Int. J. Environ. Res., 7(4):995-1006,Autumn 2013ISSN: 1735-6865

*Corresponding author E-mail:masnavim@ut.ac.ir

Environmental Sustainability and Ecological Complexity: Developing anIntegrated Approach to Analyse the Environment and Landscape Potentials to

Promote Sustainable Development

Masnavi, M. R.*

Graduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, P.O.Box 14155-6135, Tehran-Iran

ABSTRACT:The notion of Sustainable Development has rapidly gained considerable attention since the lastdecades of the twentieth century. It has become a locus for global paradigm shift on environment and developmentissues particularly after Rio Conference in 1992. The comparative analysis of Agenda 21 and major UNdocuments, MDG, and RIO+20 as well as some major sources are made to provide a context for the assessmentof landscape and environment importance for achieving sustainability. Study showed almost half of theAgenda 21 is devoted to the Environmental problems, landscape issues and protection of nature and naturalresources. Landscape ecology and ecological complexity theories have been widely used in recent decades toanalyze natural systems and artificial phenomena to predict the future behavior of systems; and to providebetter solutions for balanced interactions of human and living organisms at larger scales. The paper investigatedlandscape ecology and complexity theory potentials for better understanding landscape system and its natureas an ever changing semi-living phenomenon, which plays a key role for the life of inhabitants of the planet.Using an integrated approach and analyses, this research is to develop the ecological dimensions of landscapeas framework for the contribution of landscape ecology and ecological complexity towards achieving sustainabledevelopment. Analyses led the paper postulates the new dimensions: Transformation complexity andAccumulation complexity; and reveals Ecosystem complexity and Biocomplexity to expand the currentdimensions of ecological complexity, with their effects on the landscape systems, environmental sustainabilityand hence sustainable development.

Key words: Sustainable development, Landscape, Ecology, Complexity,Theory, Environment

INTRODUCTIONThe notion of Sustainable Development has rapidly

gained considerable attention since last decades of thetwentieth century. It has became a locus for globalparadigm shift on environment and development issues,particularly after its first declaration through EarthSummit, in Rio Conference in 1992. The most well knownand nowadays the classic definition of SustainableDevelopment is a statement presented at theBrundtland Report: Our Common Future, releasedduring the 1987 United Nations World Commission onEnvironment and Development1: “…development thatmeets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds” (WCED 1987). Brundtland identifiedEnvironment, Society and Economy as threeinterconnected aspects or pillars of sustainabledevelopment. First, the environmental or ecological

aspect which recognises the limits to the society’spatterns of consumptions and productions. As partof the ecological aspect, it is recognised that naturalresources are finite and the capacity of the environmentto deal with production and waste is also limited(Aminzadeh and Khansefid, 2010; Yavari et al., 2007).Second, the social aspect relates to the question ofequity; not just equity between developed worldcountries and developing world countries but thosefuture generations should have access to the samenatural resources as the present. The third pillar oreconomic aspect recognises that the economy mustbe operated within existing ecological limits (WCED1987; Mossalanejad, 2013;2011). Although thedefinition seems to be very simple, it has generatedsome controversial arguments thereafter, who discussover either simplicity, ambiguity, or the complexity ofthe term.

995

Received 11 May 2011; Revised 6 July 2013; Accepted 17 July 2013

996

Masnavi, M. R.

During the past decades, variety of definitions hasemerged after that of the Brundtland Report. Bell andMorse(2003) elaborated definition in terms ofdevelopment approaches, “...The difference rests onthe underlying philosophy that what is done now toimprove the quality of life of people should not degradethe environment and resources such that futuregenerations are put at a disadvantage(Alizadeh andPishgahi Frad 2010). In other words we (the present)should not cheat the future; improving lives nowshould not be at the price of degrading the quality oflife of future generations. At the same time, thesustainable element does not imply stasis. Humansocieties cannot remain static, and the aspirations thatcomprise a part of ‘needs’ constantly shift.”(Bell andMorse 2003 cited in Edwards, 2009).

Daly (1991) defines sustainable development inother perspective, as one that satisfies three basicconditions: 1) its rates of use of renewable resourcedo not exceed their rates of regeneration; 2) its rates ofuse of non-renewable resources do not exceed the rateat which sustainable renewable substitutes aredeveloped; and 3) its rates of pollution do not exceedthe assimilative capacity of the environment (Daly 1991,Cited in Spiekermann and Wegener, 2003). However,Daly’s definition emphasizes on environmental andecological pillar, and pays less attention to society andeconomy aspects. Some put emphasis on theinterconnectedness and priority of three pillars ofsustainability, giving different weight often to theimportance of economic growth; for example, ‘Charterof European Cities and Towns towards Sustainability’indicates that the main basis for sustainabledevelopment is “to achieve social justice, sustainableeconomies, and environmental sustainability. Socialjustice will necessarily have to be based on economicsustainability and equity, which require environmentalsustainability” (ICLEI, 1994).

The sustainability and sustainable developmentterminology thus, has been subject of much debatesand different usage in academics, professional, politicaland social circles across many disciplines(Mossalanejad, 2012; Ferrari et al., 2010). In contrast,some scholars stressed on the ambiguity of term, forexample Kates, et al., (2007). Benson and Roe pointout that “there are arguments that ‘sustainabledevelopment’ is an oxymoron like ‘political science’,business ethics’, government organisation’ and‘military intelligence’. More than two decades afterBrundtland report (WCED 1987) and the earth summitin Rio (1992), we can see clearly effect of the thinkingthat emerged (Benson and Roe 2007). They admit that,despite few pessimistic views about sustainability, theconcept received overwhelmingly attention and

developed excessively in the intervening years. Inaddition there has been a great energy and enthusiasmfrom all sorts of ordinary people involved in a myriadof projects generated by sustainability issues acrossthe world (Benson and Roe 2007). We might argue onthe comprehensiveness of Brundtland definition ofsustainable development; as is focused on humans,and there is no clear expression regarding the rights ofother creatures in such a development. The definitionseems to be formulated over humankind needs ratherthan all living inhabitants; hence a need for theclarification is evident (Masnavi 2012, Kates R. W. etal., 2007, Masnavi, 2007). From an ecologicalperspective the equilibrium among all systemsincluding ecosystems (flora and fauna species) areessential to maintain biodiversity and sustainingsurvivals of inhabitants in the planet.

