See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324695430

A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design: Forging

Connections through Neighbourhood Landscape Design

Chapter · June 2018

DOI: 10.1142/9789813236035_0003

CITATIONS READS

0 999

2 authors:

Kuei-Hsien Liao Tan Puay Yok

National Taipei University National University of Singapore
23 PUBLICATIONS   360 CITATIONS    81 PUBLICATIONS   2,901 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nature, Place & People View project

Assessment of the Visual Quality of Urban Landscapes in Health Promotion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kuei-Hsien Liao on 01 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Forging Connections through
Neighbourhood Landscape Design

Edited by
Tan Puay Yok, Liao Kuei-Hsien, Hwang Yun Hye & Vincent Chua

Book 1.indb 3 2/3/18 4:49 PM

 A Conceptual
Framework for
Neighbourhood
Landscape
Design Chapter 3
Liao Kuei-Hsien | Tan Puay Yok

Book 1.indb 59 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 3.1 Conceptual foundations

W
hat could be a useful framework to guide the way we think about
neighbourhood landscapes? Although they are omnipresent features of our
everyday living spaces, neighbourhood landscapes are often perceived as
physically small, highly fragmented, perhaps unplanned and uncoordinated, and even
unimportant. The monotony, homogeneity, and occasional neglect that we observe in
many neighbourhood landscapes may have been shaped by such perceptions. Over
time, these conditions are tolerated or even accepted as convention.

Despite their small size and apparent irrelevance, neighbourhood landscapes can have
wide-ranging impacts. For instance, a widespread but increasingly criticised practice in
American residential landscapes is the front lawn (Jenkins, 2015). The preoccupation
with the lawn as a norm, even in water-scarce regions, has led to turfed areas being the
largest single “crop” in the US (Milesi et al., 2005). This has obvious adverse consequences
on water conservation, especially in the context of water scarcity and unpredictability
in water supply induced by climate change and environmental degradation. Individual
household decisions on landscapes can influence other ecological qualities as well, such as
biodiversity and energy balance of urban areas (Scyphers and Lerman, 2014). Seemingly
inconsequential decisions on landscapes at the household scale can cumulatively have
enormous consequences on larger social and environmental conditions that belie the
smallness associated with neighbourhood landscapes.

A framework that sheds light on the important roles neighbourhood landscapes play in
promoting urban sustainability, liveability, and resilience must explicitly acknowledge
the multiple and multi-scalar connections these landscapes have with the larger socio-
ecological environment. The connections are ecological, concerned with flows of
materials and energy, flows of organisms, and exchanges of genetic materials. They
are also social, concerned with bonds between humans, and between humans and the
places they live.

Our proposed conceptual framework for neighbourhood landscape design is based

on several key concepts. First, neighbourhood landscapes need to be viewed through
multidisciplinary lenses; second, neighbourhood landscape design and management
are connected to and serve the urban development goals of sustainability, liveability,
and resilience; third, neighbourhood landscapes are urban ecosystems nested within a
larger urban ecosystem; fourth, neighbourhood landscapes generate landscape services
which support human well-being; fifth, neighbourhood landscapes form a value chain
linking ecological processes to benefits for humans; and sixth, landscape design should
be a transdisciplinary process to translate normative goals into spatial plans and design
for neighbourhood landscapes. We elaborate on these concepts below.

Book 1.indb 60 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
61

c (c)

1. Neighbourhood landscapes need to be viewed through

multidisciplinary lenses
Neighbourhood landscapes, as both material space and perceived spaces, convey
varied meanings and emphases in different disciplines, with correspondingly different
study approaches. An urban ecologist might be interested in how such landscapes, as
part of the urban matrix or a patch within a patch-matrix model of urban landscapes
(Werner, 2011), can be designed to favour the dispersal of certain species for their
conservation. This researcher takes a landscape ecological approach using spatial
analysis of patterns and ecological functions and meta-population studies to understand
dispersal and persistence of different species across time and space. To an urban
climatologist, however, a neighbourhood landscape is an urban structural unit caught
between “micro” and “local” spatial scales, each with distinct atmospheric boundary
conditions (Cleugh and Grimmond, 2012). A key question for the climatologist will
be how neighbourhood landscapes, because of the distinct properties provided by
vegetation and water, influence the energy, water, and material flows and balances,
and how these in turn, may alter the climatological conditions of this urban structural
unit. The approach to studying these phenomena is distinctively positivist, with the
application of physical or biophysical sciences. A sociologist might be interested in
how neighbourhood landscapes, as social spaces shaped by cultural norms, social
hierarchies, and power structures, might encourage or impede the formation of social
networks, equitable distribution of amenities, individual and community identity, and
connections to place. The approach might be ethnographic or semi-quantitative using
mixed methods. Landscape architects, urban planners, and urban designers are more
interested in designing neighbourhood landscapes as critical spaces that provide spatial
relief in the urban fabric, especially in compact urban forms, for recreation, aesthetics,
psychological relief, and community interactions. The design is usually contextualised
by the need to solve site-specific problems or challenges and manage competing or
conflicting needs by finding creative solutions. The need to manage trade-offs between
competing uses and demands usually takes centre stage, and design is a creative, iterative,
and integrative process of creating negotiated solutions.

It seems clear that if we aim to deliver on the promise of neighbourhood landscapes for
both people and environment, no single perspective can monopolise the approach and
adequately frame our views; a pluralistic approach integrating multiple perspectives is
called for. If we also assume that all disciplines mentioned above are motivated by the
creation of knowledge not for knowledge itself, but to eventually deploy the knowledge to
advance the welfare of humankind, we suggest that our quest for knowledge in different
disciplines can be connected by the common goal of creating a built environment which
supports the well-being of current and future regenerations. We propose that such a
goal can be characterised by the triple aspirations of urban development: sustainability,
liveability, and resilience.

