Activating landscape ecology: a governance framework for design-in-science

  • Katherine Foo
  • James McCarthy
  • Anthony Bebbington
Research Article
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

Context

In response to predominantly local and private approaches to landscape change, landscape ecologists should critically assess the multiscalar influences on landscape design.

Objectives

This study develops a governance framework for Nassauer and Opdam’s “Design-in-Science” model. Its objective is to create an approach for examining hierarchical constraints on landscape design in order to investigate linkages among urban greening initiatives, patterns of landscape change, and the broader societal values driving those changes. It aims to provide an integrative and actionable approach for landscape sustainability science.

Methods

This framework is examined through an ethnographic study of public policy processes surrounding the urban tree initiatives in Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA; and Baltimore, MD.

Results

These initiatives demonstrate the impact of political and economic decentralization on urban landscape patterns. Their collaborative governance approach incorporates diverse resources to implement programming at a fine-scale. The predominant tree giveaway program fragments the urban and regional forest.

Conclusion

Spatial and temporal fragmentation undermines the long-term security of urban greening programs, and it suggests reconsideration of the role of state regimes in driving broad scale spatial planning.

Keywords

Landscape sustainability science Landscape ecology Policy Governance Design-in-science Urban ecology Urban forest Boston Philadelphia Baltimore 

References

  1. Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. In: Mearns R (ed) Social dimensions of climate change. equity and vulnerability in a warming world. World Bank Publications, Singapore, pp 173–198Google Scholar
  2. Ahern J (2011) From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landsc Urban Plan 100(4):341–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen TF, Hoekstra TW (1992) Toward a unified ecology. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Amati M, Taylor L (2010) From green belts to green infrastructure. Plan Pract Res 25(2):143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bebbington AJ, Batterbury SPJ (2001) Transnational livelihoods and landscapes: political ecologies of globalization. Cult Geogr 8(4):369–380Google Scholar
  6. Beunen R, Opdam P (2011) When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landsc Urban Plan 100(4):324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenner N, Theodore N (2002) Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode 34(3):349–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridge G, Perreault T (2009) Environmental Governance. In: Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) A companion to environmental geography. Blackwell Publishing, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  9. Dwyer JF, Nowak DJ, Noble MH (2003) Sustaining urban forests. J Arboric 29:49–55Google Scholar
  10. Evans JP (2011) Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Trans Inst Br Geogr 36(2):223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foo K (2017) Institutionalizing urban possibility: urban greening and vacant land governance in three American Cities. In: Henneberry John (ed) Transience and permanence in urban development. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, U.KGoogle Scholar
  12. Foo K (2018) Examining the role of NGOs in urban environmental governance. Cities.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.002 Google Scholar
  13. Forman RT (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin JF, Forman RT (1987) Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecol 1(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol 22(7):959–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grove J, Cadenasso ML, Burch WR Jr, Pickett ST, Schwarz K, O’Neil-Dunne J, Boone C (2006) Data and methods comparing social structure and vegetation structure of urban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Soc Nat Res 19(2):117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holifield R (2001) Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geogr 22(1):78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jessop B (2008) State power. Polity Press, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston DM, Wescoat JL (2008) Political economies of landscape change. Springer, DordrechGoogle Scholar
  20. Leichenko R (2011) Climate change and urban resilience. Curr opin environ sustain 3(3):164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenzholzer S, Duchhart I, Koh J (2013) ‘Research through designing’ in landscape architecture. Lands Urban Plan 113:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lerman SB, Warren PS (2011) The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecol Appl 21(4):1327–1339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19(4):389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marcus GE (1986) Contemporary problems of ethnography in the modern world system. In: Clifford J, Marcus GE (eds) Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  27. McCarthy J, Prudham S (2004) Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35(3):275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nassauer JI (2006) Landscape planning and conservation biology: systems thinking revisited. Conserv Biol 20(3):677–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol 23(6):633–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowak DJ (1993) Historical vegetation change in Oakland and its implications for urban forest management. J Arboric 19(5):313–319Google Scholar
  31. Nowak DJ, Greenfield EJ (2012) Tree and impervious cover change in US cities. Urban For Urban Greening 11(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  33. Opdam P, Luque S, Nassauer J, Verburg PH, Wu J (2018) How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science? Landsc Ecol 33:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peck J, Theodore N, Brenner N (2009) Neoliberal urbanism: models, moments, mutations. SAIS Rev Int Aff 29(1):49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peet R, Hartwick E (2015) Theories of development: contentions, arguments, alternatives. Guilford Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Polanyi K, MacIver RM (1944) The great transformation, vol 2. Beacon Press, Boston, p 145Google Scholar
  37. Schwarz K, Fragkias M, Boone CG, Zhou W, McHale M, Grove JM, Ogden L (2015) Trees grow on money: urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One 10(4):e0122051CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Seto KC, Sánchez-Rodríguez R, Fragkias M (2010) The new geography of contemporary urbanization and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35(1):167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith DE (2005) Institutional ethnography: a sociology for people. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  40. Swaffield S (2013) Empowering landscape ecology-connecting science to governance through design values. Landsc Ecol 28(6):1193–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Troy A, Grove JM, O’Neil-Dunne J (2012) The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban–rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region. Landsc Urban Plan 106(3):262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Urban DL, O’Neill RV, Shugart HH Jr (1987) A hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience 37(2):119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3(4):385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28(6):999–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu J (2015) Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc Urban Plan 125:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Young RF (2011) Planting the Living City: best practices in planning green infrastructure—results from major US cities. J Am Plan Assoc 77(4):368–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Worcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations