Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

ISSN: 0964-0568 (Print) 1360-0559 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Mitigating environmental harm in urban planning:

an ecological perspective

Adrianne Showalter Matlock & Jacob E. Lipsman

To cite this article: Adrianne Showalter Matlock & Jacob E. Lipsman (2019): Mitigating
environmental harm in urban planning: an ecological perspective, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1599327

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1599327

Published online: 20 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjep20
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1599327

Mitigating environmental harm in urban planning: an ecological

perspective
Adrianne Showalter Matlock and Jacob E. Lipsman

Department of Sociology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

(Received 24 May 2018; final version received 21 March 2019)

Environmental sustainability is a major focal point of urban planning, yet scholarly

discourse often fails to grapple with the environmental contradictions inherent in
the reliance on economic growth found within the prevailing sustainable
development paradigm. This paper develops an ecological-sociological framework
for analyzing sustainable planning best practices, which shape local sustainable
planning implementation. A key argument of ecological-sociological scholarship is
that sustainable development is an expression of ecological modernization, which
erroneously tries to solve environmental problems through economic growth-based
strategies. The authors use content analysis to examine the American Planning
Association’s 2015 Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans and
find that its principles and environmental harm mitigation strategies incorporate an
ecological modernizationist approach to sustainable planning. The authors argue
that embrace of economic growth and underspecification of ecological standards
hinder the field of sustainable planning from promoting best practices that mitigate
environmental harm in the long term.
Keywords: Climate change; ecological modernization; mitigation; sustainable
development; urban planning

1. Introduction
Human activity, which is concentrated in cities, is contributing to widespread eco-
logical devastation and climate change. Modern industrial society has ushered in a new
geological epoch challenging the very stability of the biosphere (Steffen, Crutzen, and
McNeill 2007). Ecological scholarship identifies a causal relationship between eco-
nomic growth and environmental harm, while making the case that mitigation of that
harm must include a shift toward postgrowth, postcapitalist economies (Jackson 2009).
City planning guides the way that cities occupy space and impact local and global
ecosystems. Many cities have taken bold planning steps to implement environmental
regulations in order to reduce negative impacts, even leading out beyond their own
nation-states’ willingness to do so (Bassett and Shandas 2010; Kasa, Leiren, and Khan
2012; Tang et al. 20101). While sustainable city planning spreads to more cities, some
planners are critical of the prevailing paradigm – sustainable development – because,
in practice, it privileges economic growth at the expense of ecological stability. This
form of sustainable development is an expression of ecological modernization – an
ultimately ineffective approach that remains tethered to growth.

Corresponding author. Email: jlipsman@ku.edu

ß 2019 Newcastle University

2 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

A shift to planning based on ecological outcomes will be more likely to occur if

the leading sources of best practices for sustainable city planning – especially the
American Planning Association (APA) – clearly communicate the detrimental connec-
tion between economic growth and ecological sustainability. The discourse surrounding
best practices in other fields of urban sustainability shapes practical application by
framing what is possible, legitimate, and desirable (Bulkeley 2006). While there is
merit in researching the application of sustainable planning at the city level, it is
equally important to scrutinize and analyze the best practice discourse that creates
parameters for the approaches local planners are likely to implement, or even consider.
Despite the need for such analysis, the authors of this paper were unable to find any
empirical study of the APA’s best practices for sustainable city planning.
Additionally, recent scrutiny of the APA highlights the reality that those acting and
writing on the behalf of the APA function at the crossroads of competing forces,
which can hamper the clear communication of ethical and empirical findings. The
APA’s Great Neighborhoods designation does not sufficiently acknowledge the way
that capitalist economic forces run counter to their stated goals of affordability and
social diversity (Talen, Menozzi, and Schaefer 2015, 121). The APA also intentionally
worked to suppress public dissemination of information about planners engaging in the
systemic unethical practice of project cost underestimating (Flyvbjerg 2013).
Drawing on ecological, economic, and planning perspectives, we critically examine
current discourse on sustainable planning best practices and seek to understand the
extent to which it contributes meaningfully to mitigation of climate change and other
forms of environmental harm. Growing numbers of scholars have raised criticism of
the ability of prevailing sustainable development frameworks to mitigate environmental
harm, due to both theoretical and pragmatic shortcomings. In light of this growing
criticism, we raise the questions: where does contemporary discourse in sustainable
city planning fit into this critical conversation? How do leaders in the field character-
ize the relationship between the environment and the economy? To what extent do
goals of economic growth take precedence over ecosystems in sustainable city plan-
ning? To explore these questions, we use an ecological-sociological lens to conduct
content analysis of a recent publication of the American Planning Association (APA).
Published in 2015, Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans pro-
motes current, innovative guidance for sustainable city planning.

2. Literature review: sustainable development in urban planning

The APA’s advisory service first promoted sustainable development through its 1996
report, “A Planner’s Guide to Sustainable Development,” at the time when sustainable
development became the prevailing paradigm shaping ecologically-minded city plan-
ning (Campbell 1996; Jabareen 2004; Gurran, Gilbert, and Phibbs 2015). Sustainable
development approaches to city planning “link local actions to global concerns” and
“anticipate and accommodate the needs of current and future generations in ways that
reproduce and balance local social, economic, and ecological systems” (Berke and
Manta Conroy 2000, 23). By focusing on the “three E’s” of sustainable development –
(social) equity, economy, and ecology – planners using the sustainable development
paradigm purport to decenter economic development goals and, instead, strike a bal-
ance between these dimensions. In city planning, this approach prioritizes strategies to
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3

reduce or limit negative impacts on local or global ecology, limit or reverse climate
change, and restore or improve ecosystems.
Planning scholars level an important critique of the “three E’s” framework, how-
ever: despite calls for balancing economic, environmental and social equity, the eco-
nomic growth imperative continues to dominate the latter two goals (Berke and Manta
Conroy 2000; Wilson 2014; Balsas 2017). Planning scholars call current sustainable
development efforts symbolic (Berke and Manta Conroy 2000), and note that despite
the rising popularity of sustainable development in planning, environmental goals have
yet to achieve the same level of importance (Daniels 2009), efficacy (Wheeler 2008),
or specificity (Bassett and Shandas 2010) as that given to economic growth.

2.1. Sustainable development and smart growth

A review of sustainable city planning practice illustrates that the field is dominated by
design fixes that reflect “smart growth” strategies which attempt to reduce emissions
while preserving economic and social structures (Warner 2006; Gabriel 2014). The
most common strategies that cities use and scholars evaluate are: increase urban dens-
ity to reduce transportation-generated greenhouse gas emissions; promote or require a
shift to renewable energy use for local utilities; use zoning to promote green industry,
geographical growth control policies, carbon sequestration, or biodiversity preserva-
tion; and mandate use of green materials in building design to reduce energy consump-
tion (Bassett and Shandas 2010; Gurran, Gilbert, and Phibbs 2015; Hagen 2016; Kasa,
Leiren, and Khan 2012; Tang et al. 2010; Daniels 2009; Crane and Landis 2010;
Leigh and Hoelzel 2012). Nondesign strategies include efforts to promote behavior
change like using less water at home and driving less (Crane and Landis 2010; Kasa,
Leiren, and Khan 2012), or raise awareness about climate change (Bassett and
Shandas 2010; Tang et al. 2010).
Though these smart growth strategies – restricting sprawl, promoting higher density
development, et cetera – acknowledge that “excessive population and economic
growth … brings serious problems” (Warner 2006, 169), they are predicated on a false
assumption: that “growth is inevitable” (Warner 2006, 170). Creating dense urban
forms may delay sprawl and the associated environmental harm. It will not, however,
prevent sprawl if our society continues to pursue population and economic growth in
order to stay competitive in the large capitalist economy (North and Nurse 2014;
Logan and Molotch 1987). Existing social and economic forms that pursue growth
have brought about climate change, and the work of local governance (including plan-
ning) often reproduces the status quo of environmental degradation (Gabriel 2014, 45).
Despite the growing prevalence of sustainable city planning efforts, the sustainable
development paradigm undermines its own ecological goals when it promotes eco-
nomic growth.
Studies about the implementation of sustainable city planning shed light on what is
happening at the city level, but they do not examine the standards from leaders in the
field that shape local policy creation. If it is the case that shortcomings in local-level,
environmentally-minded planning are from a lack of exposure to – or lack of accept-
ance of – recent ecological theories (Hagen 2016, 21), then a significant responsibility
rests on standard-bearers like the APA to fully and accurately represent ecological
scholarship in their reports. Analysis of environmental policies outside of the planning
context has revealed that capitalist ideology creates barriers in environmental policy
4 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

creation, and especially subverts considerations of fundamental shifts towards degrowth

(Pollex and Lenschow 2018). As a result, “assumptions of policies … reproduce an
inherently unsustainable social order by masking underlying systemic contradictions”
(Gunderson, Stuart, and Petersen 2018, 135). When these shortcomings or omissions
occur in best practice discourse, it shapes what local practitioners attempt or even con-
sider possible (Bulkeley 2006).
For these reasons, we chose to focus on the standard-bearers in the field of sustain-
able city planning and root our analysis in ecological-sociological scholarship. This
body of literature argues convincingly that capitalism, and development or growth-
based economic forms, are significant drivers of local and global environmental harm.

3. Theory
Ecological-sociological scholarship offers a framework for analyzing sustainable urban
planning models. Sustainable development in urban planning is an expression of eco-
logical modernizationism – an economic paradigm arguing that efficient technologies
and regulated growth can produce a “green capitalism” that simultaneously generates
wealth and averts ecological catastrophe (Spaargaren 2000; Mol and J€anicke 2009).
Ecological modernizationism approaches sustainability in a way that places growth on
at least equal footing with environmental protection.
Sustainable planning purports itself to be an ecological improvement over trad-
itional planning models that do not prioritize environmental impact. However, sustain-
able planning’s failure to extricate itself from a growth-based approach to development
ultimately limits its long-term viability as an ecologically beneficial system
(Jackson 2009).
Ecological modernization theory argues that sustainable planning can stave off eco-
logical harm. However, systems rooted in economic growth may delay ecological deg-
radation but will ultimately generate impacts all the same. This is the result of a
fundamental contradiction between capitalist growth and the biosphere (Foster 1999).
This contradiction is rooted in the system’s dependence upon material throughput and
energy consumption to generate growth. In a society heavily reliant on carbon-based
energy, the coupling of growth and energy precludes the formation of a legitimately
sustainable capitalism.
Systems that depend upon growth must expand constantly, and capitalism, in par-
ticular, lacks an internal mechanism for detecting when the energy consumption associ-
ated with that growth has reached an ecological limit (Schnaiberg 1980). Efficiency is
the proverbial silver bullet for urban planning that purportedly facilitates “green
growth” by decoupling energy consumption and material throughput from economic
growth through the use of energy efficient technology.
Efficiency goes relatively unproblematized in mainstream environmental discourse,
but Jackson (2009) argues that reducing energy consumption per unit of growth with-
out reining in growth itself fails to generate an absolute reduction in energy consump-
tion and throughput. York and Rosa (2003, 281) find that while developed nations
tend to be more eco-efficient, the ecological impacts of growth outpace efficiency
gains in these countries. In the long term, efficiency gains have been shown to actually
increase energy consumption by lowering the cost of energy and generating increased
demand for energy resources (Foster, Clark, and York 2010). Efficiency may represent
a rhetorical improvement over status quo development practices; as a component of
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 5

