TERM PAPER, LAĂ˜370 Landscape Ecology, April 2012
How to include landscape ecological approaches in urban planning
Christian Grønn
Abstract This is a student term paper in the subject of Landscape Ecology at Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). It is conducted as a literature review where the aim is to determine the relationship between landscape ecology and urban planning and investigate some recent contributions in combining landscape ecology into urban planning. First the paper assesses literature which discusses the need for bridging ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Then the meaning and role of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in urban planning and decisionmaking is evaluated. Two ecology frameworks intended for integration into strategic urban planning are presented and analyzed. One of them is Landscape Ecological Assessment (LEA) applied in Sweden and could be a useful tool in strategic planning and impact assessment. The other approach is developed within the context of Chinese conditions, and proposes the integration of urban planning; SEA and ecological planning as a response to persistent failure of urban planning to deliver social and environmental justice. At the end of the review part, a summary of 8 specific landscape ecology approaches aimed at application in urban planning is presented, depicting state-of-the art research. Capability of landscape ecology to influence urban planning is often constrained. The take-home message of this literature review is that including landscape ecology approaches in urban planning, requires breaking of institutional barriers, changing mind-sets, integration of ecological and urban plans and more coherence and standardization in research. Future research should develop a more mechanistic basis for application of landscape ecology knowledge and demonstrate ease of use for the end-users, most often the planners.
Introduction Urban areas harbor diverse nature ranging from semi-natural habitats to wastelands, parks and other highly human-influenced biotopes with their associated species assemblages. Maintenance of this urban biodiversity for the residents and for its intrinsic value in the face of increasing population and expanding cities requires that ecological knowledge should be better integrated into urban planning. (Niemala, 1998) Landscape ecology provides approaches and methods for understanding the dynamics of urban green spaces. Urban habitat patches are small and isolated from each other by a matrix of built environment (Breuste et al., 2008) Urban planning can be described as a technical and political process concerned with the welfare of people, control of the use of land, design of the urban environment including transportation and communication networks, and protection and enhancement of the natural environment.(McGill, 2012) Landscape ecology Landscape ecology examines how heterogeneous combinations of ecosystems are structured, how they function and how they change. Urban ecology is a diverse field of research that forms a continuum from “pureâ€? ecology in the urban setting to a combination of ecology and social sciences to examine urban systems. Thus urban ecological research may emphasize societal or natural sciences, and often seeks to apply research results to urban planning and management. (Niemelä, 1999) Practical experience have revealed the fact that ecological planning is easier to be developed than effectively implemented due to obstacles such as lack of legislative support, government attention and capacity building, etc. Recently, interests of scholars with regard to ecological planning have shifted from plan making to plan implementation or mechanism for long-term management of eco-cities.(Li et al., 2005)
The goals of this paper are to 1) Determine the relationship between landscape ecology and urban planning and 2) Investigate some recent contributions in combining landscape ecology into urban planning. The background is to write a student term paper in the subject Landscape Ecology at Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). The paper is carried out as a literature review and the sources used are mainly published research articles, originating from the cross-sectional disciplines of urban planning, landscape ecology and urban ecology. The articles in this paper are chosen because they either discuss the relation between landscape ecology, environmental planning and urban spatial planning, and/or propose an approach involving landscape ecology in an urban setting. This paper will first present and assess findings in articles approaching the theme behind the research question. Secondly a summary table of promising landscape ecology approaches is presented. Then with the research question in mind the results of the review are discussed. Finally, this paper concludes that despite ongoing accumulation of knowledge and quality tools and methods, urban landscape ecology capabilities to influence urban planning and achieve urban sustainable development are often constrained. Including landscape ecology in urban planning can be achieved by breaking institutional barriers, changing mind-sets of urban planning authorities, reducing the separation between ecological plans and urban plans and increase coherence and standardization in research.
Review Throughout 1990s, both planners and environmentalists grappled with the problem of integrating the issue of sustainability into planning agendas, and in many parts of the world this has yet not been satisfactorily achieved. For one reason, planning and environmental management often operate in different government departments with different interests and political or legal framework. For the other reason, there are increasing conflicts between the green agenda (environmental concerns), the brown agenda (urban development) and the red agenda (issues of environmental justice). (He et al., 2011) Consequently it has also been apparent for some time that there are difficulties in bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. (Opdam et al., 2001) argues the reason for the gap is because many empirical and theoretical ecological studies failed to transfer their results in the context of landscape pattern. There is a lack of development of a more mechanistic understanding of the relationships between pattern and process. Most authors of detailed studies do not attempt to bridge the gap to generalization and application (Figure 1). In their view, the integration of ecological and geographical research lines (in the context of socioeconomic conditions) is the core activity of landscape ecology. It is absolutely necessary to obtain that integration when we want to design and develop landscapes on a sound ecological basis, rather than just designing a landscape pattern which might seem adequate for some years, but which bears no relationship to the natural processes in the landscape system.
Figure 1 Bridging the gap to generalization and application (Opdam et al., 2001)
(Opdam et al., 2001) presented the ecological part of this mechanistic knowledge basis as a knowledge pyramid in four layers:
1. Empirical case studies on many different scales, organisms and processes. 2. Modeling studies to extrapolate empirical studies across space and time 3. Modeling studies to produce guidelines and general rules. 4. Tools for integration to the landscape level, so that application in multidisciplinary landscape studies becomes possible.
They concluded that in the landscape ecological literature, steps 1 and 2 were well represented, whereas steps 3 and 4 were mostly neglected. Some of the ecology landscape approaches summarized in Table 1 addresses this concern. (Miller and Hobbs, 2002) have a similar understanding stating there is a gap between knowledge development and knowledge application in landscape ecology, and a lack of tools for integration in strategic planning and impact assessment. In order to use the landscape ecological concepts in urbanizing environments, more knowledge is needed on the wide-reaching effects of urbanization. So landscape ecology around the turning of the millennium did not have a very strong profile in urban planning, and were not proceeding towards landscape design based on ecological processes.
In the international context, political efforts have been made to further nature conservation and biodiversity. At the European level, in 2001, the EU Directive concerning the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment requires the integration of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in planning and decision-making.1 In this way, nature conservation and biodiversity issues should be integrated in the early stages of the planning process for urban development and infrastructure investments. (The Baltic University Urban Forum, 2007) (Balfors et al., 2010) states to achieve an adequate integration of biodiversity aspects in planning, landscape ecological expertise is required to provide relevant knowledge on patterns and dynamics of ecosystems and their vulnerability for interventions and change. Such expertise is important to analyze how ecosystem services can be optimized in urbanized regions and how resilient social and ecological systems can be designed to deal with disturbances while retaining their essential functions. This involves that urban development is adjusted to the ecosystems’ limitations of adaptation. To incorporate landscape ecological expertise in urban planning, tools and models are required, which add time scales and spatial dimensions to knowledge on ecological processes. The outputs of these tools will support the search for design alternatives that take into account biodiversity and other ecosystem services. In addition, the results of the modeling activities have to be related to the realities of governance and planning. While the outcome of the planning tools are primarily two�dimensional, planning practice takes place in a multi�scalar context which implies that the proposed development only can be accomplished through directed actions on 1
All member states of the European Union should have ratified the Directive into their own country's law by 21 July 2004. Today the implementation can be seen as completed. SEAINFO.NET 2012.
different levels of governance. In this process SEA could play a role as an interface between landscape ecological expertise on one hand and urban planning and governance on the other.
