TY - JOUR
T1 - Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration
AU - Vermaat, J.E.
AU - Eppink, F.V.
AU - van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.
AU - Barendregt, A.
AU - van Belle, J.C.
PY - 2005
Y1 - 2005
N2 - Grain and extent of spatially explicit studies in landscape ecology and spatial economics have been reviewed in an assessment of differences between these two disciplines and possibilities for integration. In the latter field, (1) such papers were substantially less frequently found, and (2) median study area grains as well as extents were higher. We found no evidence of a different definition of spatial scale, but did find major differences between the two fields in embedding in theory (well-developed in spatial economy) and spatial realism (better in landscape ecology). Where studies integrated both fields, matching of the spatial scales was generally imposed by the data bases available and kept implicit in the derivation of research aims. In multidisciplinary environmental assessment, explicit matching of scales is often neglected. We evaluate three possible approaches to guide this matching exercise, and conclude that a local compromise for a specific landscape is probably the best achievable. We found no evidence for the existence of a limited set of convergent and globally overarching spatial scales that is of practical use. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
AB - Grain and extent of spatially explicit studies in landscape ecology and spatial economics have been reviewed in an assessment of differences between these two disciplines and possibilities for integration. In the latter field, (1) such papers were substantially less frequently found, and (2) median study area grains as well as extents were higher. We found no evidence of a different definition of spatial scale, but did find major differences between the two fields in embedding in theory (well-developed in spatial economy) and spatial realism (better in landscape ecology). Where studies integrated both fields, matching of the spatial scales was generally imposed by the data bases available and kept implicit in the derivation of research aims. In multidisciplinary environmental assessment, explicit matching of scales is often neglected. We evaluate three possible approaches to guide this matching exercise, and conclude that a local compromise for a specific landscape is probably the best achievable. We found no evidence for the existence of a limited set of convergent and globally overarching spatial scales that is of practical use. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/13244251417
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/13244251417#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.027
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.027
M3 - Article
SN - 0921-8009
VL - 52
SP - 229
EP - 237
JO - Ecological Economics
JF - Ecological Economics
ER -