“sustainable growth,” however, it fails as a viable long-term strategy to reduce con-

sumption in an absolute sense and, therefore, mitigate ecological catastrophe.
The problematic relationship between growth and consumption has led industrial
societies to a point at which infinite growth is generating massive environmental
“bads” (Daly 2005). The mainstream policy answer to this problem continues to
involve delaying these “bads” through efficiency gains and “green growth,” despite the
evidence that this approach exacerbates the ecological problem in the long term. What
is needed are fundamental shifts away from economic systems based on growth, rather
than incremental regulation that continues to assume growth is inevitable or desirable
(Speth 2008; Jackson 2009).
Urban planning has the opportunity to be at the forefront of this transition by shift-
ing from traditional notions of “sustainability” to more profoundly ecological models
such as steady-state, postgrowth, or extra-capitalist economic structures (Warner 2006;
North and Nurse 2014; Xiang 2014; Young 2016). Best practice publications could
achieve this through promoting backcasting, which starts by setting a timeframe by
which a city should reach a specific ecological goal, then working back from that goal
to create a substantive sustainability implementation plan (Wheeler 2008); by seeking
out exemplary historical practices for emulation or inspiration (Xiang 2014; Young
2016); or by reconceptualizing prosperity not as growth and throughput orientation,
but toward a socially inclusive form of human flourishing divorced from economic
growth (North and Nurse 2014).

4. Research question
There is no question that scholars and practitioners in the planning field are aware of
the problems of climate change and environmental harm. The growing emphasis on
sustainable development and the ongoing work to hone in on concrete planning practi-
ces that minimize negative impact on ecosystems demonstrate this. There appears to
be a greater willingness to take new and innovative measures at the local level, and
for cities to take the lead on climate change mitigation when nation-state actors drag
their feet (Bassett and Shandas 2010; Kasa, Leiren, and Khan 2012 [see footnote 1]).
Cities are pushing further than national mandates, signing the US Conference of
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement or partnering with the International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) (Bassett and Shandas 2010). As of 2008, over
850 US mayors had signed the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement (Tang et al. 2010). In 2017, at least 36 US mayors signed up to a pact
similar to the Paris Climate Accord after the United States withdrew.2
Despite this growing acceptance of environmental priorities, several decades of
scholarship by urban planners and ecological scholars has raised critiques of, and alter-
natives to, the sustainable development paradigm, because the continued focus on eco-
nomic growth undermines the work toward environmental health. An ecological-
sociological perspective is perfectly suited to analyze contemporary sustainable city
planning best practices. Therefore, we make several inquiries into urban planning’s
sustainability paradigm. Do contemporary best practices in urban planning use an eco-
nomic growth-based approach to sustainability and mitigation of environmental harm?
How do leaders in the urban planning field articulate their approach to sustainability
and what, if any, discursive contradictions are present in the APA’s best practice
6 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

report? To what extent does Sustaining Places propose best practices that promote eco-
nomic growth and jeopardize mitigation of environmental harm?

5. Methods
In order to analyze the prevailing framework of sustainable urban planning, we
selected work published by the preeminent professional organization of city planning:
the American Planning Association (APA). The APA is the largest planning associ-
ation in the world, with over 38,000 practitioners and educators in and outside of the
United States. It houses the certification body for planning professionals: the American
Institute of Certified Planners. The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) is the “flagship
research brand” of the APA, and its quarterly reports, which provide “guidance on cur-
rent issues and innovative practices,” are available to all 38,000 members.3
Much of the PAS’s work touches on issues of environmental significance (e.g.
“Planners and Water,” 2017; “Planning for Sustainable Material and Waste
Management,” 2017).4 We sought to analyze how they frame the overarching dis-
course about sustainable city planning and environmental harm, not just one specific
topic. Therefore, we selected for our analysis the document that addresses the topic
generally: Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans, published
in 2015.
Sustaining Places reflects the APA’s most current discourse on sustainable city
planning. David Godschalk, the first author of the report, is a preeminent scholar and
practitioner in the field of urban planning, and especially sustainable planning. David
Rouse is the Director of Research and Advisory Services at the American Planning
Association. Sustaining Places does not, however, reflect the opinions of the authors,
Godschalk and Rouse, alone. Rather, the document is “the result of a four-year effort
by the APA to define the role of comprehensive plans in addressing the sustainability
of human settlements” (2). An APA task force created a report about the role of com-
prehensive plans in sustainable city planning, published in 2012, then developed the
principles into a set of best practices. Sustaining Places outlines these best practices,
then recounts how ten pilot cities applied them to their planning processes.
Our goal in this study is to perform an a priori analysis of sustainable planning
best practices and not an a posteriori analysis of the implementation of those practices.
Analysis of this document represents the most effective opportunity to fill this gap in
the sustainable planning literature. Similar to Jessop’s (2002) analysis of the World
Commission’s report on urban futures, we selected this document for analysis because
it was produced by a highly visible, leading institution and was collaboratively devel-
oped by leaders in the field, not just by the authors alone. In this sense, this singular
document represents predominant and widely influential modes of discourse.
The goal of the content analysis was to determine the extent to which, and the
ways in which, the concepts and best practices presented in Sustaining Places draw on
ecological modernization strategies as the mode of achieving sustainability goals.
Traditional urban planning models have maintained a focus on economic growth, but
sustainability approaches based on economic growth and efficiency – such as eco-
logical modernization – contain internal contradictions and lack viability as long-term
ecological solutions. The coding model in this analysis accepts Foster’s (1999) premise
that perpetual economic growth and ecological sustainability are irreconcilable, as
detailed in the previous section. As such, this analysis aims to determine to what
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 7

