CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS Creating multifunctional landscapes...

212

wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg ©© The Ecological Society of America

Humans have been transforming the environment tosupport production and cultural functions for thou-

sands of years, yet until recently, most ecologists had notbeen involved in the design of these intensively managedlandscapes. The publication of Ian McHarg’s Design withnature in 1969 challenged landscape designers to providean ecological analysis of the landscape prior to recom-mending landscape changes (McHarg 1969). Since thattime, landscape ecology has emerged as an applied field

for studying the past, current, and future structure of thelandscape, including the analysis of spatial metrics andthe development of analytical models for assessing ecolog-ical, hydrological, and other impacts. These efforts haveoften been implemented within the context of computa-tion, including geographic information systems (GIS),but, more importantly, represent major advances as ana-lytical tools for studying spatial relationships, landscapechange, land suitability for various functions, and socialimpacts (Hulse et al. 2004; Grove et al. 2006; Johnstonand Braden 2007). Even so, the contribution of ecology tothe design process, beyond initial landscape assessment,has been limited. We suggest that opportunities exist forusing ecological principles to influence the design of thelandscape, from initiation through to completion, andthat ecologists should be actively involved in this effort.A design approach based on ecological principles will“inform, guide, and inspire designers towards landscapesthat are environmentally sustainable as well as being cul-turally and aesthetically appropriate” (Makhzoumi 2000).Forman (2002) suggests that the successful synthesis ofecology and design may offer the greatest opportunity tocurtail the degradation of our remaining resources, bycombining nature and culture within landscapes.

This paper is certainly not the first attempt to developa framework and process for ecological landscape design;indeed, a number of publications provide valuable guide-lines that have been considered in this study. Diaz and

CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS

Creating multifunctional landscapes: howcan the field of ecology inform the design ofthe landscape? SSaarraahh TTaayylloorr LLoovveellll11** aanndd DDoouuggllaass MM JJoohhnnssttoonn22

The opportunity exists to improve intensively managed landscapes (urban and agricultural areas dominatedby human activities) through greater engagement of ecologists in the process of ecological landscape design.This approach encourages exploration of multifunctional solutions to meet the needs of growing popula-tions in many areas around the world, while minimizing the negative impacts of human activities on theenvironment. This is achieved by incorporating theoretical and applied principles from the fields of land-scape ecology, agroecology, and ecological design. Multifunctional landscapes can be designed to provide arange of environmental, social, and economic functions, while considering the interests of landowners andusers. Here, we propose a process for designing multifunctional landscapes, guided by ecological principlesin the following steps: (1) defining the project site and landscape context, (2) analyzing landscape structureand function, (3) master planning using an ecosystem approach, (4) designing sites to highlight ecologicalfunctions, and (5) monitoring ecological functions. The development of a framework for ecological designof landscapes demonstrates the importance of a multi-scale approach for connecting sites to their surround-ings, the benefits of a multifunctional design for sustainability, and the value of involving ecologiststhroughout the entire design process. The ecological design approach is explored for the University ofIllinois Field Research Station.

Front Ecol Environ 2009; 7(4): 212–220, doi:10.1890/070178 (published online 24 June 2008)

1Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Vermont,Burlington, VT *([email protected]); 2Department of Com-munity and Regional Planning and Department of LandscapeArchitecture, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

IInn aa nnuuttsshheellll::• Ecological landscape design will benefit from a greater focus on

the development of multifunctional landscapes, stronglygrounded in ecological principles

• A framework for ecological design of landscapes demonstrateshow ecology can guide each step of the design process and howcollaboration between ecologists and landscape designers willhelp bridge the gap between scientific/technical knowledgeand design applications

• In order to meet future challenges related to human populationgrowth and competition for resources, our research and educa-tion systems need to encourage the level of interdisciplinaritythat will produce experts trained in both ecology and design