Book 1.indb 61 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 2. Neighbourhood landscape design and management are
connected to and serve the urban development goals of
sustainability, liveability, and resilience
Simply stated, neighbourhood landscapes can contribute to the urban development goals
of meeting the diverse social and economic needs of urban dwellers. It is increasingly
recognised that these goals cannot be fulfilled in the long term without considering the
natural environment. Sustainability, liveability, and resilience are important concepts;
they broadly encapsulate the key considerations of and provide guidance on urban
development. As active subjects of investigation and debate, they have generated (and
continue to generate) a large body of literature.

Sustainability, or sustainable development, is concerned with meeting “the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (Bruntland, 1987). Central to this definition is the need to ensure development
does not deplete finite resources; in most cases, this entails following a developmental
pathway that improves well-being and social equity and that does not degrade natural
ecosystems (Redman, 2014).

Our dependence on nature for well-being is increasingly recognised and conveyed

in the concept of “ecosystem services”, originally proposed by Ehrlich and Ehrlich
(1981). This dependence is also conveyed in the proposition that natural ecosystems
represent a form of capital — “natural capital” — upon which human well-being is
fundamentally built (Wu, 2013). In the long-term, human welfare cannot be sustained
unless we safeguard the integrity of environmental systems that make life possible in
the first place.

Landscape has been proposed as a particularly relevant concept in sustainability and

as a spatial unit for fostering research and sustainable practices. For example, while
sustainability has to be addressed at multiple scales — global, regional (e.g. continental),
and local (e.g. community) — it has also been argued that the local scale, the scale of
landscape at which humans perceive their immediate environment and where decisions
and actions are most immediately experienced, is the most appropriate place for
sustainability research and actions (Wu, 2012). Neighbourhood landscapes should thus
actively contribute to promoting the sustainability of urban regions.

Liveability is a relatively recent but widely-used term in urban planning. Ruth and
Franklin (2014) say the concept emerged along with “sustainability” in public discourse
and city planning and has since become a buzzword. Entire organisations are dedicated
to urban liveability issues, such as International Making Cities Livable, Centre for
Liveable Cities and Liveable Cities Lab; in addition, an array of indexes now benchmark
the liveability of cities, such as Global Liveability Report (Economist Intelligence Unit,
n.d.) and Most Livable Cities Index (Monocle, n.d.).

Book 1.indb 62 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
63

Despite its wide usage, there is no widely accepted definition of liveability. The following
components have been associated with liveability: human needs being met, including
both existential and spiritual ones (Tan and Hamid, 2014); the “well-being of a
community and … the characteristics that make a place where people want to live now
and into the future” (Kennedy and Buys, 2010); and more recently, as a “behavioural-
perceptual function of the human-environment interface” (Teo, 2014). Liveability may
therefore be understood as a desirable condition defined by the physical and social
qualities of the built environment and, at the same time, by human perception and
assessment of these qualities.

While liveability may be a recent term, planning urban environments that meet the
basic needs of urban dwellers, such as clean water, sanitation, and green spaces, has a
long history dating back to the Industrial Revolution. This urban development goal is
often described as the development of a “sanitary city” aimed at providing clean water
and basic sanitation (Melosi, 2000). The incorporation of green spaces in cities also has
a long association with health promotion for urban dwellers (Ward Thompson, 2011).
With increasing public health challenges in urban areas (Dye, 2008), there is growing
attention to the nexus between landscapes and health in urban settings. A key part of
liveability should thus be the promotion of human health.

The term resilience has its roots in ecology, but its use now goes beyond describing the
ability of natural ecosystems to absorb changes or disturbances without altering their
basic structure, functions, and identity (Holling, 1973; Walker, Hooling, Carpenter
and Kinzig, 2004). It is increasingly promoted as a concept to guide urban planning in
cities now understood as socio-ecological systems (Pickett, Cadenasso, and McGrath,
2013). It is also used to refer to the ability of communities to withstand and recover
from external shocks related to both natural disasters and social crises (Wu, 2012),
such as financial crises, social unrest, terrorism, etc. In addition, it refers to the ability
of engineering systems, such as transportation networks, buildings and utilities, etc. to
withstand natural hazards such as typhoons, earthquakes, and other effects of climate
change. Increasingly emphasised in the concept of resilience are the qualities of self-
organisation, adaptation to external changes, and transformation to a more desirable
state (Meerow, Newell, and Stults, 2016).

Although they are distinct concepts, sustainability, liveability, and resilience are
interlinked (Tan and Hamid, 2014), with overlapping conceptual underpinnings
(Redman, 2014). Although the conceptual foundations, their interactions, and
suggestions for their application to shape urban areas will inevitably evolve over time, we
suggest the following simplified way to frame them to convey their interconnectedness:
sustainability is primarily focused on conserving Earth’s resources to protect the capacity
of ecosystems and achieve intergenerational equity, to meet the needs of current

Book 1.indb 63 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 and future generations; liveability draws on natural, economic, and social capital of
socio-ecological systems to meet present human needs by creating a desirable living
environment; resilience is a requisite condition of achieving sustainability, that is, the
capacity of the city, along with its sub-systems to adapt to changes without losing its
basic structure, functions, and identity.

In other words, cities cannot be sustainable unless they possess a basic degree of
resilience, and cities, even if sustainable, may not achieve a requisite level of liveability
to be attractive places to live, unless human material and existential needs are met.
On the other hand, a highly liveable city whose high consumptive patterns exceed the
capacity of natural systems to provide the resources it draws upon cannot ultimately
be sustainable or resilient. Trade-offs between these three goals of urban development
are inevitable. We need to find a balance.

3. Neighbourhoods are urban ecosystems nested within a larger

urban ecosystem
As we argued in previous chapters, neighbourhoods are urban ecosystems. They
are also socio-ecological systems (SES), i.e., human-dominated ecosystems in which
the natural (or ecological and biophysical) components and human components are
inextricably linked by complex interactions and feedback (Grimm, Grove, Pickett, and
Redman, 2000; Pickett et al., 2011). In studying the state of SES (e.g., sustainability and
liveability), neither natural processes in SES, such as the flow of materials and energy,
trophic dynamics of the biological systems, effects of coarse-scale environment changes,
etc., nor the impact of human decisions, such as land use, economic development, and
governance policies on SES, can be studied in isolation. Their interactions collectively
determine the state of SES, and this, in turn, determines the overall urban sustainability,
liveability, and resilience (Tan and Hamid, 2014).

Neighbourhoods do not exist in isolation, even if they have distinct administrative

boundaries. As urban ecosystems, they are nested within larger spatial units, such as
towns, cities, and surrounding metropolitan areas. Each unit has its own character,
social networks, and mix of commercial, industrial and residential areas, and can be
characterised by land cover features, such as vegetation amount and type, paved areas,
bare surfaces, built structures, height, and density. The spatial units change via vegetation
succession, changes in socio-demographics, migration of social groups, economic
and infrastructure investment, changes in buildings, specific policy interventions, etc.
The units are not independent; they are connected by networks: telecommunication,
communication, social, ecological, watershed-scale hydrology, etc. Some networks are
visible, such as infrastructural networks of roads or drainage systems, but most are
invisible or embedded, such as ecological flows or social networks. This implies that

Book 1.indb 64 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
65

planning, design, and management considerations need to recognise the myriad

connections of networks at units smaller and larger than the neighbourhood scale.

4. Neighbourhood landscapes generate landscape services

which support human well-being
A concept that bridges the natural processes in ecosystems and human dependence
on these processes is “ecosystem services”. Natural or ecological processes, which
are biological or biophysical in nature, are responsible for the self-regulation and
other properties of natural ecosystems, but because they also provide benefits to
humans, they are considered “services” for human well-being. Used in this sense,
the concept of ecosystem services emphasises the direct and indirect values of the
natural environment to human needs.

Ecological economists have attempted to articulate and quantify the economic value
of natural ecosystems. Since the use of the term by Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981), various
definitions of ecosystem services have been advanced, with most definitions referring
to the direct and indirect benefits of ecosystems on human well-being (Braat and de
Groot, 2012). More recently, starting with the seminal paper by Costanza et al. (1997),
there has been a surging interest in quantifying the benefits derived from natural
ecosystems, and studies in ecosystem services have grown exponentially (Hubacek
and Kronenberg, 2013; Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011), reflecting the utility of
the concept and its widespread usage.

Given the wide range of ecosystem services, classification schemes are useful for
fostering a conceptual understanding of ecosystem services and promoting their use
in urban planning and design. A widely-used classification scheme from Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2003) groups ecosystem services into “supporting
services”, “regulating services”, “provisioning services”, and “cultural services”.

Supporting services are those “necessary for the production of all other ecosystem
services”, such as biomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil
formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling, and provisioning of habitat;
regulating services are “the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
processes, such as the regulation of climate, water, and some human diseases”;
provisioning services are “the products obtained from ecosystems, such as food, fuel,
fibre, fresh water, and genetic resource”; and cultural services are “the non-material
benefits people obtain from ecosystems occurring through spiritual enrichment,
cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, including
knowledge systems, social relations, and aesthetic values” (MEA, 2005).

Book 1.indb 65 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 As not all ecosystem services are applicable to urban regions, a more limited set of
ecosystem services has been concurrently identified and referred to as “urban ecosystem
services” (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Dobbs, Escobedo, and Zipperer, 2011;
Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Hubacek and Kronenberg, 2013). There is no
consistent classification of urban ecosystem services deemed applicable to all urban
areas, however, given the great diversity of landscapes in urban regions, including
parks, protected areas, urban forests, and neighbourhood landscapes. Our discussion
of ecosystem services in Chapter 5 notes the need to identify specific ecosystem services
that are applicable to specific contexts.

A recent suggestion in the conceptualisation of benefits derived from ecosystems is that

“landscape services” is a more appropriate term than “ecosystem services” when applied
to human-dominated regions (Bastian et al., 2014; Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009).
Bastian et al. (2014) define landscape services as “the contributions of landscapes to
human well-being”, with landscape defined “as a part (at various scales) of the earth’s
surface, which is shaped by natural conditions and formed by human influences to
a different extent”. We adopt “landscape services” rather than “ecosystem services”
in this book for the following reasons. First, “landscape” more accurately depicts the
complete human perceptible realm than “ecosystem” (Gobster, Nassauer, Daniel, and
Fry, 2007), i.e., it is always local and hence is the most relevant scale within which humans
perceive and experience the environment, especially in relation to the neighbourhood.
Second, as a concept, “landscape” is broader than “ecosystem”, so more disciplines
can be aligned with it. Particularly in the context of the design disciplines, “landscape”
has a more direct spatial connotation and stronger connection to the act of design;
therefore, the term “landscape services” forges a more intuitive link to spatially explicit
design plans. Third, unlike “ecosystem”, “landscape” connotes a space that is a product
of human influence and conceptualisation, especially in the case of neighbourhood
landscapes — human-dominated ecosystems designed by humans. Finally, the term
“landscape services” is more directly aligned with the subject matter of this book, i.e.
neighbourhood landscapes, and hence more coherent as an expression. Landscape
services, simply put, refer to the benefits a designed landscape contributes to human
well-being through ecological processes.

Chapter 5 provides more detailed information on ecosystem services, the need to

consider trade-offs and the landscape services we identify as relevant to neighbourhood
landscapes.

Book 1.indb 66 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
67

5. Neighbourhood landscapes form a value chain linking

ecological processes to benefits for humans
Landscape services are derived from ecological processes, sometimes called ecosystem
functions, i.e., “the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods
and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (de Groot, Wilson, and
Boumans, 2002). By themselves, ecosystem functions do not suggest how humans
should protect and treasure natural ecosystems. As landscape service is primarily an
anthropocentric concept centred on human benefits, natural ecosystem functions can
only effect attitudinal and behavioural changes in humans to the extent to which humans
derive direct or indirect benefits from them and begin to value them. Thus, we can
identify a series of steps, a chain, in the accumulation of value from landscape services.
The components of such a chain have been variously described as processes, functions,
services, benefits, and values, and there is no consensus on the precise definitions of
each term.

Suffice it to say that a translation process is needed to shift what is produced by nature
into benefits that can be valued by humans. Efforts to do so include definitions of a
cascade linking ecosystem processes to human well-being (de Groot et al., 2010), or
simply “value chains” linking landscape structure to landscape processes and functions
to create value for humans (Swaffield, 2013). In the latter definition, values “are concepts
or beliefs about outcomes that transcend specific situations, guide evaluation, and
action” (Swaffield, 2013) and may be expressed in monetary or non-monetary terms.

This value chain is a useful concept for thinking about the design of neighbourhood
landscapes, as it explicitly recognises the role of design not just in shaping ecological
processes, but also in ensuring the emergent processes are beneficial to human well-
being. This is intimately tied to the fact that values are fundamentally normative in
nature and constructed through social processes (Liu and Opdam, 2014), and thus the
engagement of stakeholders is a necessary part of landscape design, especially for the
neighbourhood landscapes that are constantly and immediately experienced by large
populations of urban dwellers. Put otherwise, simply managing ecological processes is
not enough; the community must be involved for value to be obtained.

6. Landscape design should be a transdisciplinary process

translating normative goals into landscape changes
Neighbourhood landscapes are “designed landscapes”. In the simplest sense of the
term, this means they are the products of design based on purposeful considerations
and actions. Design therefore refers to a both “process” and a “product”1. Design as

1
This is described as “design as a verb” and “design as a noun” by Steinitz (2012) and as a “product” and an “activity” by Nassauer and Opdam (2008).

Book 1.indb 67 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 a product is easy to understand — it is a spatial plan that attempts to encapsulate one
or several goals that can be achieved through implementation of the plan. Design as a
process is tougher to grasp. For instance, using a landscape ecology perspective, Nassauer
and Opdam (2008) define design as “intentional change of landscape pattern, for the
purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognisably meeting societal
needs and respecting societal values”. In this definition, design is a bridge between
science and landscape change that is built by professionals. Van der Ryn and Cowan
(2013, p. 24) use a more general conceptualisation, defining design as the “intentional
shaping of matter, energy, and process to meet a perceived need or desire”. Musacchio
(2009) uses similar terms, defining design as a process which “intentionally redirects
and reorganises energy and materials in design landscapes”, thus reinforcing the view
that design is a process linking science and practice.

Two key points underpin these definitions. First, design is an integrative process; that
is, it seeks to connect rather than limit multiple goals or needs. As goals and needs often
seem competing or contradictory, for instance, water conservation versus the creation of
lush home gardens in arid landscapes, design is necessarily a creative process deployed
to find solutions that can overcome perceived limitations or incompatible goals. Second,
design seeks to marry the positivist approach used predominantly in science with the
normative process of reconciling individual or community desires or needs. Design
may be viewed as an iterative process that attempts to apply knowledge from science
in multiple domains — climate, hydrology, biodiversity conservation, social sciences,
recreation management, etc. — but the final outcome is tempered by priorities of
stakeholders with a vested interest in the landscape. In an urban setting, stakeholder
groups are necessarily diverse, comprising not just residents who use the landscape, but
also public policy makers, civil society, academia, even businesses. The act of reconciling
multiple goals can be managed as a transdisciplinary process which seeks to identify
common issues and challenges and develop socially acceptable solutions. By socially
acceptable solutions, we refer not just to the achievement of consensus between multiple
stakeholder groups, but also to the process of developing solutions. The involvement
of stakeholders and the act of negotiation between competing interests yields solutions
that are more widely acceptable to most groups, even if not all interests can be met.
This process involves a participatory design approach (see Chapter 4.2.3).

In applying these considerations to neighbourhood landscapes, we draw upon the

integrative and creative processes that take into account different components and
needs and translate those goals into spatial plans.

Book 1.indb 68 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 69
CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design

3.2. Conceptual framework for neighbourhood landscape design

T
he conceptual framework for neighbourhood landscape design in Fig. 3.1
encapsulates the six conceptual foundations described in the preceding section.
The overarching concept is that neighbourhoods are SES nested within
larger spatial units of towns and cities and within smaller spatial units of precincts
and blocks. These spatial units are connected not just by physical infrastructure,
such as roads and telecommunications networks, but also by ecological networks that
represent movements of energy, materials, and organisms, as well as social networks
forged between humans, communities, and places. At the heart of neighbourhood
landscape design is the creation of an environment that provides the physical,
social, and economic conditions necessary to support human well-being. Unless the
environment has the concomitant capacity to support ecosystem functions, human
well-being cannot be sustained in the long term. Therefore, neighbourhood landscape
design has to take into account both socio-cultural and ecological considerations.

Fig. 3.1 Conceptual framework for neighbourhood landscape design, depicting the inter-relationships between the six conceptual foundations described in Chapter 3.1.

Book 1.indb 69 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 Within neighbourhoods, neighbourhood landscapes mediate and facilitate connections
between people, nature, and places in everyday life. The connections are three-fold.
First, landscapes foster connections between people and nature. Humans interact with
nature, harness it, conserve it, and use it as a frame for their activities. Second, landscapes
foster connections between people and people as it is often through the active use of
landscapes that people form bonds with fellow residents and the community at large.
The community garden is a case in point; it is a meaningful green space that brings
residents together in a shared common activity. Third, landscapes foster connections
between people and places. Through the attachment to place and memories, nostalgia
and sentiment are reinforced and recreated.

In engendering such connections, directly or indirectly, landscapes promote an

accumulation of benefits and values to urban dwellers. The bridge between the
ecological processes and values obtained is realised by landscape services. They play
a fundamental role in shaping the extent to which neighbourhoods are sustainable,
liveable, and resilient.

As the quintessential form of nature in residential areas, neighbourhood landscapes

shape and are shaped by human components, by means of individual and household
decisions, institutions and governance structures. For instance, household or institutional
preferences for the types of landscapes influence the design of landscapes. In turn, the
characteristics of neighbourhood landscapes thus implemented determine the types and
amounts of value derived from landscape services, and this influences human well-being.

The integration of ecological knowledge with social approaches, such as participatory

design, reflects an integrated view of neighbourhood landscapes as part of a larger
socio-ecological system. Design is the anchor activity linking multiple domains of
knowledge with the eventual goal of enhancing landscape value. Given the central role
of landscape services in ecological functions and human and community well-being,
we dedicate Part II of the book to describing in detail how landscape services can be
explicitly considered in neighbourhood landscape design.

Book 1.indb 70 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
71

3.3 Principles and strategies for neighbourhood landscape design

I
n the preceding sections, we framed neighbourhoods as socio-ecological systems
with ecological and social components that have close interactions and feedback
loops. The interactions are mediated by networks of ecological processes, such
as flows of materials, energy and organisms, and social processes, such as the formation
of social ties and associations with place of living, information flows facilitated by
telecommunication networks and economic transactions. These flows are made more
complex by cross-scale interactions within and beyond the neighbourhood scale, as
well as the involvement of multiple agents and actors at individual, household, and
institutional levels. In an increasingly globalised and connected world, international
drivers are both biophysical, such as climate change, and socio-economic in nature,
such as financial crises, geopolitical developments, popular cultural movements, etc.
Any of these can exert an influence on decisions made at the neighbourhood level.

Neighbourhood landscapes, as an essential space within neighbourhoods and as a

medium connecting people to nature, to each other and to their community, sit at the
crossroads of social-cultural and socio-economic exchanges. For instance, the decisions
influencing the types of neighbourhood landscapes provided are determined by the
value system of policy makers, or in the case of individual household plots, by the home
owners themselves. In the context of densely-populated cities where land uses are always
subject to competing socio-economic needs, neighbourhood landscapes may be a low
priority, given the need to have more space dedicated to dwelling units. Commercial
spaces, which generate rental returns or provide services deemed essential for residents
might also have higher priority than green and open spaces. Even if provided, green
spaces may be highly manicured or dedicated to active recreational uses, if these are
deemed more valuable to residents. Such neighbourhood landscapes will obviously be
less favourable for supporting biodiversity and/or less effective in influencing climate.

Social norms and expectations thus shape neighbourhood landscapes, but social norms
and expectations are malleable; they change with shifting awareness and priorities among
policy makers and with new expectations of landscape users. To cite one example, there
is a growing international movement in urban farming. This is not a random change but
one engendered by growing concerns about sustainability and food security (Hou, 2017,
p. 24). At the smallest scale, the composition of plants used in landscapes is influenced
by the native versus exotic plants debate or by the movement to use xeric landscapes
in drier climates. In short, the provision of neighbourhood landscape services is not
accidental, but shaped by the conscious or unconscious decisions of people and by the
ways values associated with different landscape services are perceived (Ernstson, 2013).

The many social decisions that influence neighbourhood landscapes may be characterised
by “who” decides (actors who exert influences on decisions) and “how” decisions are
made (processes of stakeholder engagement). Decisions are also dependent on the extent

Book 1.indb 71 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 to which the design team of the neighbourhood landscape can translate and integrate
interpretations of different facets of ecological and biophysical sciences into spatially
explicit plans. For instance, can a neighbourhood landscape be simultaneously optimal
in managing stormwater runoff, cooling the neighbourhood, and attenuating noise
pollution? When factors such as temporal variations in the production of landscapes
services and variations across spatial scales are introduced, things get even more complex.
To extend the previous example, it may be necessary to go beyond the boundary of the
neighbourhood and consider the factors affecting the hydrology of the watershed which
the neighbourhood is part of when designing for stormwater management.

In short, interacting social and ecological considerations involving multiple agents and
actors dictate the effectiveness of neighbourhood landscapes to meet multiple needs of
stakeholders and achieve optimal ecological processes. We suggest that to understand
and manage complexities, a useful starting point is the use of “principles” (Tan, 2017).
Principles refer to basic assumptions about a system of study. In the context of this
book, it means the socio-ecological systems of neighbourhood landscapes, how they
function and their basic operating premises. As highlighted by Luederitz, Lang, and Von
Wehrden (2013), principles translate a conceptual understanding of complex systems
into concise statements to frame important issues. In so doing, principles generate
insights for a developmental pathway towards an ideal or desired condition.

The use of principles to steer design and planning is not new. Principles have been
applied in ecological landscape and ecological design (see references in Tan, 2017),
including the design of urban areas (Ferguson, Frantzeskaki, and Brown, 2013; Forman,
2016; Luederitz et al., 2015; Spirn, 2011). In this section, we draw on insights from these
earlier studies to suggest a list of principles that can guide the design of neighbourhood
landscapes. These principles are aligned with the perspective that neighbourhoods are
socio-ecological systems.

We identify five principles drawn from an urban ecological perspective of cities. These
are adapted and synthesised from Cadenasso and Pickett (2008); Hwang, Feng, and
Tan (2016); Nassauer (2012); Spirn (2011) and Tan (2017). The list is not exhaustive,
as further refinement of our conceptual understanding of socio-ecological systems
will continue to reshape our views and the applicable principles. Principles can also be
organised as metaprinciples (Pickett and Cadenasso, 2017; Ramaswami, Ramaswami
et al., 2016), to create a more hierarchical understanding of socio-ecological systems.
Principles and strategies, in our view, provide a valuable entry point to the design of
neighbourhood landscapes. Below we explain the five principles that can help to identify
design strategies to be incorporated into the design of specific landscapes services. In Part
II, we suggest a more comprehensive set of design strategies for each landscape service.

Book 1.indb 72 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
73

Principle 1 — Neighbourhood landscapes are ecosystems

connected to larger ecosystems
This principle was introduced earlier, when we argued that neighbourhood landscapes
are not isolated patches but systems nested within larger ecosystems and interconnected
with complex networks of matter, energy flows, and social networks. An optimal
neighbourhood landscape design seeks strenghtening of networks and flows between
smaller units in the neighbourhood and between many neighbourhoods across a larger
area.

One design strategy derived from this principle is designing neighbourhood landscapes
to promote habitats for biodiversity. Neighbourhood landscapes are typically too small
to sustain viable populations of larger organisms such as avifauna and small mammals,
but they can act as a temporary refuge, provide food sources, and act as stepping stones
to aid the dispersal of organisms across the larger landscapes. However, achieving
this goal requires an assessment of how neighbourhood landscapes may enhance the
ecological connectivity of neighbourhoods across a larger network of green and other
spaces, or in other words, an understanding of the relationship between neighbourhoods
and their larger interconnected surroundings.

Another design strategy pertains to the management of stormwater in urban areas.

Stormwater management is typically considered at the watershed scale, a much larger
scale than neighbourhoods. Therefore, to design for stormwater management of a
neighbourhood, it is important to consider the entire flow path of the stormwater runoff
within and beyond the neighbourhood. This stems from the need to protect the water
quality of a receiving waterbody immediately downstream from the neighbourhood,
which will necessitate the implementation of blue-green infrastructure elements within
the neighbourhood. In the instance where stormwater runoff from the neighbourhood
discharges directly into the sea, it is important to consider the impact of this discharge
on the coastal environment.

Principle 2 — As part of a social-ecological system, social and

ecological processes that interact in concert
determine the character of neighbourhood
landscapes
The character of neighbourhood landscapes (designed forms, ecosystem functions,
uses, and maintenance) is formed not just by the composition of natural elements (e.g.,
vegetation, soil and rocks, water, etc.), but also by human values, social norms, and
institutional policies. Ecosystem functions dictate the potential for landscape services
to be generated, whereas human perception and engagement with the landscape
dictate the extent to which residents derive values from landscapes. Neighbourhood
landscapes thus mediate the feedback between the social and ecological components

Book 1.indb 73 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 of neighbourhoods. Both components must be addressed in neighbourhood landscape
design so that neighbourhood landscapes are valuable and enduring.

An example of a strategy derived from this principle is to engage the community in the
design and post-construction management of neighbourhood landscapes. This can be
achieved, for instance, by incorporating “white spaces” in the design. These are spaces
with no predetermined uses or functions; their use is determined by the community
upon completion of landscapes. This is particularly relevant in residential estates created
from scratch, and for which the engagement of future residents in the planning and
design process is difficult, before occupation of the estates. White spaces allow the
community to determine how a landscape could be better aligned to the community’s
needs, engendering a heightened sense of belonging and place attachment.

Principle 3 — Neighbourhood landscapes are dynamic

As functioning ecosystems, neighbourhood landscapes are in constant flux. Some
changes are visible, such as maturation of trees, flowering, and fruiting, while others
are hidden, such as accumulation of organic matter in soils. Social factors add another
level of dynamism; for instance, policy changes, the aging of the community, or
shifting of societal preferences may affect the way landscapes are used and maintained.
Neighbourhood landscapes should be designed to accommodate, not resist change.

A design strategy derived from this principle is to allow the neighbourhood landscape
to “self-design”. The current practice in most neighbourhood landscapes is a strict
maintenance regime to keep them as close as possible to their original design at the time
of completion. In some features of the landscape, such as an activity lawn, the functional
reasons for a strict maintenance schedule are understandable. However, where space
permits, landscapes should be allowed to develop spontaneously and undergo natural
succession. For instance, selected fast-growing trees should be allowed to be planted in
an area which was originally designed with a grove of trees laid out in a regular fashion,
in order to create a suitable microclimate for other species to establish later on. These
trees may be introduced by wind, or brought in by pollinators, or deliberately seeded
at the site. The appearance of the landscape will change over time, whether between
seasons or over a longer time frame. Growth of the vegetation can be affected by periodic
drought, disease or any other natural factors that affect vegetative and reproductive
cycles of growth. Other than the initial interventions, the landscape “designs” itself over
time, demonstrates the natural dynamism of an ecosystem, requires less maintenance
and creates a more interesting contrast (and sometimes complement) to the orderly
look of a neighbourhood.

