Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1193–1201 | Cite as

Empowering landscape ecology-connecting science to governance through design values

Research Article


The relationship between science, design, local governance and values is explored using a Christchurch New Zealand case study. Arguments for greater use of design in science are reviewed, and design revealed as fundamentally different from science, being based upon values rather than logic. The role of local governance is examined, and also shown to be value based. This creates tensions with conventional logic based approaches to landscape science. A recently proposed model of design in science is compared with an alternative model that emerges from the recent experience of preparing a wetlands and waterways strategy, in which science is instead engaged with a values based design process.


Sustainability Science Local Governance Design Thinking Political Deliberation Landscape Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I owe particular thanks to the helpful comments from the anonymous referees and to the organisers of the symposium upon which the special issue is based. Don Royds prepared the illustrations.


  1. Andrews RNL (1979) Landscape values in public decisions. In: Elsner G, Smardon R (eds) Our national landscape: proceedings of a conference on analytical techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource. USDA General Technical Report PSW-35, Berkeley, pp 686–692Google Scholar
  2. Arler F (2008) A true landscape democracy. In: Arntzen S, Brady E (eds) Humans in the land: the ethics and aesthetics of the cultural landscape. Oslo Academic Press, Oslo, pp 75–99Google Scholar
  3. Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA, Dole D, Schumacher NH (2004) Alternative futures for the Willamette river basin, Oregon. Ecol Appl 14(2):313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell S, Sarlov Herlin I, Stiles R (2011) Exploring the boundaries of landscape architecture. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 100:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boston JA, Martin J, Pallot J, Walsh P, (1996) Public management: the New Zealand model, Oxford University Press, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  7. Christchurch City Council (1998) Restoring avoca valley stream: a community model. Christchurch City Council, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  8. Christchurch City Council (1999) Waterways and wetlands natural asset management strategy volume I. Christchurch City Council, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  9. Christchurch City Council (2000) Waterways and wetlands natural asset management strategy volume II implementation. Christchurch City Council, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  10. Christchurch City Council (2001) The styx vision 2000–2040. Water Services Unit, Christchurch City CouncilGoogle Scholar
  11. Corner J (1999) Recovering landscape. Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. De Bono E (2000) New thinking for the new millenium. Penguin Books, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. De Landa M, Ellingsen E (2008) Possibility spaces. Models 306090(11):214–217Google Scholar
  14. Dewey J (1939/1988) Theory of valuation. In: Later works, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, pp 189–251Google Scholar
  15. Dias-Sardinha J, Primdahl J, Craveiro D, Kristensen L (2012) Participatory processes for strategic spatial planning on two rural regions: the case of Sao Domingos mine, Alentejo, Portugal and the case of Lihme, Jutland, Denmark. In: Paniagua A, Bryant R, Kizos T (eds) The political ecology of depopulation: inequality, landscape and people. CEDDAR, Univesiadad Zaragoza, Portugal, pp 151–170Google Scholar
  16. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drysek J (2000) Deliberative democracy and beyond: liberals, critique, Contestations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Duff G, Garnett D, Jacklyn P, Landsberg J, Ludwig J, Morrison J, Novelly P, Walker D, Whitehead P (2009) A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in North Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landscape Ecol 24:1135–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer F (2009) Democracy and expertise: reorientating policy inquiry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer F, Forester J (1993) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  21. Flynn N (2007) Public sector management, 5th edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Healy P (1998) Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plan Rev 69(1):1–21Google Scholar
  24. Heremaia C (2005) Design: its application to asset management focusing on public greenspace and surface water environment. MLA Thesis. Lincoln University, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  25. Hester RT Jr (1984) Planning neighbourhood space with people. Van Nostrand Rheinold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirst (2000) Democracy and governance. In: Pierre J (ed) Debating governance: authority, steering and democracy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Hobbs R (1997) Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landsc Urban Plan 37:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelsey J (1995) The New Zealand experiment: a world model for structural adjustment? Auckland University Press, AucklandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. King M (2003) The penguin history of New Zealand. Penguin Books, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  30. Knight S (2003) Integrating stormwater management with economic, social, cultural and eclogical goals in Christchurch, New Zealand. Australas J Environ Manag 10(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour B (2004) Politics of nature. How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2(4):34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luz F (2000) Participatory landscape ecology—a basis for acceptance and implementation. Landsc Urban Plan 50:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marmot MG (2004) Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? Editorial. Br Med J 328:906–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Memon AP, Perkins HC (2000) Environmental planning in New Zealand. Dunmore Press, Palmerston NorthGoogle Scholar
  37. Meurk CD, and McMurtie S (2006) Socio ecological lessons from 15 years of waterway restoration in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of storm water conference, New Zealand water and wastes association, Rotoroa, 4–5 May 2006Google Scholar
  38. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: a framework for assessment. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. Mussachio L (2009) The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice. Landscape Ecol 24:989–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mussachio LR, Wu J (2004) Collaborative landscape-scale ecological research: emerging trends in urban and regional ecology. Urban Ecosyst 7:175–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nanaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese corporates create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 19:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nassauer JI, Santelmann MV, Scavia D (eds) (2007) From the corn belt to the Gulf: societal and environmental implications of alternative agricultural futures. Resources for the Future Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Opdam P, Foppen R, Vos C (2002) Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 16:767–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pallot J (1997) Infrastructure accounting for local authorities: technical management and political context. Financ Account Manag 13(3):225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) “Rio+10”, sustainability science and landscape ecology. Landsc Urban Plan 75(3–4):162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sasaki H (1950) Thoughts on education in landscape architecture: some comments on today’s methodologies and process. Landsc Archit 40(4):158–160Google Scholar
  49. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Towards a unified psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Steenbergen C (2008) Composing landscapes: analysis, typology and experiments for design. Birkhauser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  51. Strongman T (1999) City beautiful: the first 100 years of the Christchurch beautifying association. Clerestorey Press, CHCHGoogle Scholar
  52. Suren AM, McMurtie S (2005) Assessing the effectiveness of enhancement activities in urban streams II Responses of invertebrae communities. River Res Appl 21:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swaffield SR (2007) Management of urban wetlands as cultural landscapes: a case study from Otautahi-Christchurch New Zealand. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on the conservation of continuing cultural landscapes in rural areas, 25–27th Oct 2007, Ohmi Hachiman City, Japan, pp 60–69Google Scholar
  54. Termorshuizen J, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas S, Memon PA (2007) New Zealand local government at the crossroads? Reflections on the recent local government reforms. Urban Policy Res 25(2):171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thorpe HR(2008) Habitat restoration: an aspect of sustainable management.
  57. Watts RH (2011) The Christchurch waterways story. Landcare Research Science Series 38, Landcare Research Ltd, Lincoln, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  58. Watts RH, Greenaway RJ (1999) A values-based approach to sustainably managing Christchurch’s waterways and wetlands. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on urban storm drainage, Sydney, 30 Aug–3 Sept 1999, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  59. Weber TC, Allen WL (2010) Beyond on-site mitigation: an integrated, multi-scale approach to environmental mitigation and stewardship for transportation projects. Landsc Urban Plan 96(4):240–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson J (1989) Swamp to city—a short history of the Christchurch drainage board 1875–1989. Te Waihora Press, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  61. World Commission for Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol 21:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations