英语论文网

de the optimum solutions or even any solutions at all to solve some projected problems. Instead, they are neutral consultants and moderators providing alternative strategies for each of the defenders in their defending various process in the landscape. These strategies are comparatively more efficient in achieving corresponding utility goals. The final solutions are the acceptable results achieved through the negotiation among all defenders of the processes. GIS has great potential both in the defining of those spatial strategies based on the identification of SPs, and in the defensive procedure of negotiation among defenders of various processes. CONCLUSION The general conclusion of this research is that landscape security patterns (SPs) could be very useful in landscape planning aimed at safeguarding various processes. Security patterns can be used as impact models guiding the modification or improvement of proposed change plans, as constraint criteria controlling the maximization course of individual processes, as blue prints for the improvement of landscape structure, and as a basic reference frame for the procedure of spatial bartering. The SP approach makes policy and management practice specify and concentrate on certain areas which can increase the efficiency of the decision making procedure. Various landscape change alternatives are explored based on SPs within a certain security level for a certain process. Further change alternatives are developed at a lower security level only when none of the alternatives at a higher security level is acceptable to decision makers or defenders of various processes. SPs are 'stop signs' in the decision-making course that reduce the risk of the irreversibility of decision making and reduce the possibilities of catastrophes in landscape changes. GIS play an important role in simulating various processes, identifying security patterns, evaluating impact and developing landscape change models based on SPs. GIS shows its great potentials when combined with the SP approach in supporting landscape decision making. ACKNOWLEDGE: Thanks are due to Carl Steinitz, Stephen Ervin and Richard T. T. Forman at Harvard University for their advice and support of this research, Hugh Keegan and other staffs at the ESRI (Environment Systems Research Institute) for their support in the application of ARC/INFO GIS, and Erin Crowley for her editing of the manuscript. REFERENCES Berry, B. J. L., and Horton, F. E. (Ed.), 1970, Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bishop, A. B., Fullerton, H. H., Crawford, A. B., Chambers, M. D., and McKee, M., 1974, Carrying Capacity In Regional Environmental Management Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., 1968, Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies (3rd ed.) Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Division of Agricultural Science. Forman, R. T. T., and Godron, M., 1986, Landscape Ecology, New York: John Wiley. Gibson, J. J., 1950, The Perception of the Visual World, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Knaapen, J. P., Scheffer, M., and Harms, B.,1992. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning, Landscape and Urban Plann., 23, 1-16. Kozlowski, J., 1986, Threshold Approach in Urban, Regional and Environmental Planning: Theory and Practice, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press. Kozlowski, J., an