In order to integrate biodiversity considerations in strategic environmental planning in an urbanizing environment on landscape and regional levels, Landscape ecological assessment (LEA) was applied by (Mortberg et al., 2007). They conducted a case study in the region of Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, and the study area embraced the city centre, suburbs and peri-urban areas. Focal species were tested as indicators of habitat quality, quantity and connectivity in the landscape. Predictive modeling of habitat distribution in geographic information systems involved the modeling of focal species occurrences based on empirical data, incorporated in a landscape ecological decision support system. When habitat models were retrieved, they were applied on future planning scenarios in order to predict and assess the impacts on focal species. The predictions of the impacts on habitats networks of focal species made it possible to quantify, integrate and visualize the effects of urbanization scenarios on aspects of biodiversity on a landscape level. (Mortberg et al., 2007) demonstrates that LEA could be a useful tool in strategic planning and impact assessment, contributing to the quality of SEA and ultimately to sustainable planning and decision-making. (Balfors et al., 2010) states in a lessons learned paper that LEA was developed to offer a more proactive planning approach and that SEA could play a role as an interface between landscape ecological expertise on one hand and urban planning and governance on the other. They also pointed out that indicators are described, discussed and measured, but rarely linked to a “value judgment” that can be directly employed by planners to guide their decision-making process. A frequent consequence of this limitation is that ecological studies are set aside during land-use planning and land allocation procedures, because they do not come to clearly understandable conclusions and suggestions. Regarding “value judgment”, communication and clarity among cross-disciplinary experts in urban planning processes, one of the major problems in integrating scientific information or common knowledge into the planning process is poor communication between ecologists on the one side, and the public and decision-makers on the other side. Creating common conceptual ground for different actors and disciplines, improving communication in the process, matching contradictory values and perceptions, and improving stakeholder participation would be in the best interest of nature and people of urban areas. (Yli-Pelkonen and Niemela, 2005) Planning processes involving sector experts in cross-disciplinary teams improve the quality of the analysis and resulting design. This was shown for instance in Utrecht’s green structure planning, that over time developed from green sector to cross-sector planning and further on to participative planning also involving citizens. (The Baltic University Urban Forum, 2007)
China seems to be taking environmental concerns seriously. SEA for urban planning is legislated by law there and the ecological planning has drawn tremendous attention from governments and scholars even if there is no legal support in place. (He et al., 2011) state that it is deemed necessary to modify the existing urban and regional administrative system so as to cope with the challenges urban planning is
being confronted with and realize the purpose of urban sustainability. It is important for both environmentalists and urban planners to collaborate and develop new approaches and systems for urban planning as well as environmental assessment to address the conflicts underlying the planning. They propose a mechanism which suggests the integration of the “political tools” urban planning, SEA and ecological planning (Figure 2). It will be a multi-win strategy to offset deficiency of each mentioned political tool being individually applied. In China landscape ecology falls under the integrative and comprehensive planning concept “Ecological planning” a joint name of urban ecological planning, ecoprovince/-city/-town/-village planning (“eco-district planning” in general), or ecological urban planning. The proposed mechanism of (He et al., 2011) includes a framework where SEA and ecological planning are fully incorporated into urban planning which forms a two-way constraint mechanism to ascertain environmental quality of urban planning. Although in practice, planning and SEA processes may conditionally be unified. Under this framework, ecological planning provides ecological principles or requirements to guide the planning at a very early stage whilst SEA works as an appraisal tool in the end to ensure that environmental issues are considered in the preferred option(s).
Figure 2. Double-constraint mechanism for urban planning. (He et al., 2011)
Moreover, as shown in their case study, the integration of urban planning, SEA and ecological planning may be constrained due to slow changes in the contextual factors, in particular the political and cultural dimensions. Currently within the context of China, there may be three major elements which facilitate integration of the three political tools, which are (1) regulatory requirement of SEA on urban planning, (2) the promotion or strong administrative support from government on eco-district building, and (3) the willingness of urban planners to collaborate with SEA experts or ecologists. Thus according to (He et al.,
2011) the integration of urban planning, SEA and ecological planning may be a response to persistent failure of urban planning to deliver social and environmental justice.(Wu, 2008) claim that integration of ecology and social sciences can be done using landscape ecology as a framework. Ecological approaches represent the ‘‘science’’ of urban landscape ecology which views cities as spatially heterogeneous landscape composed of multiple interacting patches within and beyond the city limits. However, landscape ecology also includes the ‘‘art’’ component, i.e., the humanistic and social science perspectives necessary for integrating ecology, socioeconomics, design, planning, and management. Thus, the ‘‘science’’ and ‘‘art’’ of landscape ecology provides an appropriate framework for studying the links between ecology and humans in cities by promoting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. This is vital for research to provide understanding for urban sustainability.
