical
geospheric space sphere, as well as for the mental and
spiritual space sphere that we acquired during the cultural
evolution of the noosphere (from the Greek noos = mind).
THE can therefore also serve as the conceptual corner-
stone for unifying currently fragmented natural sciences
dealing with the physical space sphere and the social sci-
ences and humanities, dealing also with noospheric space.
The Total Human Landscapes and Transdisciplinary
Restoration
Whereas ecosystems are functional systems that are diffuse
in space and have no clear boundaries, landscapes are tan-
gible systems, which are well defined in space and time.
They serve as the spatial and functional matrix for all or-
ganisms, including humans, their populations, communi-
ties, and ecosystems. As ecological systems in their own
right, in which ecosystems are embedded, landscapes are
not just repeated patterns of ecosystems on kilometer-wide
stretches. Their nested spatial and functional hierarchy
ranges from the smallest mappable landscape cell, or eco-
tope, to the global human-dominated Total Human Land-
scape (THL) of the ecosphere. Therefore, any restoration
project is carried out on a landscape scale, regardless of
the size of the land we restore and on what scales we work.
However, regardless of the spatial scale, we have always to
keep in mind the fate of the larger landscape matrix.
As described elsewhere in more detail (Naveh &
Lieberman 1994; Naveh 2000, 2001), each landscape unit,
regardless of its size, is more than the measurable sum of
its biotic and abiotic components. Due to the interaction
between humans and nature, their natural, biological, and
cultural elements and their complex interlaced spatial and
functional networks, the THL and its hierarchical units
are more than mosaic puzzles in repeated patterns of eco-
systems. As a result, the information about the whole
landscape is larger than the arithmetic sum that can be
derived from its parts, and a restored landscape contains
more information than a degraded landscape system. This
means that not only the natural but also the cultural com-
ponents comprise a regional landscape. Its forests, grass-
and shrublands, its shore-lands, estuaries, wetlands and
rivers, its agricultural fields, its residential and industrial
areas, its roads, traffic- and power-lines, and their history
contribute to the integral and truly holistic character of
MARCH 2005 Restoration Ecology
Transdisciplinary Landscape Restoration Science
the landscape. They comprise various human-ecological,
social, economic, psychological, spiritual, aesthetic, and
functional aspects of experiencing and using the land-
scapes. Therefore, multidimensional ecological and cultural
organized landscape complexity cannot be conceived
merely—as in many ecosystem restoration studies—as a col-
lection of organisms and their energy/matter flow, trophic
webs, and interacting populations, but as a closely inter-
laced interactive network of all these functional and struc-
tural landscape elements. These have to be studied by
synthesis within the context of the organization of the
whole. For the same reason, restoration should not be car-
ried out simply as an isolated, patchy piecemeal operation.
It has to be treated as a well-planned integral part of
such a synthetic view of the whole network of the regional
landscape system and its restoration requirements. This
requires a deep understanding and knowledge of the eco-
logical and cultural processes driving the dynamic land-
scape changes in the past and present, and in their
anticipated future. Such an understanding can only be
gained by a transdisciplinary approach, bridging the deep
gap between the natural sciences and the humanities.
As mixed natural–cultural medium numbered systems,
sensu Weinberg (1975), neither mechanistic and statistical
approaches, nor their description and analysis as Archime-
dean principles by formal scientific languages such as
maps and mathematical models, can fully express this mul-
tidimensional structural and functional complexity. Inno-
vative approaches and methods, also including linguistic
and artistic descriptions and illustrations are required for
landscape study, management, and restoration. These
nonformal expressions by the latter are of special im-
portance for presenting knowledge gained from related
studies and projects, not only as scientific semantic infor-
mation published in books, papers, and reports, but as
pragmatic information that becomes meaningful by its
feedback response from its receiver, who can use it
for changing reality in the desired direction (Naveh &
Lieberman 1994).
Our chances for producing such efficient pragmatic
information and its ensuing impacts will be greatest if we
succeed in involving the practitioners and stakeholders in
transdisciplinary restoration and rehabilitation projects.