S Taylor Lovell and DM Johnston Ecology and landscape design

Apostol (1992), for example, proposed ananalysis and design process for large-scale,forested landscapes (5000 to 50 000 acres)through the following steps: (1) informationgathering on resources and public expecta-tions (inventory), (2) data analysis and inter-pretation, (3) review and synthesis of data byan interdisciplinary team, and (4) develop-ment of a proposed course of action. Steinitz(2002) described a framework for teachingdesign to students through different levels ofinquiry, using representational models todescribe the landscape, process models to indi-cate landscape function, evaluation models todetermine if the landscape is working well,change models to consider potential landscapetransformations, impact models to predict theoutcomes of alternative transformations, anddecision models to determine the appropriatechange for the landscape. Lyle (1999) pro-posed a paradigm for ecological design,adapted from a systems approach, which alsoincludes a sequence of steps: (1) statement ofgoals, (2) analysis, (3) development of alterna-tives, (4) comparative evaluation of alterna-tives, (5) selection of the most effective alter-native, (6) implementation, and (7) moni-toring. Makhzoumi (2000) applied an ecologi-cal design methodology to the development ofa landscape master plan, based on a process ofdefining the context, describing the site, iden-tifying ecological landscape associations, andevaluating these associations.

In this paper, we illustrate a process for eco-logical design of landscapes that builds uponpreviously proposed methods, by extending therole of the ecologist through the entire processand by incorporating the most recent advancesin the ecological transformation of multifunc-tional landscapes found in landscape ecology,agroecology, and ecological design. We proposefive basic steps in a multi-scale design process: (1) definingthe project site and landscape context, (2) characterizingand analyzing landscape structures and functions, (3) masterplanning using an ecosystem approach, (4) designing sites toreveal ecological functions, and (5) monitoring ecologicalfunctions. For each step, the role of an ecologist in thedesign process is considered (Figure 1). We use theUniversity of Illinois Field Research Station (UIFRS) as acase study for this approach and as an example of the devel-opment of a design for a multifunctional landscape.

� Defining the project site and landscape context

Most designers and ecologists would agree that, for alandscape to function as part of a healthy ecosystem, thecontext of the site must be considered through a multi-

scale approach (Spirn 1985; Watzin and McIntosh 1999).Nearly every site affects its surroundings through positiveand negative interactions. The economic term “external-ities” is used to refer to the costs and benefits of decisionsthat are not directly accounted for by the person makingthe decision – in this case, the land owner. Externalitiesresult from lateral flows of water, air, soil, fire, substances,or organisms from one area of land to another and can beaffected by landscape features that serve as barriers, fil-ters, or corridors (van Noordwijk et al. 2004). For exam-ple, a vegetation buffer zone might be established toreduce the flow of soil from a field into a stream, where itwould result in a negative externality (Lovell andSullivan 2006). Positive externalities should also be con-sidered, such as a well-designed park, which can increasethe value of nearby residential properties (Anderson and

FFiigguurree 11.. Schematic diagram of the ecological design process, the role of theecologist, and examples of specific questions that could be considered at eachphase. While this figure may suggest roles for the ecologist that are traditionallycovered by landscape architects, we propose that separating these two fields isnot necessary and may, in some cases, restrict the process of ecological design.Increasingly, experts are developing skills in multiple fields, and this can onlyserve to advance aspects of both.

Description of current ecosystem:• What plant communities and animal species

exist on or near the project site?• Do any rare species exist on or near the site?• Where are rivers, wetlands, watershed bound-

aries, and other hydrologic features located?• What high-quality patches exist near the site,

and should they be protected with buffers?

Assessment of ecosystem health:• What is the condition of existing soils,

vegetation, wildlife, and other features?• What are the specific requirements of sensi-

tive species or communities in the area?• How can the composition and configuration

of habitats be characterized?• How does water flow across the site?

Incorporating ecosystem approach:• What impact would the transformation of the

site have on water quality and quantity?• Would an ecological network benefit from

connectivity including the project site?• How would the proposed designs impact

important plant or animal communities?

Revealing ecological functions:• What ecological functions are most critical to

the sustained success of the site?• Do certain ecological functions represent

regional issues?• How might these functions be exposed or

emphasized to draw awareness of visitors?

Monitoring ecological functions:• Which indicators would best describe the

functionality of the landscape?• Where should monitoring equipment be located

to efficiently measure these indicators?• What frequency and duration of sampling

would be appropriate for each indicator?