Table 1 During information seeking a number of explicit landscape ecology approaches were found, from conceptual frameworks to technical methods or tools. 8 of these were picked out, since they are quite recently developed and aimed at application in urban planning. The approaches are summarized in this table. Qualitative/ quantitative
Scale
Purpose
Features and challenges
Landscape ecological Conceptual and assesment LEA methodological (Mortberg et al., framework 2007)
Quantitative /qualitative
Landscape Regional
Proactive Systematic Transparent Exploratory
A tool for integrating biodiversity issue planning in SEA
Predictive modelling of habitat distribution in geographic information systems based on empirical data Testing on future planning scenario analysis Landscape ecological decision support system Quantify, integrate and visualise the effects of urbanisation scenarios on aspects of biodiversity on a landscape level.
Land suitability index Methodological (Marull et al., 2007) Framework (technical)
Quantitative
Landscape Regional
Modular Transparent Precise yet operational Straightforward Highly effective
An operational, holistic tool aimed at delivering SEA of developmental land uses for municipal planning
Urban sprawl simulation approach (Vimal et al., 2012)
Methodological Framework (technical)
Quantitative
Landscape Regional
Urban to rural gradient approach
Conseptual and methodological framework
Quantitative /qualitative
Local Landscape
Effective Widely used Sucessfull
Understanding the distribution of plants and animals as well as ecosystem processes along gradients of urbanization
Approach
Type
Potential strengths
Hierarchical system of cartographic indices, formally integrated in mathematical language, developed through GIS, Evaluates land suitability by combining three main sub-indices concerning (i) the vulnerability of the biosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere to impacts arising from implementing development proposals; (ii) the natural heritage value of the target area; and (iii) its contribution to terrestrial ecological connectivity Evaluates the impact of municipal urban plans, and alternative planning scenarios Challenge: new and more comprehensive and reliable data are always needed Multi level Project future urbanization and to Demographic forecast at municipal scale, spatial forecast of future built Comprehensive assess the direct and indirect location at infra-municipal scale Supportive threats on biodiversity at a regional Biodiversity pressure asessment scale for conservation strategies A multi-level approach based on three impacts of urban development: (i ) the direct consumption of high diversity sites, the indirect urban effects on the surrounding area over a scale of (ii) 2 km and a scale of (iii)50 km Further research needed into not only the main taxonomic groups distribution, but also species diversity and their ecology. Quantifying urbanization gradients Study of organism responses to urbanization gradients Integration of ecological and social science information (McDonnell and Hahs, 2008) claims future research is needed in more specific measures of urbanization can be used to gain a mechanistic understanding of species and ecosystem responses to urbanization gradients. New studies that investigate in greater detail the techniques used to quantify the gradient, and their implications for research findings. Research in comparing urbanization gradients in different cities.