Book 1.indb 74 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
75

Principle 4 — Ecosystem functions remain important, even at the

scale of neighbourhood landscapes
As neighbourhood landscapes are functioning ecosystems, visible and invisible processes
continue to operate in them. Examples include the flux of energy through absorption and
re-radiation of solar radiation, the flux of water through transpiration and infiltration,
and primary productivity supporting the trophic needs of biodiversity, etc. This means
neighbourhood landscapes are capable of functioning as habitats, especially if habitats
are conceived as part of ecological networks connecting remnant habitats and protected
areas at larger spatial scales. Remnant ecosystems are especially valuable if they function
well. Neighbourhood landscape design should aim to enhance ecological flows and
enable multiple natural processes to enhance ecosystem functions for landscape services.

A design strategy derived from this principle is using landscapes to recycle nutrients that
would otherwise be lost through discharge into other ecosystems. For instance, nitrogen
from fertiliser application or atmospheric deposition is easily leached from soils into
aquatic systems. In severe cases, this can lead to eutrophication and degradation of the
receiving waterbodies. Nitrogen is also lost from the system through horticulture waste
from maintenance activities, especially when these waste are incinerated or landfilled.
Such waste can easily be composted, in either off- or on-site composting facilities and
returned to the landscape as mulch, compost, or organic fertiliser, thereby increasing the
fertility of the soil and improving soil structure. In other words, fundamental ecological
and biophysical processes (during composting, nutrient uptake, and biogeochemical flows
of nutrients, etc.) still occur within the urban environment, even if they are not visible.

Principle 5 — Heterogeneity in neighbourhood landscapes

promotes biodiversity and ecosystem functions
Heterogeneity refers to the spatial patchiness of landscapes. Heterogeneity encourages
species presence, abundance, composition, and interactions between species and the
abiotic environment. In other words, the more diverse the landscape types, such as
grasslands, wetlands, forests, swamps, etc., the higher the presence of species found
in different habitats. Heterogeneity of neighbourhood landscapes helps to enhance
species diversity. Neighbourhood landscape design can enhance heterogeneity by
incorporating both managed (such as lawns) and unmanaged or spontaneous (such as
woodlands, grasslands, etc.) vegetated areas, as well as other forms of ecosystems, such
as constructed wetlands.

A design strategy derived from this principle is the incorporating of diverse ecosystem
types into neighbourhoods. Examples of such ecosystems include woodlands,
community farms, natural ponds, constructed wetlands, etc. However, as with
biodiversity enhancement through landscape design, where the aim is not merely to

Book 1.indb 75 2/3/18 4:51 PM

 increase the number of species represented in landscapes, increasing
landscape heterogeneity is not merely to increase the number of
ecosystem types within the neighbourhood. Rather, the goal is to
incorporate ecosystem types that enhance the overall functioning
of the neighbourhood. For instance, natural ponds and constructed
wetlands are multifunctional: they create habitats for aquatic species,
treat stormwater and supply irrigation water for community farms to
reduce their use of potable water. In the case of community farms,
they can work towards heterogeneity by incorporating a range of
floral species that support pollinators. Macrophytes in wetlands that
are used to sequester excess nutrients in runoff can also be harvested,
composted, and captured for reuse.
References
Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R.-U., Walz, U., & Wende, W. (2014). Landscape
services: The concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecology, 29(9), 1463–1479.
doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0064-5.
Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
Economics, 29(2), 293–301. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds
of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private
policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011.
Bruntland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: Report of the 1987 world commission on environment
and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cadenasso, M. L., & Pickett, S. T. A. (2008). Urban principles for ecological landscape
design and management: Scientific fundamentals. Cities and the Environment, 1(2), 1–16.
Centre for Liveable Cities. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2017, from http://www.clc.gov.sg.
Cleugh, H., & Grimmond, S. (2012). Urban climates and global climate change. In A.
Henderson-Sellers & K. McGuffie (Eds.), The future of the world’s climate, 2nd edition (pp.
47–76). Boston: Elsevier.
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limurg,
K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & Van Den Belt, M.
(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630),
253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0.
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the
classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services.
Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges
in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. doi:10.1016/j.
ecocom.2009.10.006.
Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F. J., & Zipperer, W. C. (2011). A framework for developing urban
forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(3–4),
196–206. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.004.
Book 1.indb 76
Dye, C. (2008). Health and urban living. Science, 319(5864), 766–769. doi:10.1126/
science.1150198.
Economist Intelligence Unit (n.d.). Global liveability report 2017. Retrieved
October 3, 2017, from http://www.eiu.com/public/thankyou_download.
aspx?activity=download&campaignid=Liveability17.
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1981). Extinction: The causes and consequences of the
disappearance of species. New York: Random House.
Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for
studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.10.005.
Ferguson, B. C., Frantzeskaki, N., & Brown, R. R. (2013). A strategic program for
transitioning to a water sensitive city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 32–45. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.016.
Forman, R. T. T. (2016). Urban ecology principles: Are urban ecology and natural area
ecology really different? Landscape Ecology, 31(8), 1653–1662. doi:10.1007/s10980-016-
0424-4.
Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What
does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959–972. doi:10.1007/
s10980-007-9110-x.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services
for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2012.08.019.
Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., & Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated
approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience, 50(7), 571–584.
Hou, J. (2017). Urban community gardens as multimodal social spaces. In P. Y. Tan
& C. Y. Jim (Eds.), Greening cities: Forms and functions (pp. 113–130). Singapore: Springer
Singapore.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.
Hubacek, K., & Kronenberg, J. (2013). Synthesizing different perspectives on the value
of urban ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 1–6. doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.010.
Hwang, Y. H., Feng, Y. Q., & Tan, P. Y. (2016). Managing deforestation in a tropical
compact city (Part B): Urban ecological approaches to landscape design. Smart and
Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 73–92. doi:10.1108/SASBE-08-2015-0023.
Jenkins, V. (2015). The lawn: A history of an American obsession. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian.
Kennedy, R., & Buys, L. (2010). Dimensions of liveability: A tool for sustainable cities.
Paper presented at Proceedings of SB10mad Sustainable Building Conference, Madrid,
Spain.
Liu, J., & Opdam, P. (2014). Valuing ecosystem services in community-based landscape
planning: Introducing a wellbeing-based approach. Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1347–1360.
doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0045-8.
Livable Cities (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2017, from http://www.livablecities.org/.
Liveable Cities Lab (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2017, from http://www.ramboll.com/
megatrend/liveable-cities-lab.
2/3/18 4:51 PM