Design process Role of ecologist

Describe project siteand landscape context

Characterize and analyzeexisting features

and functions

Develop master plan usingan ecosystem approach

Develop site designs toreveal ecological function

Monitor ecologicalfunctions

213

© The Ecological Society of America wwwwww..ffrroonnttiieerrssiinneeccoollooggyy..oorrgg

Ecology and landscape design S Taylor Lovell and DM Johnston

214


West 2006). This concept has important applications, asthe consequences of certain activities related to a specificarea of land may impact stakeholders in adjacent areas.Landscape ecologists (among others) should be involvedin the assessment of the landscape in the very early stagesof the design process, in order to maintain or improve thelandscape. A multi-scale approach is necessary to con-sider the impact of landscape pattern as it relates to dif-ferent processes (eg hydrology, wildlife movement) andthe functions of a diverse range of organisms (Diaz andApostol 1992).

� Characterizing and analyzing landscapestructures and functions

The development of a multifunctional landscape mustinclude consideration of biophysical features important forconservation of biodiversity and ecological processes(Baschak and Brown 1995). Topography, hydrology, vege-tation, soil type, and other features help to inform thedesign of landscapes by guiding decisions on the location ofnew landscape features, restoration of ecological functions,and production of food or other resources. Characterizingexisting land uses, such as open green space, agriculturalcropping systems, and built features, is critical to under-standing the landscape and suitability for future functions.Socioeconomic features, including population density,household incomes, and land values, should also be consid-ered in the design, to facilitate a better understanding ofthe cultural values of the site. The work of Ian McHargdemonstrates the specific contributions of ecology to thecharacterization of existing features through the compre-hensive development of an “ecological inventory”, whichincludes climate, geology, hydrology, soils, vegetation, andwildlife. Today, these inventories are often developed asspatial data layers for use in GIS and help us to understandlandscape conditions by providing a mechanism for char-acterizing existing landscape features and historical data(Watzin and McIntosh 1999). Ecologists can play animportant role in determining the types of geophysical datathat should be considered in the inventory.

Landscape analysis builds upon the inventory (charac-terization) by synthesizing complex data, aggregating val-ues from established criteria, and modeling ecologicalprocesses (Baschak and Brown 1995). Classification sys-tems to analyze ecological performance, based on hetero-geneity in landscape spatial pattern, have been widelyaccepted (Gustafson 1998), but integrated approachesthat include other metrics, such as plant communitystructure and landscape processes, are increasingly used todevelop landscape associations (Baschak and Brown1995; Makhzoumi 2000). Process models can be used toassess the existing and proposed conditions of the site,including hydrology, geomorphology, climatic conditions,habitat suitability, wildlife movement, risks to specificspecies, disturbance patterns, spread of invasive species,habitat fragmentation, and a range of ecological func-

tions. These models can also be used to evaluate land-scape modifications and compare design alternatives. Theinvolvement of ecologists is critical during the stage ofcharacterization and analysis of existing features, as theycan identify key structure–function relationships withinthe existing site and recognize the importance of land-scape pattern to the flows of resources and organisms.

� Developing a master plan using an ecosystemapproach

The development of the master plan design, though oftenconsidered a provisional stage in the design process, servesmultiple roles: it establishes a framework for futuredesigns, provides a basis for feedback from stakeholders,and demonstrates a commitment to the project(Makhzoumi 2000). Using the ecosystem concept as abasis for master planning will provide a greater under-standing of the landscape at multiple scales, while incor-porating the needs of society and interactions betweenhuman activities and the environment (Spirn 1985).Ecosystem management can be defined as “the applicationof ecological and social information, options, and con-straints to achieve desired social benefits within a definedgeographic area and over a specified period” (Lackey1998). With this approach, the framework for local land-use planning is the ecosystem and the ecological processescontained within it (Brody 2003); humans are considereda component of the ecosystem (Haeuber 1998). Whileecosystem management plans have typically focused onnatural and semi-natural areas, such as forests, prairies,and conservation lands, the same concepts could beapplied to intensively managed urban and agriculturallandscapes at the master planning stage (Spirn 1985). Wesuggest several design objectives, based on an ecosystemconcept that would benefit from the input of ecologists,resulting in a greater likelihood of long-term success forthe project as a healthy, functioning ecosystem.