Furthermore, some new definitions ofsustainability elaborated that are broader in conceptand seek to extend the definition beyond environmentalconsiderations and include issues of social equity andjustice. They encompass environmental justice andsocial justice as inseparable parts, because one cannotbe obtained without the other. For instance, there havebeen arguments on the negative impacts of cities andurban settlements in the sustainability debate, whereoften a distinction is drawn between majorenvironmental threats to human life on the planet earthon the one hand and local concerns, on the other. Inthis respect, cities and urban areas play an importantrole; as they contribute to a large extent to globalenvironmental problems. However, at the same timepeople living in cities are confronted withenvironmental damage, pollution, health and social andeconomic problems (Asgary et al., 2007). As a result,some sought to formulate the goals to make cities moresustainable e.g. by means of:- minimising the consumption of space and naturalresources,- rationalising and efficiently managing urban flows,- protecting the health of the urban population,- ensuring equal access to resources and services,- maintaining cultural and social diversity (EEA, 1995).

We might briefly think of sustainable developmentas the ability of society to co-exist with the nature, in away that maintains the balance of natural environmentand ecosystems (including all inhabitants), andpromotes economic wellbeing in a balanced interaction,and believe in the importance of society, economy, andenvironment simultaneously(Mossalanejad 2011). Inother words it should be such development thatpromotes equal opportunity for all peoples on Earth tobenefit from a better quality of life in the present and inthe future, with minimizing pressure and burden onenvironment.

Int. J. Environ. Res., 7(4):995-1006,Autumn 2013

997

While, sustainable development respects for allcreatures and elements of the living systems on theplanet Earth, at the same time it appreciatesinterconnectedness of all living systems andacknowledges the responsibility of each person toconsider the effects that his/her actions have on otherlife forms, both living and to be born. Only when wehave a healthy and nourishing natural environment,and appreciate the interconnectedness of all aspectsof life coupled with social justice, we can then trulyhave a prosperous economy.

Although the three elements or pillars(society,environment, and economy) are important andinterdependent, by and large, environment isconsidered as fundamental matrix since its essence-nature- is our life support means; ; hence, there issimply no way around this reality. In this regard,theories like landscape ecology and ecologicalcomplexity are considered to play an important rolewithin environment pillar of sustainability. Theobjective of this research is therefore, to developlandscape potentials and significance of ecologicalsystems in promoting environmental sustainability andhence sustainable development. .

MATHERIALS & METHODSA comparative analysis of the role of landscape

and environment and ecosystem importance in thedocuments is undertaken using a concentrated reviewof the literature on the variety of official documentsand white papers by UN on sustainability issue. Thenan analytical approach is used to develop a conceptualframework for the analyses of complexity theory andecological complexity.

The review of United Nation summits anddocuments on sustainable development, fromBrundtland Report: Our Common Future, to Rio+10 andanalyses of the goals and strategies of those papersare made at first instance. As the first layer of researchcontext, the Agenda 21 and its forty chapters areexamined in terms of issues and areas of action andstakeholders. Then major highlights of the Agenda areclassified in terms of current patterns of consumption,environmental threats, and necessity of preservationof landscape potentials and its role in achievingsustainability. Complexity theory then is used assecond layer of the study as a framework to analyselandscape elements and circumstances as inseparablecomponent of any environmental investigation.Integration of the two layers is made in the third stagewhere complexity theory was applied at landscape leveland environmental sustainability. Through thecombination of layers, the features of dynamic

landscape and its changing conditions over the timeare identified.

Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, the bigpicture

Following WCED report in 1987, and to further thesteps of sustainable development in the real world,the United Nation Conference on Environment andDevelopment was held in Rio in 1992, aimed atidentification of the appropriate paths for the membersof UN to achieve sustainability (UNCED, 1992). Itsoutcome was called Earth Summit, and also Agenda21 was put forward to establish common grounds forthe achievement of sustainable development in the 21st

century. The necessity of changes in currentunsustainable patterns of development towards a morehumanistic and sustainable development is therefore,elaborated thoroughly as the main goal in Agenda 21.In the Introduction Chapter, the Agenda describes thepressing problems of today as the critical moment forhumanity that is facing some challenges like poverty,health, illiteracy, and deterioration of ecosystems:“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. Weare confronted with a perpetuation of disparitiesbetween and within nations, a worsening of poverty,hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuingdeterioration of the ecosystems on which we dependfor our well-being (UNCED, 1992).

Recognising the severity of the problem, theAgenda 21 therefore, aims at preparing the world forthe challenges of the next century; in which thenecessity of global partnership to overcome theproblems is an urgent action. But how this great taskcould be achieved, and what steps should be taken bydifferent nations? Agenda asserts that “integration ofenvironment and development concerns and greaterattention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basicneeds, improved living standards for all, betterprotected and managed ecosystems and a safer, moreprosperous future. No nation can achieve this on herown but together we can - in a global partnership forsustainable development (UNCED, 1992).

Although this has been seen as the most importantchallenge for the whole humanity, there is a consensusthat Agenda 21 succeeded to provide a relatively firmground on the acceptance of the need to take abalanced and integrated approach to environment anddevelopment questions among the members of UnitedNations. The rest of this paper discusses theimportance of the environment in the Agenda21; andhow together environment, ecosystems, and landscapein particular can play role in the achievement ofsustainability.