extent, and in what ways, the principles and practices in this document reflect eco-
logical modernization.
We began by reading the document in its entirety to understand the overall pur-
pose, organizational structure, authorship, and intended audience. Because contradic-
tions within ecological modernization arise due to discord between environmental and
economic goals, we then read through and identified passages within the document
that referenced environmental or economic concepts. The contradictions within and
shortcomings of ecological modernization apply not only to the conceptualization of
environment and economics, but also the practical implementation of steps to mitigate
environmental harm. Therefore, in addition to identifying phrases, sentences, or para-
graphs that reference the environment or economy, we also identified passages that
contained references to mitigation of environmental harm. We identified 84 references
to the environment, 73 references to the economy, and 26 references to mitigation. See
Table 1 for the sample selection criteria we used to determine which passages we
would analyze within each category: economic, environmental, and mitigation.
Economy-coded excerpts explicitly or conceptually mentioned the economy, eco-
nomic entities such as businesses or industries, economic goals, impacts, or concerns
pertinent to the sustainable planning process. Environment-coded excerpts explicitly or
conceptually mentioned the environment, nature, ecosystems, environmental goals,
impacts, or concerns pertinent to the sustainable planning process. Mitigation-coded
excerpts explicitly or conceptually mentioned the need for limiting or reducing envir-
onmental harm or restoring or repairing existing environmental harm, practical sugges-
tions for doing so, or justifications or benefits of mitigation.
Once we identified these relevant passages, we re-examined them to identify the
presence and type of content indicative of an ecological modernizationist approach to
sustainability. The goal in this step was to determine the extent to which, and the
ways in which, the concepts and best practices presented in Sustaining Places draw on
aspects of ecological modernization that have been identified as contradictory to long-
term environmental sustainability. As detailed in the literature review and theory sec-
tions above, ecological modernizationism in urban planning will ultimately fall victim
to ecological contradictions and fail to produce positive ecological results in the long
term, especially due to its emphasis on economic growth.
To identify the presence of ecological modernization concepts and practices that
undermine ecological sustainability, we used positive criteria – presence of certain con-
cepts – and negative criteria – lack of specificity about certain concepts. We heuristic-
ally coded for concepts and implementation strategies focused on growth and human
use of environmental resources. This includes calling for “green growth” and a focus
on efficiency rather than absolute reduction in material throughput and energy con-
sumption. We operate under the premise that human use of natural resources does not
inherently jeopardize ecosystems, but that the use of natural resources for the distinct
purpose of generating economic growth threatens ecological health. We also deter-
mined the extent to which the goals and practices conflict theoretically and argue that
these conflicts undermine the ability for the best practices listed in the document to
achieve ecologically sustainable development.
We also coded excerpts with a lack of specificity about economic growth as
reflective of ecological modernizationism. In the sustainable development framework,
the baseline economic goal in the three E’s is economic growth. Due to the prevalent
assumption that economic growth is desirable, it is our position that a shift away from
8 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

Table 1. Sample selection criteria.

Economic Economic content Examples
passages Broad economic Economy, industries, economic growth,
n ¼ 73 phenomena economic stability, economic decline,
development, GDP, economic resources,
economic sectors, money, income, economic
inequality, government revenue/expenditure
Economic entities Companies, businesses, firms, cooperatives,
business associations, nonprofit organizations
Core roles of the Meeting/providing for people’s needs, economic
economy in society resources, production, distribution,
consumption, ownership
Employment Jobs, employment, unemployment
Environmental Environmental content Examples
passages Environment, nature [Explicit use of these words]
n ¼ 84 Human relationship to Sustainability, resilience, climate change,
the environment environmental harm, natural resources, natural
disaster, pollution, mitigation
Components of nature Water, watershed, soil, air, air quality,
ecosystems, topography, vegetation,
wildlife, weather
Mitigation Mitigation content Examples
passages Mitigation strategies Strategies with the intended purpose of
n ¼ 26 or suggestions lessening current human harm to the
environment, restoring previous human harm
to the environment, or promoting human
ways of being that have minimal negative
impact, or that have positive impact, on the
environment
Need for mitigation Statements of need for limiting or reducing
environmental harm or restoring or repairing
existing environmental harm
Justification for or Statements that give reasons to implement
benefits of mitigation mitigation practices, that explain why
mitigation is desirable or necessary, or that
identify observed or potential beneficial
outcomes of mitigation of
environmental harm

Table 2. Inclusion criteria for ecological modernization code.

Passage promotes, or lacks clear critique of:

Green growth
Efficiency through relative decoupling of material throughput or energy consumption
Environment as a resource base for human use

growth as a primary goal of urban planning must be explicitly stated in the document.
Silence on this issue is treated as a continuation of the status quo and therefore reflects
a growth-oriented approach. Ultimately, sustainability measures rooted in economic
growth are, at best, an expression of ecological modernizationism and do not adequately
address the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and ecology (Foster 1999;
Daly 2005). See Table 2 for the coding criteria we used to detect instances of ecological
modernization, which are argued to undermine ecological sustainability.
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
Table 3. Examples of content analysis.
“Overcoming deeply ingrained economic and
cultural patterns that result in resource
depletion, climate instability, and economic and
social stress requires holistic problem solving
that blends the best scientific understanding of
existing conditions and available technologies
with the public resolve to act.”
“A healthy environment is a common resource
that belongs to everyone, but is owned by no
one. Therefore, the community through its
plan must advocate for, and present the value
of, the contributions of natural systems and
services to the triple bottom line
(environment, economy, and equity). While
some natural resources are protected through
separate functional plans, such as those for
air and water quality, the comprehensive plan
is the proper tool for the overall coordination
and maintenance of natural systems within
the full community and regional context. This
includes integrating natural features and
processes into the built environment (the
Livable Built Environment principle).”
“Ensure that the community is prepared to deal
with both positive and negative changes in its
economic health and to initiate sustainable
urban development and redevelopment
strategies that foster green business growth
and build reliance on local assets.”
“Enact policies to reduce carbon footprints. The
term “carbon footprint” is used to describe the
amount of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases emitted by a given entity
(such as an individual, company, or city) in a
certain time frame. It provides a measure of
the environmental impact of a particular
lifestyle or operation, and encompasses both
the direct consumption of fossil fuels, as well
as indirect emissions associated with the
manufacture and transport of all goods and
services the entity consumes. Policies
designed to reduce the carbon footprint benefit
the environment and have associated benefits
on air quality and health.”
We examined not only the explicit language of these excerpts but also the concep-
tual content. See Table 3 for examples of passages and the justification for whether it
fits these inclusion criteria and why. This process allowed us to determine the extent
9
This excerpt does not promote ecological
modernization, and it promotes alternatives
to ecological modernization that are more
ecologically sound. It suggests that current
“deeply ingrained economic … patterns”
need to be “overcome” for the sake of
environmental protection.
This excerpt promotes ecological
modernization, as well as concepts that
challenge ecological modernization. The
reference to the “triple bottom line” is
from the sustainable development
framework; the “economy” in
“environment, economy, and equity” is
short for “economic growth.” The phrase
“a healthy environment is a common
resource that belongs to everyone but is
owned by no one,” contradicts the
fundamental capitalist property relations
upon which ecological modernization
is built.
This excerpt promotes ecological
modernization. The concept of
development is one that is embedded in
capitalist forms of economic growth, and
sustainable development attempts to
acknowledge the importance of the
environment without compromising
economic growth. The excerpt explicitly
promotes “green business growth” and
“reliance on local assets,” which might
reduce relative throughput, but would not
reduce absolute throughput.
This excerpt remains vague about a crucial
topic: throughput reduction. It is common
rhetoric in ecological modernization to call
for relative reduction of pollution. While
this excerpt does not use the term relative
reduction, it fails to assert that carbon
emissions reduction must be absolute, not
relative, in order to truly mitigate climate
change. The excerpt identifies “individual,
company, or city” as entities which can
reduce their carbon footprint. Absolute
reduction of carbon emissions at a city
level (including the carbon emissions of
the production processes of the goods
consumed by all entities within the city) is
the only way for a city to measure whether
it is actually mitigating climate change.
10 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

to which, and the ways in which, this document draws on aspects of ecological mod-
ernization that have been identified as contradictory to long-term environmental
sustainability.

6. Findings and discussion

We found the document had a strong ecological discourse, but its principles, goals,
and suggested practices contained contradictions stemming from an ecological modern-
izationist approach. We structured the findings around the organizational categories of
environment, mitigation, and economy. The discourse within the “environment” code
demonstrated a substantive focus on maintaining ecosystems and using urban planning
to improve the relationship between society and the biosphere. The discourse coded as
“mitigation” and “economy,” on the other hand, remained open to – and at times,
explicitly called for – growth-based solutions to resolving ecological problems stem-
ming from urban planning. We argue that this focus on growth demonstrates an adher-
ence to ecological modernizationism and is subject to its ecological shortcomings.

6.1. Ecological focus of Sustaining Places

The authors of Sustaining Places aptly identify the key ecological problems facing glo-
bal society and clearly communicate that city planners should undertake efforts to
address these problems. Sustaining Places puts value on natural resources and priori-
tizes their health. The document places a greater emphasis on mitigation than adapta-
tion, looks at global level impacts, and suggests not just the reduction of harm to the
environment but proactive restoration of existing environmental harm.
The standards that the authors delineate for sustainable planning are organized
around six guiding principles. The second principle listed in the document is “harmony
with nature,” defined by Godschalk and Rouse (2015, 3) as “(ensuring) that the contri-
bution of natural resources to human well-being are explicitly recognized and valued
and that maintaining their health is a primary objective.” The authors argue that plan-
ning for sustainability involves, “overcoming deeply ingrained economic and cultural
patterns that result in resource depletion, climate instability, and economic and social
stress” (Godschalk and Rouse 2015, 7).
Sustaining Places puts greater emphasis on mitigation than adaptation. When taken
together, the array of mitigation best practices depict human society as deeply inter-
connected with broader ecosystems. The authors note that, “because urban develop-
ment and human activities can disturb nature’s balance and damage the resources it
provides,” (17) negative impacts need to be mitigated. In addition to mitigating
“resource depletion,” the authors charge that comprehensive plans must also face the
challenge of “climate instability” (33).
A strong recurring theme is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond
limiting greenhouse gas emissions, the authors’ suggestions range from the need to
minimize the consumption of land and resources (“reduce energy consumption,”
“reduce water demand”) and lessen the negative impact that cities have on the environ-
ment (“filter and reduce stormwater runoff,” “mitigate the impacts of construction on
natural resources,” “protect the natural environment”), and pursue proactive measures
that would improve or restore natural resources, rather than just limit their harm
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 11

(“provide wildlife habitat,” “improve air quality,” and even “reestablish natural diver-
sity and associated ecosystem services”) (41, 42, 58).

6.2. Mitigation recommendations and economic growth

The discourse of best practices pertaining to the mitigation of environmental harm is
mixed; at times it avoids the economic growth pitfalls of ecological modernizationism
and at times supports calls for growth-based mitigation strategies. The bulk of the pro-
posed best practices in Sustaining Places are design-oriented. A design-focused
approach has been criticized for overemphasizing efficiency and falling short of mak-
ing fundamental economic changes (Warner 2006; Gabriel 2014). The predominance
of design-oriented suggestions for mitigation reflects ecological modernization; authors
avoid the pitfalls of ecological modernization in some instances, however, when they
suggest best practices that would likely disrupt growth-based economic systems. The
two broad categories of land use design recommendations, which make up the bulk of
the mitigation suggestions, are protecting natural habitats and resources, and reducing
use of natural resources and pollution.
The authors’ presentation of design-oriented suggestions that focus on protecting
natural habitats and resources generally communicates that ecosystems should be given
as much, or more, attention than economic growth. As mentioned in the literature
review, scholars critique sustainable development because it claims to afford the same
priorities to the environment as to the economy, but repeatedly prioritizes economic
growth. The mitigation practices that refer directly to ecological measures, if followed,
would likely force growth-oriented economic goals to be reworked. Consider practices
such as restoring and protecting natural habitats and sensitive lands, protecting water
sources, promoting water conservation, and preserving locational topography and avoid-
ing hazard zones. For example, the authors specify multiple scales of waterway protec-
tion from streams through entire watersheds (Godschalk and Rouse 2015, 43). If the
protection of entire watersheds were truly pursued, it would definitely impede certain
kinds of economic growth, and potentially disrupt general economic growth (Austin
and Clark 2012). When the measure of success is based on actual protection or preser-
vation of a major component of the ecosystem, the best practices reflect the backcast-
ing approach (Wheeler 2008) and avoid the pitfalls of ecological modernization.
In contrast, the design-oriented suggestions that advocate for the reduction of the
use of natural resources and pollution are framed in a way that leaves the door open to
pursuing economic growth while attempting to achieve ecological sustainability. The
best practices related to the reduction of the use of natural resources and pollution
include: reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce solid waste (i.e. through recycling),
promote renewable energy, promote green building design, and promote restoration of
existing structures rather than building new. These goals aim for ecological sustainabil-
ity; without using ecologically-based measurements of success; however, they do not
preclude equal emphasis on economic growth.
The discourse surrounding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions serves as a
good example of this. The authors suggest best practices to reduce emissions that focus
on limiting sprawl and increasing denser, more mixed land uses that promote less auto-
mobile use. This set of practices has often been the center of discourse about eco-
logical or sustainable city planning (Crane and Landis 2010; Hagen 2016; Tang et al.
2010; Kasa, Leiren, and Khan 2012; Gurran, Gilbert, and Phibbs 2015). As noted,
12 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

vehicle use per capita and the associated greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced
through these design strategies.
When the success of a mitigation strategy is measured by the implementation of
that mitigation strategy rather than by the absolute impact on the environment, how-
ever, the goal can be met alongside continued pursuit of economic growth. Note the
contrast between the stated goal discussed above, which pertains to water: “Protect and
manage streams, watersheds, and floodplains,” (Godschalk and Rouse 2015, 43) with
the goal pertaining to the air: “Comply with state and local air quality standards.” The
elaboration of this best practice recommends that comprehensive plans satisfy the
EPA’s “established air quality standards of the Clean Air Act” (Godschalk and Rouse
2015, 42). The water-related best practice revolves around the protection of an element
of an ecosystem, whereas the latter hinges on compliance with governmental standards.
Nation states – the US in particular – are not bound to maintain national policy or
international treaties of a certain caliber. Best practices that are contingent on policies
rather than ecological measures are less likely to be sufficiently stringent, and thus
leave room for the ongoing pursuit of economic growth that leads to ecological
degradation.
When analyzed throughout the document, the overall mitigation best practice dis-
course is inconsistent in its reflection of, or divergence from, ecological modernization.

6.3. Emphasis on growth in economic discourse

While the environmental discourse and some of the mitigation discourse provide an
ecological foundation that avoids the pitfalls of ecological modernization, Sustaining
Places’s economic discourse contains clearer statements, as well as significant omis-
sions, that reflect ecological modernization. Most notably, Sustaining Places promotes
capitalism and green business and omits a clear standard for absolute reduction of
energy use and pollution.
The economic discourse promotes modification or regulation through green busi-
ness or localization rather than the transformation or replacement of growth-based eco-
nomic systems. When elaborating best practices for the principle “Resilient Economy,”
the authors recommend that comprehensive plans promote the concept of green busi-
nesses. The authors identify green business based on whether they offer
“environmentally friendly products and services through sustainable business models
and practices” (Godschalk and Rouse 2015, 43). The promotion of green business is
suggested in a way that highlights its dual purposes: to benefit local economic health
and resilience and to mitigate environmental harm. The authors explain that commun-
ities with locally-based economic activity can guard against negative impacts from
economic forces outside the community’s control. They suggest that as communities
improve local economic health and resilience through local business, they should con-
sider green business, which may have fewer negative environmental impacts: “because
some productive activities generate negative impacts, green businesses (such as solar-
powered energy systems) may be preferable to those with greater impacts” (17). A
comprehensive plan can help place such economic strategies within the “context of the
broader community development agenda” (17). These approaches may be an ecological
improvement over the status quo in the short-term, but will ultimately succumb to the
inherent contradictions between capitalism and ecology due to their continued reliance
on growth (Foster 1999).
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 13

The authors also promote a capitalist economic system more generally. They sug-
gest that planners “provide the physical capacity for economic growth” (Godschalk
and Rouse 2015, 43). Here, they specify economic growth – not population growth.
The authors mention that this could “entail decline as well as growth in demand
depending on market conditions and as certain economic sectors become obsolete”
(43). This acknowledges the ebb and flow of particular industries or firms, but main-
tains the preeminence of market forces, which, in a capitalist society, are driven by
growth. This focus on leveraging markets to promote sustainability is a hallmark of
ecological modernization.
The document also recommends that the Sustainable Cities designation be devel-
oped as a “form of branding” which gives cities an additional appeal because it “would
signal to members of the development and financial industries that such communities
are likely good places for investment” (Godschalk and Rouse 2015, 59). Utilizing a
sustainable designation to market the city as a commodity and promote capital invest-
ment (which perpetually seeks higher and higher profit returns) subsumes ecological
goals under goals of economic growth.
Ecological modernization also emerges in suggested mitigation practices emphasiz-
ing efficiency. For example, the authors define energy conservation as “(reducing)
energy consumption through energy efficiency” (Godschalk and Rouse 2015, 41).
Efficiency measures that reduce energy consumption per unit of material throughput
fail to reduce consumption in an absolute sense, which is necessary to avoid the worst
ecological impacts in the long term. The authors also argue that plans should promote
infill and restoration development because it reduces the materials and land consumed.
Similarly, the authors suggest that planners should implement policies that promote
solid waste reduction. In both instances, however, the reduction is not qualified or
quantified in any way. By failing to call for an absolute reduction in material inputs,
the authors communicate that relative decoupling is sufficient. Relative decoupling
may yield a delay in ecological harm in the short-term, but offers no long-term relief
from ecological catastrophe (Jackson 2009).
Sustaining Places omits an important concept in its discourse around climate
change. Despite the repeated emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the
document lacks language that establishes a direct connection between greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change. The stated rationale for reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions is to reduce air pollution, improve “air quality and health,” and “benefit the envi-
ronment” (42). By linking greenhouse gas emissions to particular symptoms such as
air quality or to a vaguely broad environmental benefit, the authors fail to provide
proper context for why greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. Despite consider-
able discussion of greenhouse gas emissions, Sustaining Places fails to connect the
inevitability of climate change to the growth mechanisms of industrial capitalism.
While the stated goal of reducing air pollution is a positive one, it can be assumed that
this reduction in pollution is meant to be evaluated in relation to growth and, thus,
will ultimately fail to alleviate the problems it purports to address. Reducing carbon
footprints through relative decoupling will, at best, only delay climate change.
The fundamental contradictions between capitalism and ecology are clear (Foster
1999; Daly 2005). Without explicitly recognizing and criticizing the problematic struc-
tural relationship between climate change and capitalism, any attempt to resolve the
former is destined to fail. Though the bulk of the mitigation suggestions are design-ori-
ented, the authors suggest explicitly economic strategies. The failure of the authors to
14 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