The first objective is to improve landscape performanceby developing designs that integrate multiple functions inthe landscape. Ecosystem multifunctionality has beenrecognized as a condition for sustainability in natural sys-tems (de Groot 2006), and recent interest has focused onmultifunctionality of intensively managed landscapes(Wiggering et al. 2003; Brandt and Vejre 2004). Withinthis context, we define multifunctionality as the provi-sion of multiple environmental, social, and economicfunctions in a given area of land (Wiggering et al. 2003),taking into account the interests of landowners and users(Otte et al. 2007). In contrast to the more abstract con-cept of “sustainability”, the goal in designing a multifunc-tional landscape is to consider ecological, production,and cultural functions within the same site. Thisapproach encourages the designer to aim for multiple tar-geted performance standards, such as conserving and pro-ducing energy; providing food; managing water qualityand quantity; reducing, reusing, and treating waste; con-


serving and increasing biodiversity; meeting visual qual-ity expectations; and providing recreational opportuni-ties. The incorporation of local food production intocommon landscapes, for example, would not only addprovisioning services, but would also serve an educationalfunction by connecting people more directly with theirfood systems (Viljoen 2005). If creatively designed, mul-tifunctional working landscapes can serve as a platform tointegrate ecology, economy, and society (Hough 1995).

A second objective is to increase heterogeneity in thespatial pattern of the landscape. Recent studies suggestthat increasing heterogeneity can improve ecosystem ser-vices in urban and agricultural landscapes by increasingfunction and resilience (Fischer et al. 2006). The additionof features such as woodlots, natural woody hedgerows,riparian buffers, greenways, and parks can all contribute tolandscape heterogeneity, improving the quality of thelandscape matrix and conserving biodiversity. These fea-tures can also support the development of ecological net-works, which provide a spatial link between ecosystemsthrough a variety of different configurations, by focusingon opportunities to increase total ecosystem area, improveecosystem quality, increase network density, and providelandscape permeability. “Ecological land-use complemen-tation” (ELC) is a variation on the ecological networkconcept, emphasizing conservation of biodiversity andprovision of ecosystem services through the clustering ofcomplementary land uses. This spatial arrangementencourages movement between habitat patches, providesresources in close proximity to each other, and enlargesthe area available in a habitat – all without changing thetotal area of each land-use type (Colding 2007).

Conserving and promoting biodiversity is a third eco-logically based design objective. Humans rely on a widerange of plants and animals to supply food, fiber, fuel,medicines, and many indirect services, such as nutrientcycling and waste decomposition. But global biodiversityis severely threatened by a number of human-relatedactivities, including pollution, invasion by exotic species,and, most importantly, continued habitat loss and degra-dation – all of which can be affected by the design andplanning of the landscape. Landscape change ofteninvolves modifications to land cover or habitat composi-tion, directly impacting biodiversity. It is therefore vitalto incorporate the restoration and protection of biodiver-sity as a specific goal of the project (Ahern et al. 2006).Biodiversity can also be promoted in productive land-scapes (eg biofuel production based on mixed-prairie sys-tems, which offer added benefits of visual quality, recre-ation, and improved water quality; Jordan et al. 2007).

A fourth objective is to improve and manage waterquality and quantity. Any transformation of the landscapeinvolving a change in built structures, topography, vegeta-tion, or soil structure will impact the hydrology of the siteand areas well beyond. Development typically results inlarge areas of impervious or “sealed” surface, in the form ofrooftops, roads, parking lots, and other built features.

These impervious surfaces can greatly increase thestormwater runoff from the site, resulting in an excessivevolume of water containing pollutants, including heavymetals, suspended solids, nutrients, and bacteria. In agri-cultural areas, soil erosion and stormwater runoff con-taining excess nutrients and pesticides are the primarythreat to water resources. The negative impacts should beminimized through the design and implementation of amaster plan that includes the objective of protectingexisting hydrologic features (rivers, lakes, and wetlands)and treating stormwater flows on site (Thompson andSorvig 2000). New design solutions offer opportunitiesfor stormwater infiltration (downward penetration intothe soil) and treatment on site, through bioretentionfacilities such as rain gardens and larger constructed wet-lands. These features can be designed into the landscape,to provide a wide range of ecological functions, such aswater infiltration, water treatment, microclimate control,wildlife habitat, and biodiversity, as well as cultural func-tions, including education and visual quality (Dunnettand Clayden 2007). Landscapes can also be designed toconserve valuable freshwater by reusing stormwater orgraywater (domestic drain water from sources other thantoilets) for irrigation and by selecting species that arewell adapted to the climate and efficient in water use.