998

Environmental Sustainability and Ecological Complexity

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ANDLANDSCAPE COMPLEXITYAgenda 21 and importance of environment andlandscape

Among the forty chapters devoting to programsof action and objectives of Agenda 21, there severalchapters which are directly or indirectly devoted tothe landscape and environmental issues. TheDocument, throughout three sections discusses: i) thesocial and economic dimensions of sustainabledevelopment in eight chapters; ii) deals withconservation and management of resources fordevelopment in fourteen chapters; and finallyhighlights the strengthening the role of major groupsand institutions, and education in seventeen chapters.The review of the Agenda 21, presented in table 1,shows that nineteen chapters out of 40(almost 50%),are devoted to environmental challenges and issues.This indicates the importance and vitality of role ofenvironmental challenges -which mainly are associatedwith the roles of natural landscape, and urbansettlements- towards achieving sustainability. The restof the document discusses social, economic andinstitutional issues like: ‘role of indigenous people, andnon-governmental organizations, education and publicawareness, and international institutionalarrangements’; however, these are not focus of thispaper. The objectives and their level of relevance tothe landscape and environment (directly and indirectly)were summarised in Table 1.

Given the importance to the role of landscape andenvironmental issues in the Agenda 21, it is apparentthat environmental and landscape sustainability areconsidered as fundamental for achieving sustainabledevelopment. Hence, we might now review the waysthat landscape and environment are connected togetherand to investigate possible theoretical framework orplanning and design interventions that can contributeto sustainability objectives; these are discussed in thenext section.

Potentials of Landscape as an Ecological SystemThe role of Landscape in general and Landscape

Ecology in particular are seen with great importance insustainability discourse. Some scholars paid attentionto Landscape Ecology as an effective means to analyzethe landscape and environmental characters. Forinstance, Ingegnoly (2003) asserts that the urgent needfor a sustainable environment today, has led toacceptance of landscape ecology by natureconservation and restoration policymakers andterritorial planners. Therefore, he argues that, a needfor clarification of what is the landscape ecology isevident (Ingegnoly, 2003). Many authors define this

field of ecology as a multidisciplinary field within whichmethods needed to study the environment at alandscape scale. Others define landscape ecology asa discipline necessary to the landscape as a level ofbiological organization (Green et al. 2008, Ingegnoly,2003).

In a very broad sense, Oxford English dictionarydefines Landscape as ‘all the visible features of anarea of land’ or ‘a picture representing an area ofcountryside’ (OED, 2008). However, the wordLandscape has evolved many times during the pastfour centuries. Some commentators traced its originsinto the Middle Dutch word Lantscap, and later onmodern Dutch Landschap which in turn was derivedfrom Germanic Land and suffix -schapmeaning’constitution, and condition. In the sixteenthcentury the Old English landscipe became landskip,in the seventeenth century lantskip, and nowlandscape (Onions, 1966; Simpson and Weiner, 1989,cited in Makhzumi, and Pungetti, 1999).In general, theterm “landscape” meaning “a wide view of (country)scenery” stands against the term “land” meaning “thesolid dry part of the Earth’s surface.” Knowing thedifferences between land and landscape seemsnecessary for better understanding of their functions(OED, 2008). “Land” is known as a number of surfaceor close to earth parameters important to mankind. Asthe essence of these parameters are, both individuallyand in relation to one another different, variations inthe properties of landscape also appear because ofthose dissimilarities. All these parameters together arecalled natural resources or ecological resources, whichcomprise natural resources in the main structure ofland in different parts of the world. In contrast, theterm “landscape” or “scenery” is used for the part ofthe land which can be viewed from a certain point(OED, 2008).

Landscape and its components can also be studiedas the inter-related comprising parts in a complexcomparative system, i.e. the Earth (Witting, 2003). Whatis important in defining landscape is the essence of itsparts and how they are related to one another. Thus,sometimes landscape, in its broad meaning, is definedas a set of living and non-living phenomena and theirinter-relations in the three-dimensional space of theEarth, which can be observed and recognized byvertical-horizontal structure and amalgamation of itsdetails like atmosphere, topographic features, soil,water, bed stone, vegetation cover, animals and human(Cook, 1994). In other words, landscape is sometimesdefined as all the biological and non-biologicalphenomena related to one another by means of thevertical-horizontal structure in the three-dimensionalspace of the Earth and combining parameters such as

999

Int. J. Environ. Res., 7(4):995-1006,Autumn 2013

Tabl

e 1. P

rogr

ams a

nd o

bjec

tives

of A

gend

a 21

, in

term

s of t

heir

dir

ect/i

ndir

ect r

elev

ance

to L

ands

cape

and

envi

ronm

enta

l iss

ues

 

Pr

ogra

m a

nd o

bjec

tive

Dir

ectly

rela

ted

Indi

rect

ly re

late

d M

eans

of r

elat

ion

Refe

renc

e

1 C

OMBA

TIN

G P

OV

ERTY

man

agin

g, co

nser

vatio

n, an

d ac

cess

ibili

ty o

f natu

ral r

esou

rces

C

hapt

er 3

2 C

HAN

GIN

G C

ON

SUM

PTIO

N P

ATTE

RNS

Prod

uctio

n an

d co

nsum

ptio

n of

natu

ral r

esou

rces

C

hapt

er 4

3 D

EMO

GRA

PHIC

DY

NAM

ICS

AND

SU

STA

INA

BILI

TY

natio

nal p

olici

es fo

r env

ironm

ent a

nd d

evel

opm

ent

Cha

pter

5

4 PR

OTE

CTIN

G A

ND

PRO

MO

TIN

G H

UM

AN

HE

ALTH

R

educ

ing

heal

th ri

sks f

rom

envi

ronm

enta

l pol

lutio

n an

d ha

zard

s C

hapt

er 6

5 PR

OM

OTI

NG

SU

STAI

NA

BLE

HU

MAN

SET

TLEM

ENT

DEV

ELOP

MEN

T

la

nd-u

se p

lanni

ng an

d m

anag

emen

t con

sum

ptio

n of

raw

mate

rials/

reso

urce

s C

hapt

er 7

6 IN

TEGR

ATIN

G EN

VIR

ON

MEN

T AN

D D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

IN

DEC

ISIO

N-M

AKIN

G

en

viro

nmen

tal an

d ec

onom

ic ac

coun

ting

Cha

pter

8

7 PR

OTE

CTIO

N O

F TH

E A

TMO

SPHE

RE

effic

ienc

y an

d co

nsum

ptio

n in

mar

ine

reso

urce

dev

elop

men

t and

la

nd u

se

Cha

pter

9

8 IN

TEGR

ATED

APP

ROA

CH T

O T

HE P

LAN

NIN

G A

ND

M

AN

AGE

MEN

T O

F LA

ND

RES

OUR

CES

*

Man

agin

g re

sour

ce c

ompo

nent

s (i.e

., ai

r, w

ater

, bio

ta, l

and,

ge

olog

ical

and

natu

ral r

esou

rces

). C

hapt

er 1

0

9 C

OMBA

TIN

G D

EFO

REST

ATIO

N *

m

anag

emen

t, co

nser

vatio

n an

d de

velo

pmen

t of f

ores

ts; u

tiliza

tion

and

prod

uctio

n of

fore

sts' g

oods

and

serv

ices

C

hapt

er 1

2

10

MA

NA

GIN

G F

RA

GILE

ECO

SYST

EMS:

SUS

TAIN

ABL

E M

OU

NTA

IN D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

*

mou

ntai

n ec

osys

tem

s; w

aters

hed

deve

lopm

ent

Cha

pter

13

11

PRO

MO

TIN

G S

UST

AIN

ABL

E A

GRI

CU

LTU

RE

AND

RU

RAL

D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

*

food

pro

duct

ion,

pot

entia

l agr

icul

tura

l lan

ds to

supp

ort a

n ex

pand

ing

popu

latio

n; co

nser

ving

and

reha

bilit

atin

g th

e nat

ural

reso

urce

s C

hapt

er 1

4

12

CON

SERV

ATIO

N O

F BI

OLO

GICA

L D

IVER

SITY

*

th

e na

tura

l eco

syst

ems

of fo

rest

s, sa

vann

ahs,

dese

rts, t

undr

a,

river

s, la

kes a

nd se

as c

onta

in m

ost o

f the

Ear

th's

biod

iver

sity

Cha

pter

15

13

ENV

IRON

MEN

TALL

Y SO

UND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

OF

BIO

TECH

NO

LOG

Y

Enha

ncin

g pr

otec

tion

of th

e en

viro

nmen

t C

hapt

er 1

6

14

PRO

TECT

ION

OF

THE

OCE

AN

S, A

ND

CO

AST

AL

AREA

S,

RAT

ION

AL U

SE A

ND

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T O

F TH

EIR

LIV

ING

R

ESO

URC

ES

*

cons

erva

tion

of m

arin

e liv

ing

reso

urce

s of t

he h

igh

seas

; sm

all

islan

ds

Cha

pter

17

15

PRO

TECT

ION

OF

THE

QU

ALIT

Y A

ND S

UPPL

Y O

F FR

ESH

WA

TER

RES

OUR

CES

*

wate

r qua

lity

and

aqua

tic ec

osys

tem

s; cl

imat

e cha

nge;

inte

grat

ion

of la

nd- a

nd w

ater

-relat

ed a

spec

ts

Cha

pter

18

16

ENV

IRON

MEN

TALL

Y SO

UND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

OF

HA

ZAR

DOU

S W

AST

ES, .

..IN

CLU

DIN

G IN

TERN

ATI

ON

AL

TRA

FFIC

IN H

AZA

RDO

US

WA

STES

H

azar

dous

was

tes;

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

and

natu

ral r

esou

rce

man

agem

ent;

harm

to h

ealth

and

the e

nviro

nmen

t C

hapt

er 2

0

17

ENV

IRON

MEN

TALL

Y SO

UND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

OF

SOLI

D

WA

STES

AN

D S

EWAG

E-RE

LATE

D IS

SUES

w

aste

dis

posa

l and

trea

tmen

t on

the l

and;

C

hapt

er 2

1

18

SAFE

AND

EN

VIR

ONM

ENTA

LLY

SO

UND

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

OF

RA

DIO

ACT

IVE

WA

STES

w

aste

dis

posa

l and

trea

tmen

t on

the l

and;

C

hapt

er 2

2

19

STRE

NGT

HEN

ING

TH

E RO

LE O

F FA

RM

ERS

in

crea

se in

aggr

egat

e ag

ricul

tura

l pro

ducti

on; n

atur

al re

sour

ces

that

susta

in fa

rmin

g ac

tivity

C

hapt

er 3

2

√√ √ √ √ √

√

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

*- i

ndic

ates

mor

e re

leva

nce

and

clos

e re

latio

n w

ith th

e la

ndsc

ape

and

envi

ronm

enta

l con

cern

sSo

urce

: Mas

navi

, 201

2, b

ased

on

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ion

Sust

aina

ble

Dev

elop

men

t Age

nda

21, 1

992

√

√

√

√

1000

Masnavi, M. R.

atmosphere, soil, water, geo-morphology, fauna, flora,and mankind (Zonneveld, 1994).

Benson and Roe(2007) however, argue in its majormodern sense that has been defined by previousversion of Oxford Dictionary in 1987: ’a tract of landwith its distinguishing characteristics and feature, esp.considered as a product of shaping processes andagents (usually natural)’. They assert that prior tothat it had been used mostly in an evaluative sense tomean ‘an ideal place’, the use prevalent in the art,landscape painting and landscape design of earliercenturies (Benson and Roe, 2007). According toBerleant(2009) the first definition signifies thelandscape considered visually, or what we may call theobservational landscape; whereas the second impliesthe landscape in relation to human activities, thelandscape with which we participate actively or theengaged landscape (Berleant, 2009).