explicitly promote an alternative economic model ensures that cities implementing the
best practices within the document will, in the long term, fail to meet the ecological
standards set out in the document’s stated principles.

7. Conclusion
This paper used an ecological-sociological framework to identify the extent to which
the best practices for sustainable planning proposed by the American Planning
Association promote economic growth and thus jeopardize mitigation of environmental
harm. We found that while the environmental discourse and some of the mitigation
discourse avoid the pitfalls of ecological modernization, Sustaining Places’s economic
discourse reflects the problematic economic growth goals of ecological modernization.
The suggested mitigation practices preclude the primacy of economic growth most
clearly when measured by ecological outcomes. Mitigation suggestions that center on
their own implementation, or on policy criteria, leave room for continued pursuit of
economic growth. The economic discourse in the document includes clear statements
in support of economic growth systems. Omissions and vague language about reduc-
tion of resource use, reduction of waste, and climate change also support ongoing eco-
nomic growth.
The findings in this paper are especially relevant for those who present best practi-
ces regarding sustainable city planning, as well as for on-the-ground planners who
seek guidance from best practice sources. It may be difficult for the APA to confi-
dently publicize sensitive information (Flyvbjerg 2013) or promote approaches to plan-
ning that criticize capitalism (Talen, Menozzi, and Schaefer 2015), but it is imperative
that planners do their part to promote the necessary changes to the economy before
ecological catastrophe dictates changes in harmful ways. As Naomi Klein (2014)
argues about climate change and its ultimate impact on our social formations: “one
way or another, everything changes.” Cities are already taking a lead role in adopting
policies to mitigate not only local but global environmental harm (Tang et al. 2010;
Bassett and Shandas 2010). This paper highlights the lingering acceptance by leaders
in the field of sustainable planning of the desirability of growth-based economic sys-
tems. The challenge we issue to those promoting sustainable planning best practices is
to take a lead role in promoting best practices that are disentangled from the pursuit of
economic growth.
These findings can be used to assess and create best practice discourse moving
forward. Planning goals must be explicitly tied to measurably reducing negative
impacts on the air, water systems, and other complex local and global ecosystems.
Best practices must also clearly aim to reduce local throughput and energy consump-
tion in an absolute sense, not relative to the population or economy. Translating these
goals into action steps can be facilitated by backcasting (Wheeler 2008). The efforts to
expand the suggestions beyond design-oriented proposals to encompass economic strat-
egies is good, but the presumption that economy-related planning practices should pro-
mote economic growth undermines sustainable planning’s ecological goals. Instead,
best practice discourse must eschew economic growth-based suggestions and build
upon burgeoning frameworks that promote Ecological Wisdom, steady-state economic
systems, and postgrowth planning.
Further research could use these criteria to examine sustainable planning imple-
mentation at the city level. The framework used in this paper is largely absent in the
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 15

growing number of articles that analyze city-level sustainable planning efforts.

Precursory research has used a similar framework to analyze historical examples of
ecologically-minded planning efforts (Xiang 2014). Continued analysis of historical
examples that draws from the framework used in this paper and others (Warner 2006;
Young 2016; Gabriel 2014; North and Nurse 2014) will yield more examples that will
enable contemporary planners to think creatively and outside the assumptions of
growth-based economic systems.

Notes
1. “Although the national support for municipal climate policy (top-down aspect) differs
between the countries, the outcomes are relatively similar in municipalities, which are
alike with regard to their extent of ‘climate activism’ (bottom-up aspect)" (Kasa, Leiren,
and Khan 2012: 225)
2. https://planning.org/aboutapa
3. http://planning.org/pas/reports
4. Link to the list of all PAS reports published: https://planning.org/pas/reports/archive.htm

Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the indispensable comments and suggestions we received from Brock
Ternes, Paul Stock, Jarron St. Onge, and the anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Adrianne Showalter Matlock http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1608-6182
Jacob E. Lipsman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8800-2072

References
Austin, K., and B. Clark. 2012. “Tearing down Mountains: Using Spatial and Metabolic
Analysis to Investigate the Socio-Ecological Contradictions of Coal Extraction in
Appalachia.” Critical Sociology 38 (3): 437–457. doi:10.1177/0896920511409260.
Balsas, C. J. 2017. “When Markets Reset, Will We Regain? Planning Lessons from Across the
Atlantic Ocean.” Land Use Policy 65: 78–92. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.033.
Bassett, E., and V. Shandas. 2010. “Innovation and Climate Action Planning: Perspectives from
Municipal Plans.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (4): 435–450. doi:
10.1080/01944363.2010.509703.
Berke, P. R., and M. Manta Conroy. 2000. “Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? An
Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66
(1): 21–33. doi:10.1080/01944360008976081.
Bulkeley, H. 2006. “Urban Sustainability: Learning from Best Practice?” Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space 38 (6): 1029–1044. doi:10.1068/a37300.
Campbell, S. 1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the
Contradictions of Sustainable Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association
62 (3): 296–312. doi:10.1080/01944369608975696.
16 A. Showalter Matlock and J.E. Lipsman

Crane, R., and J. Landis. 2010. “Introduction to the Special Issue.” Planning for Climate
Change: Assessing Progress and Challenges.” Journal of the American Planning Association
76 (4): 389–401. doi:10.1080/01944363.2010.512036.
Daly, H. E. 2005. “Economics in a Full World.” Scientific American 293 (3): 100–107.
Daniels, T. L. 2009. “A Trail Across Time: American Environmental Planning from City
Beautiful to Sustainability.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (2): 178–192.
doi:10.1080/01944360902748206.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2013. “How Planners Deal with Uncomfortable Knowledge: The Dubious Ethics
of the American Planning Association.” Cities 32: 157–163. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.
016.
Foster, J. B. 1999. The Vulnerable Planet. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Foster, J. B., B. Clark, and R. York. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth.
New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Gabriel, N. 2014. “Urban Political Ecology: Environmental Imaginary, Governance, and the
Non-Human.” Geography Compass 8 (1): 38–48. doi:10.1111/gec3.12110.
Godschalk, D. R., and D. C. Rouse. 2015. Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive
Plans (Vol. 578). Chicago, MI: American Planning Association.
Gunderson, R., D. Stuart, and B. Petersen. 2018. “Ideological Obstacles to Effective Climate
Policy: The Greening of Markets, Technology, and Growth.” Capital and Class 42 (1):
133–160. doi:10.1177/0309816817692127.
Gurran, N., C. Gilbert, and P. Phibbs. 2015. “Sustainable Development Control? Zoning and
Land Use Regulations for Urban Form, Biodiversity Conservation and Green Design in
Australia.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (11): 1877–1902. doi:
10.1080/09640568.2014.967386.
Hagen, B. 2016. “The Role of Planning in Minimizing the Negative Impacts of Global Climate
Change.” Urban Planning 1 (3): 13–24. doi:10.17645/up.v1i3.671.
Jabareen, Y. 2004. “A Knowledge Map for Describing Variegated and Conflict Domains of
Sustainable Development.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47 (4):
623–642. doi:10.1080/0964056042000243267.
Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity Without Growth: Economic for a Finite Planet. London: Earthscan.
Jessop, B. 2002. “Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State–Theoretical
Perspective.” Antipode 34 (3): 452–472. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00250.
Kasa, S., M. D. Leiren, and J. Khan. 2012. “Central Government Ambitions and Local
Commitment: Climate Mitigation Initiatives in Four Municipalities in Norway and Sweden.”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55 (2): 211–228. doi:10.1080/
09640568.2011.589649.
Klein, N. 2014. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Leigh, N. G., and N. Z. Hoelzel. 2012. “Smart Growth’s Blind Side: Sustainable Cities Need
Productive Urban Industrial Land.” Journal of the American Planning Association 78 (1):
87–103. doi:10.1080/01944363.2011.645274.
Logan, J. R., and H. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mol, A. P. J., and M. J€anicke. 2009. “The Origins and Theoretical Foundations of Ecological
Modernisation Theory.” In The Ecological Modernisation Reader: Environmental Reform in
Theory and Practice, edited by A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, and G. Spaargaren, 17–27.
London: Routledge.
North, P., and A. Nurse. 2014. “Beyond Entrepreneurial Cities. Towards a Post-Capitalist
Grassroots Urban Politics of Climate Change and Resource Constraint.” Metropoles 15.
https://journals.openedition.org/metropoles/5005
Pollex, J., and A. Lenschow. 2018. “Surrendering to Growth? The European Union’s Goals for
Research and Technology in the Horizon 2020 Framework.” Journal of Cleaner Production
197 (2): 1863–1871. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.195.
Schnaiberg, A. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Spaargaren, G. 2000. “Ecological Modernization Theory and Domestic Consumption.” Journal
of Environmental Policy and Planning 2 (4): 323–335. doi:10.1080/714038564.
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 17

Speth, J. G. 2008. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and
Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Steffen, W., P. J. Crutzen, and J. R. McNeill. 2007. “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now
Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment
36 (8): 614–621.
Talen, E., S. Menozzi, and C. Schaefer. 2015. “What Is a ‘Great Neighborhood’? an Analysis of
APA’s Top-Rated Places.” Journal of the American Planning Association 81 (2): 121–141.
doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1067573.
Tang, Z., S. D. Brody, C. Quinn, L. Chang, and T. Wei. 2010. “Moving from Agenda to
Action: Evaluating Local Climate Change Action Plans.” Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 53 (1): 41–62. doi:10.1080/09640560903399772.
Warner, D. M. 2006. “‘Post-Growthism’: From Smart Growth to Sustainable Development.”
Environmental Practice 8 (3): 169–179. doi:10.1017/S1466046606060236.
Wheeler, S. M. 2008. “State and Municipal Climate Change Plans: The First Generation.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 481–496. doi:10.1080/0194436080
2377973.
Wilson, G. A. 2014. “Community Resilience: Path Dependency, Lock-In Effects and
Transitional Ruptures.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (1): 1–26.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2012.741519.
Xiang, W. N. 2014. “Doing Real and Permanent Good in Landscape and Urban Planning:
Ecological Wisdom for Urban Sustainability.” Landscape and Urban Planning 121: 65–69.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.008.
York, R., and E. A. Rosa. 2003. “Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory:
Institutional Efficacy, Case Study Evidence, Units of Analysis, and the Pace of Eco-
Efficiency.” Organization and Environment 16 (3): 273–288. doi:10.1177/1086026603256299.
Young, R. F. 2016. “Modernity, Postmodernity, and Ecological Wisdom: Toward a New
Framework for Landscape and Urban Planning.” Landscape and Urban Planning 155:
91–99. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.012.