We have made such attempts to produce such pragmatic
information as conservation and restoration tools by pre-
paring ‘‘Redbooks of Threatened Landscapes’’ within the
framework of a Working Party in the IUCN World Con-
servation Movement (Naveh 1993; Grove et al. 1994;
Green & Vos 2001). However, because these were carried
out as purely scientific research projects, without active
involvement of decision-makers and stakeholders, their
success was rather limited.
In view of these rapidly increasing human pressures in
the coastal zone, the restoration of degraded ecotopes and
their functional and structural integration in the THL will
become a more and more urgent issue. For this reason,
the application of advanced, computerized landscape
231
Transdisciplinary Landscape Restoration Science
ecological methods will be essential including remote
sensing, geographical information systems, spatial explicit
landscape modeling, and systems simulation and modeling
applied to landscape research on different scales. These
landscape ecological methods, in combination with the
transdisciplinary methodology, should help to ensure the
restoration and continuation of multiple natural and
human-induced functions, providing the greatest possible
benefit for both nature and human society.
The Role of Transdisciplinary Restoration in the
Sustainability Revolution
In concluding I present a cybernetic THE model (Fig. 1)
that served as the conceptual basis for a regional sustain-
able development project (EU-project MOSES 2000). Its
aim was to develop strategies for long-lasting and mutually
beneficial outcomes between people, their livelihood and
well-being, their culture, economy, and their landscapes
for present and future generations. We developed a trans-
disciplinary systems dynamic simulation model. This
revealed autocatalytic cycles, in which one of the products
of the reaction enters a cycle that helps to reproduce itself
by creating its own synthesis, and cross-catalytic cycles
(CNN), in which two or more subsystems are linked in
a way that they can catalyze each other’s synthesis and
thereby mutually increase their growth. These cross-
catalytic network relations in the dynamics of the emerg-
ing information society are comparable to the autopoietic
dynamics, driving ecological systems and natural and semi-
Figure 1. Major auto- and cross-catalytic cycles and feedback loops in
the emerging information society of our THE (Grossmann & Naveh
2000).
232
natural biosphere landscapes (Naveh 2004a, 2004b). More-
over, the contribution of nature by regional landscape
attractiveness, achieved also by restoration, and driven by
such cross-catalytic networks is crucial for regional
upswing.
In this model the biosphere and technosphere land-
scapes are closely coupled with the info(rmation)sphere
by the potentials for mutually supporting and amplifying
relationships in the form of CNNs. These feedback loops
are channeled via the infosphere as a noospheric cultural
information pool playing a rapidly growing role in the
emerging information society. The autocatalytic cycles in
biosphere landscapes that are shown as negative self-stabi-
lizing feedback loops and the positive, mutually amplifying
feedback loops indicate autopoiesis and evolution. How-
ever, in technosphere landscapes, the plus sign represents
just the opposite of self-stabilizing feedbacks. They are
mutually reinforcing destabilizing feedback loops between
unrestrained growth of human populations, their energy
and material consumption, and technological power. These
‘‘run-away’’ cycles remove most of the restraining and reg-
ulating natural and cultural feedbacks, and are converting
within shorter and shorter time larger and larger stretches
of biosphere landscapes into vulnerable, monotonous agro-
industrial steppes and human-made technological deserts
devoid of nature. Not only are biological richness and eco-
logical stability lost but also their cultural wealth and scenic
beauty. Because the forces driving these processes are
deeply ingrained culturally, the present global environmen-
tal crisis is mainly a cultural crisis.
As shown in Figure 2 this crisis is driven by the great
intensity of human land uses and the destabilizing positive
feedback loops of our urban-industrial technosphere land-
scapes. Having their roots in our cultural evolution of the
noosphere, they are the result of complex historical and
cultural events, such as population and consumption
growth amplified by advanced technologies. This has led to
the industrial fossil age revolution and the modern ‘‘bull-
dozer mentality,’’ which has ruled most land transformation
activities in our present Total Industrial Human landscape.
Therefore, the remedies to this crisis should be sought not
only in the scientific, technical, socioeconomical, and politi-
cal spheres but also in the spiritual and ethical spheres of
human consciousness, living norms, and education. They
can be restrained and counteracted only by cultural,
human-induced negative feedbacks of sustainable planning
and management, as part of the aforementioned overall
sustainability revolution, leading to a postindustrial symbi-
osis between human society and nature.