The Complexity and complex systemAlthough the concept of Complexity has become

very popular in the wide range of disciplines andscientific research in the recent years, somecommentators found it difficult to present a generaldefinition for the term. Mikulecky (1995) in an attemptto examine its usefulness as a criteria for study of livingsystems, maintains that complexity is “a many facetedconcept and too new and ill-defined to have auniversally accepted meaning”(Mikulecky, 1995).Comparing ‘Complexity’ with ‘Life’, Green et all (2006)argue that despite being a well-known phenomenon, itis difficult to give a general definition for it. This isbecause the term complexity appears in different guisesin different fields. For instance, In computer science, itusually refers to the time required to compute a solutionto a problem; while in mathematics it is usuallyassociated with chaotic and other nonlinear dynamics(Green et al 2006:4). However, referring to OxfordDictionary, some basic broad definitions can be foundfor the complex and complexity. The term ‘Complex’ isdefined as phenomenon that is: “Made of manydifferent things or parts that are connected; difficultto understand”. Similarly the word ‘Complexity’ isreferred to as “the state of being formed of many parts;the state of being difficult to understand”( OxfordDictionary, 2004). These initial definitions may indicatethe necessity of meaningful ‘relations’ and‘connections’ between the different parts. Bossomaierand Green(1998, 2000) described “Complexity” as the‘richness’ and ‘variety’ of ‘form’ and ‘behavior’ that isoften seen in ‘large systems’(Bossomaier and Green,1998, 2000 cited in Green et al., 2004:4).

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONIntegrated Approach to environment and landscape,the new vision in the Agenda 21, MDG and UNDocuments

The review of the UN Documents and Declarationsuch as Agenda 21(1992), MDG-MillenniumDevelopment Goals(2000), MillenniumDeclaration(2000), and Rio+20 Declaration, and somerelevant papers have been done in relation to thesuitable approach for environmental and ecologicalissues in sustainability. To get a wider perspective andprovide better solutions to environmental problems,Agenda 21 stressed on holistic view and integratedapproach as key elements; for example IntegratingEnvironment and Development in Decision-making(Chapter Six), and Integrated approach to thePlanning and Management of Landresources(Chapter Eight). Managing sustainabledevelopment of Fragile Ecosystems(Mountains),Protection of coastal areas and oceans, quality andthe supply of fresh water, as well as protection ofAtmosphere and conservation of Biological diversity,are just other examples that show the need to be dealtwith a comprehensive plan and integratedapproach(WCED 1992). For advancing sustainabledevelopment, a brief rreview of the most recentDocument for RIO+20 emphasizes on stronggovernance as critical requirement. This is connectedwith dependent on strengthening framework thatshould take into account integrated and holisticapproach in their planning, strategies, management andactions. In section IV, it is asserted that “Integrate thethree pillars of sustainable development and promotethe implementation of Agenda 21 and relatedoutcomes...” is critical to achieve sustainabledevelopment (article 44). The integrated approach andholistic view is highlighted in many others articles forexample on the management of water sources(article69), and finally suggestion for “ ...integrated andholistic approach to planning and building sustainablecities...through improved air and water quality, reducedwaste, improved disaster preparedness and responseand increased climate resilience.” According to article72 (UNDP 2012).

Landscape can be considered as physicalemergence of environment, a medium for pertainingsoil, water, flora and fauna, food chain and life supportsystem, and also the context for materials and energyflow. Land is primary entity of landscape in theenvironment. It also subject of a variety of functionsand activities such as Land-use and Land developmentin especially for human based activities in urbansettlements and rural areas. This is two folds, duringtime; the character of land might be altered in a tolerable

1001

Int. J. Environ. Res., 7(4):995-1006,Autumn 2013

scale (by nature) or destructive outcomes (like pollutionand degradation by humans). Each will have differenteffect or impact on the landscape and environment.BASIC experts(2011) mentioned that according to theIPCC , the primary source of the increased atmosphericconcentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrialperiod results from fossil fuel use, with land-use changeproviding another significant but smaller contribution.Fossil carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to rangefrom 72% to 92% of the global emissions of this gas inthe 1990s. Carbon dioxide emissions associated withland-use change are estimated to range from 8% to28% over the 1990s, although this estimate has a largeuncertainty (BASIC experts, 2011).

The review of landscape concept and formationdemonstrates its wide range of expression and usage;landscape as scenery is recorded in many geographicaldictionaries (Clark, 1985; Stamp 1966; Stamp and Clark1979). Landscape as specific geographical place, whichwas subject of ‘landscape science’ defined first byJohnson et al (1986), concerned mainly physical andgeographical aspects such as the form of the landscapeof specific regions. Landscape has also been subjectof beauty and aesthetic values in the works ofRuskin(1988), Porteous(1996) and Berleant (1997)concerning conservation of natural beauties andpromotion of aesthetical values, and appreciation ofperceptual values(cited in Makhzoumi and Pungettie,1999). Nevertheless, evolution of landscape functionand processes in line with the new trends inenvironmental issues make it necessary to develop newdefinition based on its modern usage as a multi-facetsconcept. It should be defined by considering it as anentity which carries different layers of activity, function,resources, and potentials across many disciplines.Benson and Roe (2007) argue for this necessity and tryto define the use of the term ‘landscape’ as broad asthe range of profession who are now involved in theplanning, design, and management of landscape. Theyreject the simple definition of landscape as “theappearance of the area of land which the eye can see atonce’ (Chambers 1993 cited in Benson and Roe 2007)to be fair enough for explanation of its contemporaryuse. According to them “Landscape has become anincreasingly important cross-disciplinary area, whichdraws contributions both arts and science-basedsubjects including art, literature, ecology, geographyand much more. The term is now used in a wider senseto mean a tract of land shaped overtime by geological(soil, water,), biological (flora and fauna), culturalprocesses and by human occupation and agency andby human imagination. For example Edwards (2009)went on to further elaboration of necessity of landscapeto maintain sustainable development requirements:

Meeting the basic needs of all for food, clothing, shelterand jobs; and That the natural systems that supportlife on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils,and living organisms are not endangered. It requiresthat the adverse impacts on the quality of air, water,and other natural elements are minimized so as tosustain the ecosystem’s overall integrity (Edwards,2009). Because of such different interests, landscapemeans different things to different people. But onevalue, often unspoken, underlies many of these: itsaesthetic value. Aesthetic interests often play a partin the value that environmentalists find in thelandscape, and places of unusual natural beauty areoften made into national parks and preserves. Thereis, too, what has been called a cultural landscape, thecluster of perceptual characteristics that gives adistinctive identity to the landscape of a particularcountry or region. A country’s characteristiclandscapes may, in turn, contribute to its sense ofidentity. Furthermore, typical land use patterns alsocontribute to forming distinctive cultural landscapes,and these change with social and technologicalchanges, such as increasing urbanization, suburbansprawl, and the development of factory farming. Theterms “landscape design’, landscape planning’,landscape management’, and landscape science’ arecommonly used to describe the works of professionalswho are involved in landscape practice.

All these may be seen as indications of complexityof the landscape phenomena. Although it is expressedin one word, however, the terminology does not arriveat single point. It is a multi-faceted phenomenon ormedium for carrying very many concepts and functionsranging from art-based interpretation to the actualmeans for science-based research and analyses. Thiswill stress on the landscape as a totally complex issue,which should be studied in detail (Masnavi andSoltanifard 2007). To discover the very nature oflandscape and its share in environmentalsustainability, the rest of this chapter hence, deals withthe landscape complexity.

In the works of many authors the definition ofcomplexity is connected with definition of complexsystem or system theory. For instance, in the works ofSerrat (2009), a complex system is one in which at leasttwo parts interact dynamically to function as a whole.The parts are interconnected, and each is composedof subsystems nested within a larger one. (Forinstance, a person is a member of a family, which ispart of a community, institution, village, province,region, country, group of countries, the earth, the solarsystem, our galaxy, the observable universe, and theuniverse.). To Serrat, complex systems hence, exhibitproperties that are not obvious from the properties of

1002

Environmental Sustainability and Ecological Complexity

their individual parts. Typically, they are characterizedby: i)a number of interconnected and interdependentelements (or dimensions); ii)local rules that apply to each element; iii)constant movement and responses from theseelements; iv) adaptiveness so that the system adjusts toguarantee continued operation; v)self-organization, by which new settings in thesystem take form spontaneously; and vi)Progression in complexity so that the systemsometimes becomes larger and more sophisticated overtime.

According to Alberti complexity emerges wheninteracting agents engage in the systems that arenonlinear, or open; she argues the necessity ofunderstanding complex relations of the systems toreduce uncertainty in human-natural systems andincrease the future predictability of the systems(Alberti2008). Although a wide variety of systems arecalled complex, some more or less than othersdepending on the range of characteristics theypossess, and all exhibit emergence and self-organization (Serrat, 2009). According to Norberg andCumming(2008), Understanding and predictingcomplex system behaviour is becoming increasinglyimportant as we realise that much of the unpredictablebehaviour observed in everything from the financialmarkets to the global climate system is a function ofthe complex adaptive systems we are living andoperating in( Norberg and Cumming, 2008).

Dimensions of Ecological ComplexityThe effects of dynamisms and relations existing in

a complex system can take a completely complexgeometric shape or have a structural andorganizational nature, which can affect both thestructure of a system and its function and behaviour.In general, it can be said that different sources ofcomplexity and their nature mainly have a direct relationwith the form and amount of the complexity of a system.Therefore, in systems with more complexity and morespecialized organization, the nature of complexity isricher. On this basis, Loehle (2004) has defined at leastsix different dimensions for ecological complexity asfollows:• Spatial complexity: referring to the distribution ofspecies, organisms, and living patterns in theecosystem• Temporal complexity: caused by changes in weatherconditions, sustainability of living societies (e.g.extinction, attack in plant societies), and finally byspatial complexity. Temporal changes and extinction

will increase the chance for the co-existence of differentspecies.• Structural complexity: deals with relations insidethe system such a food network, the composition ofsocieties and competitive networks. Internalizing themechanism of this kind of complexity needs long-timeand gradual observations.• Functional complexity: is dependent on functionswith numerous processes and parts and includes soilformation, degradation of body and decay of animals.• Behavioural complexity: includes the behaviour ofliving societies dependent on the information flow(DNA). On this basis, environmental changes caninterfere with the information flow and change thegenomes or structures of genetic codes, and finallyresult in affecting the form and nature of the system.Mutation in living systems is an example of thisprocess. Therefore, it can be said that any interferencein the information flow can mean an increase in theadaptability of the system with environmentalfluctuations, and this increase, in turn, is the result ofbehavioural complexity in a living complex system.• Geometric complexity: in general, includescomplexities concerning the geometry comprisingliving things and systems. It mostly pertains to fractalgeometry. The most important item concerning thechaos theory is the completely continuous formationof different dimensions of complexity in landscapestructure. On the basis of goals, each of the aboveitems fluctuates in strength (Loehle, 2004).

However, as it is argued, these are least number ofcomplexity dimensions. And there are more dimensionsto be revealed as our knowledge will be expanded. Forinstance, Cadenasso et al., (2006) discuss two extradimensions as Ecosystem complexity, andBiocomplexity; both are relatively new to the field ofecology and many ecologist. They define it as aconcept that deals with heterogeneity, connectivityand history. Here is their definition of ecosystemcomplexity and biocomplexity.

Ecosystem complexity: it could be defined as thedegree to which ecological systems comprisingbiological, social and physical components incorporatespatially explicit heterogeneity, organizationalconnectivity, and historical contingency through time.

Biocomplexity: it is defined as ‘‘properties emergingfrom the interplay of behavioral, biological, physical,and social interactions that affect, sustain, or aremodified by living organisms, includinghumans’’(Michener et al., 2001, p. 1018 cited inCadenasso et al 2006)).We may postulate two more features of ecologicalcomplexity as: Transformation complexity,

1003

Int. J. Environ. Res., 7(4):995-1006,Autumn 2013

Accumulation complexity (Interaction of differentfeatures), Biocomplexity, and Ecosystem complexityfollows:

Transformation complexity: as seventh dimensionwhere it refers to the changing processes in elementsof living systems, and ecosystems, and also thelandscape morphology. The Change of form and shapeduring the time is an important and vital feature of anyliving system, ecosystem, and landscape. As it canmake an entirely changed elements which differs fromthe initial form and condition.

