Talk:Landscape-scale conservation

Merge which didn't happen

I suggest that landscape-scale conservation could potentially be merged into integrated landscape management. The landscape-scale conservation page is relatively minimalist in terms of focus (predominantly UK/Europe focused), with limited resources. The page does not clearly show the real uptake or importance of landscape-scale conservation as an approach.Hazel Gough (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the opposite happened. Leo Breman (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landscape-scale conservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428170209/http://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/level1/level2/project_nslm.htm to http://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/level1/level2/project_nslm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Landscape-scale conservation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730094310/http://countdown2010.net/news/update/newsletter0604.html to http://countdown2010.net/news/update/newsletter0604.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Potentially useful references

I initially thought some of the uncited text here came from this book: Landscape-scale Conservation Planning,Trombulak, Stephen C.; Baldwin, Robert F. (January 2010). Landscape-scale Conservation Planning. Springer. p. 205. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9575-6. ISBN 978-90-481-9575-6. but I was wrong. Leaving it here for now.

Order sections, further improvements

Chiswick Chap As to your question, after reading all the German stuff (some references go back to the 1980s), I'm getting the impression Scherr's approach is rather self-congratulatory and not exactly very notable, hence I put it near the end. Further improvements could be made by:

• chopping up the text at "Other"

 Done Good enough.

• expanding the "Criticisms" with Reed's salient points
• much prose still needs simplifying, especially near the back

 Done

• with all the moving around of text, the order of the references is mixed up
• lede needs work - text needs moving to intern. commitments
• there are a number of references in journal or book template which are only self-published policy papers or promotional folders
• Better definition
• France: Conservation à l'échelle du paysage
• History section needs rewriting now we have a date, need more cit. taken from landscape ecology

Just suggestions though, Leo Breman (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if Scherr is a non-notable primary source, should it be here, or at least, should it be marked by a major section ... we need some secondary sources to evaluate and comment upon it, perhaps. Normally we'd have something like a Definition/Description of what the topic is; then variations or approaches; then regional implementations; finally if need be, controversy and criticism. Just my tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

secondary sources, I completely agree, we only have one source which wasn't explicitly published by her, and a brief mention in a table of 30-odd approaches/terms in Reed et al. Before adding more, it seems better to just improve/condense what we have already. As for the order, I leave that to you, but should mention that splitting "approaches" from "regional", as I did, is rather artificial: the UN, Dutch and German approaches pre-date anything from the "approaches" section, thus aren't really implementing anything from the "Approaches" section. It just seemed like a clearer way to organise the info. Leo Breman (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

H'm, hmm. Well in that case the article is LACKING an explanation of the approaches that are being applied "Internationally" and "Regionally", and the "Approaches" section is surplus to requirement, in the wrong place, or with wrong and unbalanced content. What is this LSC stuff that is being applied? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Germany section contains a succinct summary of approaches as formulated there. LSC? Ehhh, I don't know either. Man, this is not my field, and all the NGO jargon makes me nauseous. Very honestly all I see is a variety of NGO executives vying to get cash with pretty words. If you have any suggestions, please! Leo Breman (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it seems to me a JRE (jargon-rich environment) well populated with TLAs (three-letter acronyms). It would be nice to have a section on what the thing actually IS, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha! I already got rid of a few pointless acronyms. The stylized pseudo-acronym REDD+ (it's not actually an acronym if it doesn't abbreviate the title, is it? but what is it then? branding?) is particularly grating to me, but I'm afraid I may need revert myself there to conform with practice.

So, about your point, I could expand the "Definition" section using the unused book above, the synopsis of Reed's paper summarising all the approaches, and perhaps the website of that German organisation -for some reason ze Germans have more understandable prose than these policy briefs, perhaps because they derive their funding directly from individual donors instead of the UN. That's three very different generalist works. How about that? Maybe also retitle "Approaches" to ... I don't know right now. You removed "Different", but maybe that should go back in to highlight that not all these approaches are synonymous, universal or necessarily compatible? Or "Individual approaches"? You mentioned "Variations"... Just brainstorming here. Thoughts?

This is like giving a turd a manicure, knowing I'll never get this brown sugar a date to prom. But not much more tonight, my brain feels soiled. Gonna watch Will Smith fight Will Smith. Frustratedly yours, Leo Breman (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Variations is good, specially if there's a definition of what's being varied! Keep spinning that silk from the sow's ear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Stuff moved from the article

Here the sources do not corroborate the statement, but perhaps it can be rewritten as separate approaches: Leo Breman (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There are particular parallels with ‘climate-smart agriculture', which also aims for landscapes to provide multiple benefits in terms of food security, rural livelihoods, and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

This stuff could be applicable to article: horizon pollution (=biased writing over there, patronising), geodiversity (sure, I get how that could be conserved & that it might be a defining part of the landscape, there are geological parks in the USA, Britain, Russia, Serbia, Australia, South Africa. But we need a citation and more info.)