Restorationists can fill a vital role in reinforcing these
cultural feedbacks and their cross-catalytic networks by
broadening the spatial and conceptional restoration scales
from small, degraded islands of biosphere ecotopes to the
restoration of the integral parts of this postindustrial THL
and its natural and cultural patterns and processes. Land-
scapes have to be assessed and restored as the combined
ecological and cultural diversity and heterogeneity of the
Restoration Ecology MARCH 2005

Figure 2. The evolutionary and historical relations between nature, humans, landscapes, and culture as determined by human land uses.
Total Land (and sea) -scape Ecodiversity (Naveh 1994)
along different scales. In the light of above-described in-
sights, it is obvious that the success of biosphere land-
scape restoration will depend on the careful utilization of
their self-sustaining and regenerative capacities, ensuring
further biological evolution, and their multifunctional val-
ues (Naveh 2001). The conservation and restoration of the
most valuable and richest biosphere keystone systems, on
which further biological evolution depends, could be one
of the most significant contributions of restorationists to
this postindustrial symbiosis and thereby also to the sus-
tainability revolution.
Lastly, the sustainability of urban-industrial techno-
sphere landscapes, and therefore the very future of our
THE, will depend on the restraining cultural feedback
loops of comprehensive urban planning and management.
In this urgently needed sustainability revolution, ecologi-
cal and cultural restoration can therefore also play an
important role in the conversion of urban-industrial land-
scapes into more sustainable, healthier, and more attrac-
tive inhabitable landscapes.
LITERATURE CITED
Bastian, O., and U. Steinhardt. 2002. Development and perspectives of
landscape ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands.
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General systems theory: foundations, develop-
ment and applications. Braziller, New York.
Bohm, D. 1996. On dialogue. L. Nichol, editor. Routledge, London,
United Kingdom, and New York.
Bohm, D., and F. Peat. 1987. Science, order, and creativity. A dramatic
look at the roots of science and life. Bantam Books, New York.
Breuste, J. H., H. Feldman, and O. Uhlmann. 1998. Urban ecology.
Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Brown, L. R. 2001. Eco-economy: building an economy for the Earth.
Norton & Co., New York.
Capra, F. 2002. The hidden connections. Doubleday, New York.
MARCH 2005 Restoration Ecology
Transdisciplinary Landscape Restoration Science
Costanza, R. 1991. Ecological economics: the science and management of
sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York.
Costanza, R. 1996. Ecological economics: reintegrating the study of
humans and nature. Ecological Applications 6:987–990.
EU-Project MOSES. 2000. Modeling sustainable regional development in
the European information society. Final report ENV4-CT97-2600-
PL97-0543 for the EU Program, Environment and Climate, 1994–
1998. Area 4: Human dimensions of environmental change. UFZ
(Center for Environmental Research), Leipzig-Halle, Germany.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., and H. Haberl. 1993. Metabolism and colonization.
Modes of production and the physical exchange between
societies and nature. Innovations in Social Science Research 6:
415–442.
Green, B., and W. Vos. 2001. Threatened landscapes conserving cultural
environments. Spon Press, London, United Kingdom.
Grossmann, W. D., and Z. Naveh. 2000. Transdisciplinary challenges
for regional sustainable development toward the post-industrial
information society. Proceedings of the third international confer-
ence of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna,
May 3–6.
Grove, A. T., J. Ispikoudies, A. Kazaklis, J. A. Moody, V. Papanastasis,
and O. Rackham. 1994. Threatened Mediterranean landscapes, west
Crete. Research Report to EU. Cambridge University, Department
of Geography, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: understanding trans-
formations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.
Higgs, E. 2005. The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the
integration of knowledge. Restoration Ecology 13: this issue.
Holling, C. S. 2000. Theories for sustainable futures. Conservation Ecol-
ogy 4: 7 (Editorial) (available from: http://www.concecol.org/vol4/
iss2/art7).
Ison, R. L., P. T. Witney, and S. Carr. 1997. Systems methodologies for
sustainable natural resources research and development. Agricul-
tural Systems 55:257–272.