� Designing sites to highlight ecological functions

The development of key sites within the larger landscapecan highlight ecological functions and bring them to theattention of the public. Plant selection and arrangement,choice of building materials, and development of hydro-logic features can all have an important impact on thelocal ecology, while providing an opportunity to drawattention to ecological functions at the site scale.Guiding principles for designing a site might include:reduction in use of, and reuse of, building materials, pro-tection and treatment of water, conservation of biodiver-sity, production of food and energy, and special consider-ation of cultural functions (Orr 1992; Nassauer 1997;Todd et al. 2003). “Eco-revelatory design” supports theconcept of highlighting ecological functions, based onthe assumptions that landscapes can reflect cultural val-ues of nature and that they have the power to communi-cate those values (Brown 1998). Examples include pro-jects designed to reveal stormwater capture and reuse,extent of groundwater rise and toxin levels, water conser-vation in arid agricultural landscapes, phytoremediationof contaminated sites, land-use changes, and natural oranthropogenic landscape disturbances – each of whichcould contribute to “environmental problem solving” ifexperimental design is incorporated into the planningprocess (Galatowitsch 1998). Hough (1995) recom-mends “making visible the processes that sustain life” byusing design to connect people to stormwater flows, foodproduction, restoration, waste processing, and otherenvironmental processes, including the negative conse-

215



216


quences of human actions that often remain hidden andunknown in anthropogenic landscapes.

�Monitoring ecological functions

The final stage of the design process, and one that is oftenneglected entirely, involves monitoring ecological func-tions. Monitoring on the landscape scale can providequantifiable evidence of multifunctional land use andassessment of overall performance (project success). Itseems obvious that the only way to truly advance ourknowledge of ecological landscape design is throughefforts to monitor function over time, but only rarely arefunds allocated for this purpose. The incorporation ofmonitoring infrastructure into design should be consid-ered one more opportunity to increase multifunctionality.Landscape features might be located or structured in waysthat facilitate various forms of experimentation, consider-

ing approaches that require replica-tion and manipulation, as well asthose that do not require modifica-tion of the environment for datagathering. In this phase of the pro-ject, ecologists should be involved indefining appropriate indicators andvariables to characterize the dynamicnature of the landscape.

� Case study: University ofIllinois Field Research Station

The UIFRS serves as an exploratorycase study for the process of ecologi-cal design of the landscape. The newsite for the UIFRS includes nearly10 000 ha of farmland located southof the University of Illinois atUrbana–Champaign, in the rural–urban fringe, where agriculturalactivities and residential interestsoften collide (Figure 2).

Defining the UIFRS site andsurrounding context

As a first step in the design process,descriptions of the site and landscapecontext were developed throughobservation of activities in andaround the site, informal interviewswith stakeholders, and a review ofhistorical information related to thesite and its connection with thecommunity. Through this process,negative externalities resulting fromthe agricultural activities of theUIFRS were identified: habitat alter-

ation, livestock odors, pesticide drift, traffic congestionfrom slow-moving machinery, and dust from field activi-ties. The UIFRS is situated in the very upper reaches ofthe Embarras River watershed, so nutrient and pesticidecontamination, alterations to flow, and sediment accu-mulation were important issues that could impact down-stream landscapes. The UIFRS also offers potential posi-tive externalities for the public, including the visualquality attributes of an agrarian landscape, connectivitywith other key landscape features (eg nearby park, cam-pus arboretum), educational opportunities, and recre-ation (eg birdwatching, biking, photography).

Landscape structure and function of a research farm

As a second step in the design process, we developed aninventory of existing features and functions through aGIS database that included population, road, topogra-

FFiigguurree 22.. Context map for the University of Illinois Field Research Station.