Luederitz, C., Brink, E., Gralla, F., Hermelingmeier, V., Meyer, M., Niven, L., Panzer, L.,
Partelow, S., Rau, A-L., Sasaki, R., Abson, D.J., Lang, D.J., Wamsler, C., & von Wehrden,
H. (2015). A review of urban ecosystem services: Six key challenges for future research.
Ecosystem Services, 14, 98-112. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.001.
Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., & Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A systematic review of guiding
principles for sustainable urban neighborhood development. Landscape and Urban Planning,
118, 40–52. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.002.
MEA. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Millennium ecosystem
assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.  Washington, DC: Island Press.
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2015.11.011.
Melosi, M. V. (2000). The sanitary city: Urban infrastructure in America from colonial times to the
present. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Milesi, C., Running, S. W., Elvidge, C. D., Dietz, J. B., Tuttle, B. T., & Nemani, R. R.
(2005). Mapping and modeling the biogeochemical cycling of turf grasses in the United
States. Environmental Management, 36(3), 426–438. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0316-2.
Monocle. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2017, from http://monocle.com.
Musacchio, L. R. (2009). The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability:
A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed
landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 24(8): 993.
Nassauer, J. I. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological
design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 221–229. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.03.014.
Nassauer, J., & Opdam, P. (2008). Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology
paradigm, Landscape Ecology, 23(6), 633–644.
Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Boone, C. G., Groffman, P. M., Irwin,
E., Kaushal, S .S., Marshall, V., McGrath, B. P., Nilon, C. H., Pouyat, R. V., Szlavecz,
K., Troy, A., & Warren, P. (2011). Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and
a decade of progress. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 331–362. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2010.08.022.
Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & McGrath, B. (2013). Resilience in ecology and urban
design: Linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2017). How many principles of urban ecology are
there? Landscape Ecology, 32(4), 699–705. doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0492-0.
Potschin, M. B., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring
a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 575–594.
doi:10.1177/0309133311423172.
Ramaswami, A., Russell, A. G., Culligan, P. J., Sharma, K. R., & Kumar, E. (2016).
Meta-principles for developing smart, sustainable, and healthy cities. Science, 352(6288),
940–943. doi:10.1126/science.aaf7160.
Redman, C. L. (2014). Should sustainability and resilience be combined or remain distinct
pursuits? Ecology and Society, 19(2). doi:10.5751/ES-06390-190237.
Ruth, M., & Franklin, R. S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical
implications. Applied Geography, 49, 18–23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2013.09.018.
Book 1.indb 77
View publication stats
CH3 • A Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Landscape Design
77
Scyphers, S. B., & Lerman, S. B. (2014). Residential landscapes, environmental
sustainability and climate change. In R. Hutchinson (Series Ed.), Research in Urban Sociology:
Vol. 14. Sustainable to resilient cities: Global concerns and urban efforts (pp. 81–100). Bingley, UK:
Emerald Publishing.
Spirn, A. W. (2011). Ecological urbanism: A framework for the design of resilient cities.
Retrieved from http://annewhistonspirn.com/pdf/spirn_ecological_urbanism-2011.pdf.
Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geodesign: Changing geography by design. Redlands, CA: Esri.
Swaffield, S. (2013). Empowering landscape ecology-connecting science to governance
through design values. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1193–1201. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-
9765-9.
Tan, P. Y., & Abdul Hamid, A. R. B. (2014). Urban ecological research in Singapore and
its relevance to the advancement of urban ecology and sustainability. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 125, 271–289. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.019.
Tan, P. Y. (2017). Perspectives on greening of cities through an ecological lens. In P. Y.
Tan & C. Y. Jim (Eds.), Greening cities: Forms and functions (pp. 15–39). Singapore: Springer
Singapore.
Teo, S. (2014). Political tool or quality experience? Urban livability and the Singaporean
state’s global city aspirations. Urban Geography, 35(6), 916–937. doi:10.1080/02723638.20
14.924233.
Termorshuizen, J., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape
ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1037–1052. doi:10.1007/
s10980-008-9314-8.
Van der Ryn, S., & Cowan, S. (2013). Ecological design, 10th Anniversary Edition.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5.
Ward Thompson, C. (2011). Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 187–195.
Werner, P. (2011). The ecology of urban areas and their functions for species diversity.
Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(2), 231–240. doi:10.1007/s11355-011-0153-4.
Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being
in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 999–1023. doi:10.1007/s10980-013-
9894-9.
Wu, J. J. (2012). A landscape approach for sustainability science. In M. P. Weinstein & R.
Turner (Eds.), Sustainability science: The emerging paradigm and the urban environment (pp. 59–77).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
2/3/18 4:51 PM