Ecological land-use complementation ELC (Colding, 2007)
Conseptual framework
Qualitative
Local Landscape
Neighborhood mosaic concept (Hersperger, 2006)
Conseptual framework
Qualitative
Local
The network concept (Hidding and Teunissen, 2002)
Conseptual framework
Qualitative
Regional Local
Temporary conservation (Kattwinkel et al., 2011)
Conseptual framework
Quantitative /qualitative
Regional Local
Adaptive Specific
Provide for increased habitat availability Promote landscape complementation and supplementation in conservation planning Analysis as well as a design concept with the potential to foster the integration of landscape ecological knowledge into landuse planning and management
Land uses in urban green areas could synergistically interact to support biodiversity when clustered together in different combinations relative to when they are interspersed in a heavily developed urban matrix. Realisation of ‘emergent’ ecological functions of land use. More recearch on ELC is warranted It requires collaboration among diciplines Promising The neighborhood mosaic with its three key characteristics – patch adjacency, Useful patch-and-matrix pattern, and patch neighborhood, captures essential spatial relationships and landscape ecological interactions. Facilitate the transfer of landscape ecology process knowledge to application. A starting point for the questions and the strategies that will guide the planner’s analysis and design There is much potential for developing this qualitative approach into a quantitative one. Pro-active Addressing a gap between leading Correspond to the emerging trends of the network society which is New spatial concepts and spatial reality characterised by high mobility, spatial perspective Reconsideration of the idea of activities possibly becoming footloose, the rise of urban networks, and the Integrated fragmentation interweaving of city and planning Give rise to a much more complex countryside. Give rise to new forms of interaction between city and Regionally and compound spatial organisation countryside. made-toin land-use planning Contains well-defined principles for spatial organisation. measure and management Challenges in defining the spatial extent of a neighborhood in ecology and Triggers further planning elaboration of Spatial organisation resulting from the use of network concepts is more ideas complex than the traditional image of cities, surrounded by green, open space. Contemporary Investigate conservation planning Setting aside brownfields before redevelopment innovation options for urban conservation Maintain a spatio-temporal mosaic of different successional stages ranging Increases area with special focus on business from pioneer to pre-forest communities. value areas. Extrapolating species distribution models through space and time. Increased urban Demonstrate that dynamic land use Conservation integrated into urban land uses rather than separated biodiversity supports urban biodiversity in Challenge in the public negative perception of brownfield sites terms of species richness and rarity
Discussion There seem to be a broad consensus among landscape ecology practitioners about the need for bridging the gap between landscape ecology and urban planning. I have not found examples claiming the opposite or strong areas of controversy, just various perspectives and suggestions on how to achieve it. Diverse applications of strategic environmental planning is found across the world, however the common goal is to promote sustainability by influencing planning and decision-making processes at an early stage. My impression is that topics in the research field is still mainly focused on empirical case studies on many different scales, organisms and processes and modeling studies to extrapolate empirical studies across space and time. Research producing guidelines and general rules and application in multidisciplinary landscape studies is not rich and such research seem to be urgently needed with the rapid expansion of cities worldwide. This was also demanded by (Opdam et al., 2001) in 2001, and it is interesting that the situation apparently has not changed much. However positive changes since 2001 can be identified. Integration of landscape ecology with urban planning is an area with steadily expanding attention, and has been for some years. International journals like Landscape Ecology and Landscape and Urban Planning publishes numerous papers on urban landscape ecology. They are involved with conceptual, scientific, and design approaches to urban land use, and emphasize ecological understanding and a multidisciplinary approach to analysis, planning and design. Further, assessing the 8 specific landscape ecology approaches I present in this paper the majority of them seem to be concerned about bridging the above mentioned gap. For these authors it is important to develop approaches in which its underlying concepts and application can be grasped by planners, who are its main end-users. I should make clear that my chosen set of landscape ecology approaches represents a limited range of available research. However, in my view, I did perform a relative extensive information seeking and the set of approaches therefore should give a good picture of state-of-the art research.
When it comes to critical appraisal of the literature I use, my general observation is that all of them have formulated problems which are clearly defined within their research topic and they make sure to establish its significance. Study design, data analysis, and conclusions is in my opinion of good quality. Furthermore some of them use case studies for demonstrating the applicability of proposed frameworks, ie. (Mortberg et al., 2007) and (He et al., 2011). The majority also explains the justifications behind their approach, leaving it open for debate, or suggest further research needs. I have mainly assessed research papers from a few European countries and China. This corresponds well with the fact that some EU nations have a longer history of strong Environmental Appraisal including Denmark, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. I found it suitable to focus on assessing literature underlying the SEA system. Despite the fact there is limited amount of “new-thinking� I produce in this literature review, the research question and my findings should be both internationally valid and relevant for readers interested in and occupied in this field of research.
Conclusion Apparently, landscape ecology planning capabilities to influence urban planning and achieve urban sustainable development are often constrained, despite accumulation of knowledge and quality of tools and methods are increasing. Better collaboration, integration of ecological plans and urban plans, generalization and standardization of landscape ecology approaches can improve sustainable urban planning and decision-making in the future.