Jantsch, E. 1970. Inter- and transdisciplinary university: a systems
approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences 1:203–428.
Klijn, J., and W. Vos. 2000. From landscape ecology to landscape science.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Kroenert, R., U. Steinhardt, and M. Volk. 2001. Landscape balance and
landscape assessment. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of the scientific revolution. University of
Chicago Press, Illinois.
233
Transdisciplinary Landscape Restoration Science
Laszlo, E. 1972. Introduction to systems philosophy: toward a new para-
digm of contemporary thought. Harper Torchbooks, New York.
Laszlo, E. 1994. The choice: evolution or extinction. A thinking person’s
guide to global issues. C.P. Putnam & Sons, New York.
Laszlo, E. 2001. MACROSHIFT—navigating the transformation to a
sustainable world. Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco,
California.
Laszlo, E. 2002. The connectivity hypothesis. Foundations of an integral
science of quantum, cosmos, life, and consciousness. State Univer-
sity of New York Press, New York.
Naveh, Z. 1993. Red Books fir threatened Mediterranean landscapes as
an innovative tool for holistic landscape conservation. Introduction
to the western Crete Red Book case study. Landscape and Urban
Planning 24:241–249.
Naveh, Z. 1994. From biodiversity to ecodiversity. A landscape-ecological
approach to conservation and restoration. Restoration Ecology
4:180–189.
Naveh, Z. 1998. Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cul-
tural evolution towards a post-industrial symbiosis between human
society and nature. Restoration Ecology 6:135–143.
Naveh, Z. 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual intro-
duction. Pages 7–26 in H. Palang, U. Mander, and Z. Naveh, editors.
Holistic landscape ecology in action. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning 50 (Special Issue):7–26.
Naveh, Z. 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of
multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:
269–284.
Naveh, Z. 2002. A transdisciplinary education program for regional
sustainable development. International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 28:167–191.
Naveh, Z. 2004a. Multifunctional, self-organizing biosphere landscapes
and the future of our Total Human Ecosystem. World Futures 60:
469–502.
Naveh, Z. 2004b. The importance of multifunctional, self-organising bio-
sphere landscapes for the future of our Total Human Ecosystem—a
234
new paradigm for transdisciplinary landscape ecology. Pages 33–62
in J. Brandt, and H. Veijre, editors. Multifunctional landscapes.
Volume I. Theory, values and history. WIT Press, Ashurst, South-
ampton, United Kingdom.
Naveh, Z. 2004c. Book review. Laszlo, E. 2002. The connectivity hypo-
thesis. Foundations of an integral science of quantum, cosmos, life,
and consciousness. State University of New York Press, New York.
Ecological Complexity 1:95–100.
Naveh, Z., and Y. Carmel. 2004. The evolution of the cultural landscape
in Israel as affected by fire, grazing, and human activities. Pages
337–409 in S. P. Wasser, editor. Evolutionary theory and processes:
modern horizons. Papers in honour of Eviatar Nevo. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Naveh, Z., and A. S. Lieberman. 1994. Landscape ecology theory and
application. 2nd edition. Springer, New York.
Palang, H., and G. Fry. 2003. Landscape interfaces. Cultural heritage in
changing landscapes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands.
Roszak, T. R., M. E. Gomes, and A. D. Kanner. 1995. Ecopsychology.
Restoring the Earth, healing the mind. Sierra Club Books, San
Francisco, California.
Senge, P. 1994. The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning orga-
nization. Currency Doubleday, New York.
Tress, B., G. Tress, A. van der Valk, and G. Fry. 2003. Interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary landscape studies: potential and limitations.
DELTA Series, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Tress, G., B.Tress, B. Harms, P. Smeets, and A. van der Valk. 2004. Plan-
ning metropolitan landscapes. DELTA Series, Wageningen, the
Netherlands.
Walker, B. 2000. Analyzing integrated social–ecological systems. Execu-
tive Summary. Wallenberg Workshop. 2000. Royal Swedish Acad-
emy of Sciences, Stockholm (available from: http://www.resilience.
org/reports/Wallenberg-report.dec00.html).
Weinberg, G. M. 1975. Introduction to general systems thinking. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Restoration Ecology MARCH 2005