Accumulation (interaction) Complexity: as theeighth dimension, aggregation complexity refers to the

Fig. 1. Dimensions of Ecological complexity-the developed four dimensions of Ecologicalcomplexity(Transformation, accumulation, Biocomplexity and ecosystem complexity)

after Loehe 2004(Author 2012)

effects of interactions amongst two or moredimensions simultaneously. For instance theinteractions amongst distribution of plants, andflowers pollination (example of spatial complexity),during the seasonal conditions (example of temporalcomplexity) , by means of bees (example ofbehavioural complexity) will generate a new complexcondition which will be difficult to predict; andhence creates aggregated complexity. The elaboratedfour new dimensions of ecological complexity areadded to the current dimensions by Loehle resultedin the Fig. 1.

CONCLUSIONSustainable development is described as a multi

dimension goals and actions program which seeks thesolutions for reducing environmental stresses andimproving quality of life of inhabitants on the planetearth. While environment, society and economy havebeen identified as three pillars of sustainability, the

environment has seen with a key role to play in thefulfilment of the two other. In achievement ofsustainable development and environmentalsustainability, important role is given to landscape andecology. Complex systems and simple systems wereidentified and discussed as essential parts of a living

1004

Masnavi, M. R.

system in the environment. Landscape is considered aphenomenon comprising many levels of living systems,where they should be viewed and studied as simpleand complex systems. The notion of complex systemand complexity theory in examined to address thecomplexity of landscape and ecological systems. Theemphases are given to the role of complexity theory toelaborate the elements of the system which shape thewhole system. Two factors are seen influential in anecological/landscape system:Interconnectedness andinterdependence.The complexity theory concentrateson the issue of emergence of order out of apparentdisorder in complex systems. In contrast, the study ofhow complex behaviour appears out of the rules insimple systems is more concerns of chaos theory.Furthermore, complexity explains the way themechanisms of complex systems work and the waysimple elements transform into complex systems.Previous studies stressed that, the existing dynamismsin an ecological complex system are related to thematter, energy and information flow into it. However,environmental and ecological degradation may causesubstantial interference in the transfer of matter, energyand information. These interferences might forcenature-as a medium for both order and disorder- andits subsystems i.e. ecosystems, landscape systems toreact to environmental conditions properly. Thesesystems therefore, are capable of continuous changing:expansion and contraction depends on the primaryenvironmental factors; and eventually will lead to thewidening and transformation from one state intoanother one, which may be termed as dynamicsustainability. Some other highlights of the researchare as follows: The elaboration of the concepts of theecological complexity was referred to as an effectivetool in better understanding of and an integratedapproach to landscape potentials and environment roletowards achieving sustainable development. Assustainability is the result of correctly understandingdynamic processes in the structure of nature andframework of society and economy, nature and itssubsystems are of great importance. The explanationof the dimension of complexity found to be vital inenvironmental and landscape analyses as well asecological assessment in the protection of naturalsystems. As well as the appraisal of the currentliterature and theories on the complexity features, somenew dimensions were elaborated. Although, sixdimensions of ecological complexity proposed byprevious research found essential, the need for newissues were apparent. Spatial complexity, temporalcomplexity, Structural complexity, Functionalcomplexity, Behavioural complexity, and Geometriccomplexity are currently accepted features. However,

the drastic changes on our attitudes towardsenvironment, economy, and society values havecreated new critical conditions for the planet and itsinhabitants. The new conditions imply a revise inexisting framework of complexity. Evidence from thisresearch, suggested the four new dimensions.Theseneed to be regarded as the widening new issues andtheir impacts on our surrounding systems includingnatural systems and built environment. The paperproposed four new dimensions as: Ecosystemcomplexity: the degree to which ecological systemscomprising biological, social and physical componentsincorporate to internal and external relations andconnectedness through time. Bio-complexity refers tothe properties emerging from the interplay ofbehavioral, biological, physical, and social interactionsthat affect sustainability or is modified by livingorganism. Transformation complexity, deals withchanging processes in the elements of living systems,and ecosystems, and also the landscape morphology.It can make entirely changed elements which differ fromthe initial form and condition. And lastly, accumulationor interaction complexity, which refers to the effects ofinteractions amongst two or more dimensionssimultaneously; i.e. the interactions amongstdistribution of plants, and flowers pollination (exampleof spatial complexity), during the seasonal conditions(example of temporal complexity), by means of bees(example of behavioural complexity) will generate a newcomplex condition which will be difficult to predictMeanwhile, “landscape” as a part of the naturalstructure, like a living organism, includes a complexwhole of comprising units and mutual relationshipsbetween them. The development and promotion of anecological system to a higher and more complex levelwith more organization needs the emergence of newlevels of complexity in comprising units. Landscapeand its components or landscape units in particularchange time to time and transforms physically andspatially simultaneously in a continuous manner. Undercircumstances the decision made for the contributionof landscape planning and design in achievingsustainability should be based on ecological approach,which sees the complex systems as characteristics ofecological systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe Author is thankful to the Office of

International Relations, and Office of Vice-PresidentResearch and Technology, University of Tehran fortheir helps and supports in conducting this research.Author would also like to thank Professor David Brown,the Head of School of Urban Planning, ProfessorRaphael Fischler, and Professor Madhav Badami, all at

School of Urban Planning, McGill University-Canada,for their kind helps and supports, and also scientificexchange during the period of my sabbatical at McGillUniversity in summer and fall 2009.

REFERENCESAlberti, M. (2008). Advances in Urban Ecology Integratinghumans and ecological Process in urban Ecosystems. NewYork: Springer.

Alizadeh, E. and Pishgahi Fard, Z. (2010). The Position ofEnvironmental Threats in Creating Different Models ofRegional Integration. Int. J. Environ. Res., 4 (3), 541-548.

Aminzadeh, B. and Khansefid, M. (2010). Improving theNatural and Built Ecological Systems in an UrbanEnvironment. Int. J. Environ. Res., 4 (2), 361-372.

Asgary, A., Klosterman, R. and Razani, A. (2007).Sustainable Urban Growth Management Using What-If? Int.J. Environ. Res., 1 (3), 218-230.

Basic experts, (2011). Equitable access to sustainabledevelopment: Contribution to the body of scientificknowledge. BASIC expert group: Beijing, Brasilia, CapeTown and Mumbai Bell, S & Morse, S.(2003) MeasuringSustainability. UK: Earthscan.

Benson, J ., and Roe M. ( 2007). Landscape andsustainability,2nd ed. London Routledge.

Berleant, A. (2009). www.autograff.com/berleant/pages/recentart8.html.

Berleant, A. (1997). Living in the Landscape, Toward anAesthetics of Environment, University Press of Kansas,USA.

Bossomaier, T. R. J. and Green, D. G. ( 1998). Patterns inthe Sand. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Cadenasso M. L., Pickett S. T. A. and Grove J. M. (2006).Dimensions of ecosystem complexity: Heterogeneity,connectivity, and history, Eological Complexity, 3, 1-12.

Cook, E. and Lier, H. N. (1994). Landscape and EcologicalNetwork. Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady State Economics. Island Press,Washington.

Edwards, T. (2009) Sustainable Development, Briefing PaperNo 4/09, New South Wales Parliamentary Library ResearchService. NSW.

EEA, (1995). European Environment Agency, Europe’sEnvironment: The Dobris Assessment. EuropeanEnvironment Agency, Copenhagen.

Farina, A. (1998). Principles and Methods in LandscapeEcology, Chapman and Hall. London.

Ferrari, G., Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., Vargas - Vargas, M. (2010).Environmental Sustainable Management of Small RuralTourist Enterprises. Int. J. Environ. Res., 4 (3), 407-414.

Green, D. G. (2006). Nichols Klomp, Glyn RimmimgtonSuzanne Sadedin, Complexity in Landscape Ecology; theNetherland : Springer.

IPCC, (2007). Climate Change, Mitigation of ClimateChange. Contribution of Working Group III to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. IPCC working Group I Technical SupportUnit, Bern.

ICLEI, (1994). International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives. Charter of European Cities andTowns Towards Sustainability (Aalborg Charter).

Ingegnoli, V. (2002). Landscape Ecology: A WideningFoundation, Springer, New York.

Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M. and Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005).What is SusatianbaleEnvironment: Science and Policy forSustainable Development, 47 (3), 8–21.

Loehle, C. (2004). Challenge of Ecological Complexity,1,Illinoise.USA.

Makhzoumi, J. and Pungetti, G. (1999). Ecological LandscapeDesign and Planning, the Mediterranean context. E and FNSPON: London and New York.

Masnavi, M. R. (2012) Sustainable Urban Forms Planningand design Strategies, compact city urban dispersal andmixed-use development in theory and practice. USA: LAP-Lambert Academic Publishing.

Masnavi, M. R. (2007). Measuring Urban Sustainability,Developing a Conceptual Framework for Bridging the GapBetween theoretical Levels and the Operational Levels, inInternational. Journal of Environmental Research, 1, 179-187.

Masnavi, M. R. and Soltanifard, H. (2007). ComplexLandscape and Landscape complexity, the role of complexityin ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Science, 4,85-100.

Masnavi, M. R. (2000) The New millennium and the newurban paradigm, compact city in practice. In Williams K.Burton E. and Jenks M. (eds.) Achieving Sustainable Urbanform, London: E and F Spon Press.

Michener, W. K., Baerwald, T. J., Firth, P., Palmer, M. A.,Rosenberger, J. L., Sandlin, E. A. and Zimmerman, H. (2001).Defining and unraveling iocomplexity. BioScience, 51, 1018–1023.

Mossalanejad, A. (2012). Evaluating the DevelopedCountries Policy Making Toward Environmental Cases. Int.J. Environ. Res., 6 (1), 71-80.

Mossalanejad, A. (2013). Environmental Security and GlobalViolence. Int. J. Environ. Res., 7 (2), 473-478.

Mossalanejad, A. (2011). The Role of Economic Policy andEnvironment in Sustainable Development. Int. J. Environ.Res., 5 (2), 395-402.

Int. J. Environ. Res., 7(4):995-1006,Autumn 2013

1005

Environmental Sustainability and Ecological Complexity

Mikulecky, D. C. (1995). Life, Complexity and the edge ofChaos: Cognitive aspects of communication between cellsand other components of living systems, Biotheoretica Acta,27, 1995.

Norberg, J. and Graeme, C. (2008). Complexity theory for aSustainable Future, USA, Columbia University Press.

Odell, J. (2003). Between Order and Chaos. Journal of ObjectTechnology, 2, 45-50.

OED, (2008). Oxford English Dictionary, Third editionrevised, London: Oxford University Press.

OALD, (2004). Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary,Oxford University Press.

SERC, (2006). Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre,Landscape ecology.

Serrat, O. (2009). Understanding Complexity By KnowledgeSolutions Asian Development Bank.

Spiekermann, K. and Wegener, M. (2003). Modelling UrbanSustainability, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 7(1), 47-64.

UNDP, (2012), The Future We Want, United Nation Draftend Document for RIO+2012, United Nation Report p 8.

UNGA, (2000). UN General Assembly, United NationsMillennium Declaration, Resolution 55/2, United NationsA/RES/55/2, 18 September 2000, page x.

UNDP, (2005) UN Millennium Project, Investing inDevelopment: A Practical Plan to Achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, Overview. New York: United NationsDevelopment Program.

Winkler H., Brouns B. and Kartha S. (2011). Futuremitigation commitments: Differentiating among non-AnnexI countries. Climate Policy, 5, 469-486.

Winkler, H., Jayaraman, T., Jiahua, P., Adriano, S. O.,Yongsheng, Z., Girish, S., Jose, D., Gonzalez, M., Thapelo,L., Andrew, M. and Stefan, R. (2011). Equitable access tosustainable development, Contribution to the body ofscientific knowledge.

Yavari, A. R., Sotoudeh, A. and Parivar, P. (2007). UrbanEnvironmental Quality and Landscape Structure in AridMountain Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res., 1 (4), 325-340.

Zonneveld, I. (1994). Landscape and Ecological Network.Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Witting, G. (2003). Landscape data and complex adaptivesystem Earth. Holism in complexity and network science.

WCED, (1987). World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, Brundtland Report to the United Nations,Our Common Future “Oxford University Press, UK.

1006