One research paper claim a reason for this is not attempting to bridge the gap to generalization and application by authors of detailed studies. A better mechanistic basis for landscape ecology knowledge application is needed. More modeling studies to produce guidelines and general rules and tools for integration to the landscape level is needed. A second research paper highlight the importance of results of landscape ecological modeling activities being related to the realities of governance and planning, saying in this process SEA could play a role as an interface. There is a need for proactive landscape ecological planning approaches, and for instance LEA was developed to offer this. “Value judgments” of indicators is essential in the decision-making processes. Experts together in cross-disciplinary teams can improve the quality of the analysis and resulting design. A third research paper talks about increasing conflicts underlying the planning, institutional barriers and differences in “mind sets” of planning authorities (in China). They recommend more collaboration between environmentalists and urban planners, and calls for a shift in the contextual factors, in particular the political and cultural dimensions. They also propose a framework where SEA and ecological planning are fully incorporated into urban planning. A fourth research paper talk about the ‘‘science’’ and ‘‘art’’ of landscape ecology providing an appropriate framework for studying the links between ecology and humans in cities. Taken as a whole, including landscape ecology in urban planning can be achieved by breaking institutional barriers, changing mind-sets of urban planning authorities, reducing the separation between ecological plans and urban plans and increasing coherence and standardization in research. That is my take home message.
References BALFORS, B., MÖRTBERG, U. & GENELETTI, D. 2010. Landscape ecology for SEA : lessons learned. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the International Association for
Impact Assessment, Geneva, 6-11 April 2010.
BREUSTE, J., NIEMELÄ, J. & SNEP, R. 2008. Applying landscape ecological principles in urban environments. Landscape Ecology, 23, 1139-1142. COLDING, J. 2007. 'Ecological land-use complementation' for building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 46-55.
HE, J., BAO, C. K., SHU, T. F., YUN, X. X., JIANG, D. H. & BRWON, L. 2011. Framework for integration of urban planning, strategic environmental assessment and ecological planning for urban sustainability within the context of China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 549-560. HERSPERGER, A. M. 2006. Spatial adjacencies and interactions: Neighborhood mosaics for landscape ecological planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 227-239. HIDDING, M. C. & TEUNISSEN, A. T. J. 2002. Beyond fragmentation: new concepts for urban– rural development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 297-308. KATTWINKEL, M., BIEDERMANN, R. & KLEYER, M. 2011. Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 144, 2335-2343. LI, F., WANG, R., PAULUSSEN, J. & LIU, X. 2005. Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 72, 325-336. MARULL, J., PINO, J., MALLARACH, J. M. & CORDOBILLA, M. J. 2007. A Land Suitability Index for Strategic Environmental Assessment in metropolitan areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 200-212. MCDONNELL, M. & HAHS, A. 2008. The use of gradient analysis studies in advancing our understanding of the ecology of urbanizing landscapes: current status and future directions. Landscape Ecology, 23, 1143-1155. MCGILL, U. 2012. What is urban planning. MILLER, J. R. & HOBBS, R. J. 2002. Conservation Where People Live and Work Conservación donde la Gente Vive y Trabaja da planeación eficaz de la conservación. Conservation Biology, 16, 330-337. MORTBERG, U. M., BALFORS, B. & KNOL, W. C. 2007. Landscape ecological assessment: A tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 82, 457-470. NIEMALA, J. 1998. Ecology and urban planning. NIEMELÄ, J. 1999. Is there a need for a theory of urban ecology? Urban Ecosystems, 3, 57-65. OPDAM, P., FOPPEN, R. & VOS, C. 2001. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 16, 767-779. SEAINFO.NET 2012. THE BALTIC UNIVERSITY URBAN FORUM, B. 2007. Green Structures in the Sustainable City. VIMAL, R., GENIAUX, G., PLUVINET, P., NAPOLEONE, C. & LEPART, J. 2012. Detecting threatened biodiversity by urbanization at regional and local scales using an urban sprawl simulation approach: Application on the French Mediterranean region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 343-355. WU, J. 2008. Making the Case for Landscape Ecology An Effective Approach to Urban Sustainability. YLI-PELKONEN, V. & NIEMELA, J. 2005. Linking ecological and social systems in cities: urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 1947-1967.