Landscape Ecology vol. 6 no. 4 pp 239-250 (1992) SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy Joan Iverson Nassauer Department of Landscape Architecture, 212 North Hall, 2005 Buford Avenue, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, U.S.A. 55108 Abstract Environmental policy should explicitly address the appearance of the landscape because people make infer- ences about ecological quality from the look of the land. Where appearances are misleading, failing to portray ecological degradation or ecological health, public opinion may be ill-informed, with consequences for environmental policy. This paper argues that while ecology is a scientific concept, landscape perception is a social process. If we do not recognize this difference, we have problems with the appearance of ecological systems. Three influential problems are discussed: 1) the problem of the false identity of ecological systems, 2) the problem of design and planning as deceit about ecological systems, and 3) the problem of invisible eco- logical systems. These problems for environmental policy may be resolved in part if landscape planners and policy-makers use socially-recognized signs to display human intentions for ecological systems. Specifically, planning and policy can include socially-recognized signs of beauty and stewardship to display human care for ecological systems. An example in United States federal agricultural policy is described. Environmental policy should explicitly address the look of the land, not because aesthetic quality is coequal with biotic and physical quality of the land- scape, though some have made this argument, but because the look of the land communicates. Kevin Lynch (1971) called the environment ‘an enormous communications device’. What people see, and par - ticularly our affective response to landscape, in- fluences what we think belongs in the landscape. Policy can intentionally use this enormous commu- nications device to suggest that patterns that sup- port the ecological function of the landscape belong there, or policy can fail to address human interpre- tation of ecological patterns. Both the broadened concept of ecology that landscape ecology repre- sents and the realities of the politics behind policy suggest that to ignore what the landscape communi- cates is naive. This paper explores the social dimen- sion of our perception of landscapes and suggests how that social dimension could inform environ- mental policy. The social dimension of perception The way things look is not always the way things are. This fact should be cause for consternation among those who are interested in the management of ecological systems. A highly functional land- scape structure may go unnoticed - even by people who depend upon its function. People may change the landscape, destroy its ecological function, without even knowing what they have done. If we assume that people want to live in healthy ecologi- cal systems, the problem is that the way the land- scape looks might not tell us whether the landscape