Removed from lede, could go back in a new & better sentence: agriculture, eco-tourism, and social benefits of the environment.

References

Ideas/suggestions for pics

Inspired off the German/Dutch sites:

• A tractor or other heavy machinery maintaining a landscape: i.e. dune building, forestry, shrub destruction, mowing

 Done

• Manual stuff, maybe people whacking invasive Rhododendron on Lundy, or hunters shooting red deer in Scotland, people planting trees -although that's a bit trite
• Scottish highlanders or Heck cattle munching on a 'natural' pasture -maybe alpine or heathlands

 Done

• Man-made landscapes like Streuobstwiese in flower with people, Reeuwijkse Plassen (peat harvesting), heathlands, purple moors in Ireland, satoyama in Japan

 Done

• Special plants which only grow in man-made landscapes (at least in northern Europe): orchids, Pedicularis, etc...
• Insects or birds which require such intervened areas

 Done

• Products from such landscapes: wool, meat, German apple juice, Peruvian potatoes

 Done But not really happy with it.

• Maybe that pic from Costa Rica can back in near the back

There seem to be easily enough images for the length of article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles which can be merged with this

I think I'm seeing a US vs. Europe terminology divide here. Need more history before I can make heads & tails of this. Clear now landscape science and conservation is a German thing (1939) which was adopted early in the UK (first laws 1949), but late in the USA (first books 1980s). Word landscape in English in sense of painting from Dutch landschap 1660s, modern meaning "tract of land with its distinguishing characteristics" derived from that in 1886, as derived verb from 1916, British landscape institute 1929, first use of landscape architect from New York park planning 1930s.

Australia looks to be using US terminology? Americans use 'landscape architect' more in the way Brits would say 'gardener', this seems to have escaped editors. Instead of landscape conservation - preserving a landscape, they have landscape planning - creating a landscape. There is also fad term environmental goods in all these old American articles, which is the same thing as the neologism ecosystem services which some guy has been adding everywhere lately.

• Landscape manager -totally without references, written in 2006 by the same American who wrote most of these articles. Currency unclear, validity questionable.

See last entry below.

• Landscape of agriculture -same writer in 2006, single external link which doesn't corroborate text, 1st & 3nd sentence looks exactly the same as this article. 2nd about conservation agriculture.

Editor was trying to write about this article here I think. Doubt the terminology has currency, validity questionable. delete altogether.

• Sustainable landscape architecture -Same guy, no references, despite the silly allusion to Visuvius, this is total Americanism.

this should be merged with Sustainable landscaping.

• Landscape planning -very long confused article by same guy, 2007. 3 major chunks added later with cites. This is like Swedish term which means both planning gardens/parks & landscape conservation. Terminology already out of date and American. History ridiculous. Article confusing, parts can go in here, others clearly about designing parks or gardens. On the other hand, term does seem to have had currency, maybe a stub can be left over?

I think this should be about park planning in relation to municipal zoning.

• Landscape Institute -same guy, American guy writing about British subject. Confused terminology, much editorialising, bad sourcing. 1 reference is Wikipedia page on a dictionary.

Some of this is just factually incorrect. Editor bending facts to conform to American usage of "landscaping". Summary of what I get from homepage: It is not a school, it is a "club" with open membership to graduates in anything from geology, biology, landscaping, horticultural to urban planning, anything to do with "landscapes". It accredits educational facilities and has a charity arm. In the past it had a different character. Leo Breman (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then the name "landscape-scale" has currency, but why not just call it landscape conservation? All just iterations of the same thing. Leo Breman (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gosh what a mess. I've chopped the absurd WP:OR mention of Vitruvius and redirected one of the silliest articles. Also chopped the appalling "Theory" section in Landscape planning; an editor correctly flagged it as unsatisfactory on the talk page in 2007, and nobody joined the discussion in 12 years! Grim, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Landscape-scale" is the usual phrase, distinguishing it from the usual smaller-scale efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We seem to have 2 topics: landscape = {farmland + forest + natural habitats + scenic elements} (we could call this 'Big landscape management'); and landscape = {decorative bit of ground around a new building to be JCB-ed into shape, garden, fountain, benches} (we could call this 'Small landscape management'; Landscape architecture seems to be the best title). They're quite different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The first usage conforms to German/Dutch sense. Second is I believe an Americanism originally, but Landscape architecture has international currency now, although in the traditional British sense of 'garden design'. I said above what I think the sources of "landscape planning" were originally about, basically planning (urban) green spaces. Leo Breman (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Little Malvern Hills panorama.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)