LegendStreams Roads

Lakes Transition zone

Embarras watershed Open space

Municipal area Main campus

South farm boundary

N

0 500 1000 2000 3000 4000

Meters


phy, hydrology, and soil-type layers. The database wasused to develop maps that would later guide decisionsabout the most suitable locations for crop trials, circu-lation patterns, wetlands to treat runoff from fields,riparian buffers, and a host of other landscape features.As an illustration of the opportunities to develop a bet-ter understanding of the site through landscape analy-sis, the surface flow hydrology of the UIFRS was mod-eled to define the drainage system, explore hydrologicconnectivity between fields and functions, and revealareas for water quality monitoring (Figure 3). To con-duct the study, the ArcHydro tools (Maidment 2002)for ArcGIS (www.esri.com) were applied to a digitalelevation model (DEM) available from the USGeological Survey (http://seamless.usgs.gov). Themodel was used to illustrate overland flows and to iden-tify equivalently sized catchments that might be usedfor monitoring water quality and quantity from landwith different agricultural functions. This model alsohelped to demonstrate the benefit of analysis at the

landscape scale in complementing traditional researchat the field or plot scale.

An ecosystem approach that emphasizesmultifunctionality

Guided by the site descriptions, feature inventories, and thesurface flow analysis, the primary stakeholders participatedin the master planning process considering different ecosys-tems appropriate for the site. Three alternative designs weredeveloped to allow exploration of the strengths and weak-nesses of different functional categories: production func-tions (supporting food, fodder, and energy), cultural func-tions (education, recreation, and visual quality), andecological functions (climate regulation, water quality, bio-diversity, and nutrient cycling). From the feedback on thesedesigns, a final design was developed to demonstrate howthe incorporation of multiple functions would improve theperformance of the site by supporting the existing researchneeds through an ecosystem management approach (Figure

FFiigguurree 33.. Model of surface drainage and maps of impacts on the landscape of the University of Illinois Field Research Station.

LegendWaterbodies

South farm

DEMvalue

High: 779.208801

Low: 618.548584

LegendWaterbodiesSouth farm

Drainage lines

DEMvalue

High: 779.208801

Low: 618.548584

LegendWaterbodies

South farm

Drainage lines

Sub-watersheds

Catchments

DEM

LegendWaterbodies

South farm

Drainage lines

Sub-watersheds

Catchments

DEM

Monitoring map

South farm

Drainage lines

Watershed

Monitoring station

Flow path map

South farm

Catchment

Drainage lines

Flow direction

Site relief Drainage lines Catchments Flow paths

Flow connectivity Monitoring map

217



4). The design would increase the heterogeneity, and thusthe matrix quality, of the landscape, through the addition ofnew landscape features or perennial habitats, including wet-lands at drainage outlets, riparian buffers along the river,hedgerows between fields, and a native prairie patch in onelarge section of the site. Flora biodiversity would increasewith the addition of plant community structure in theseperennial habitats, with faunal biodiversity likely to follow.Biodiversity would also be supported by the corridors cre-ated along the river and field margins. The new perennialhabitats would provide important ecological functions forwater regulation and treatment: hedgerows and riparianbuffers to capture sediment, nutrients, and pesticides instormwater runoff from fields; wetlands to treat water fromtiles draining the fields before it entered the river; andnative prairie patches to allow direct infiltration ofstormwater to recharge the groundwater system. In additionto the non-crop habitats, experimental plots were incorpo-rated into the entire site to study production, ecological,and social functions, as well as new opportunities to com-bine all three in a single area.

218


Ecological function at thecommunity interface

A Research and Education Center wasproposed in the northeastern corner ofthe site, to serve as the interfacebetween UIFRS and the communityand larger university campus (Figure 5).This area would provide an opportunityfor visitors to experience a multifunc-tional landscape through exhibits anddemonstrations of the practices em-ployed, using the concept of eco-revela-tory design to highlight the specificfunctions through innovative interpre-tive approaches. Designated areas wouldbe established for demonstrating alter-native cropping practices that promotebiodiversity and ecosystem health. Byshowcasing a range of edible plantspecies that can be grown locally, theproject helps to connect people to theirfood systems. The site design revealedlocal hydrologic functions through man-agement of stormwater with permeablepavements, vegetative swales, and aconstructed wetland to treat and storerooftop runoff, but the design also suc-cessfully incorporated cultural functions– research, education, and recreation.

Monitoring ecological functionsacross the multifunctional landscape

While the value in monitoring will berealized after a new design has beenimplemented, a monitoring plan and

appropriate infrastructure should be considered duringthe design process. For the UIFRS, water-quality moni-toring stations are proposed in several locations along theEmbarrass River, as well as the drainage points fromequally sized catchments identified with the hydrologicmodel. Water quality of runoff from each catchment canbe monitored to allow comparisons between catchmentswith different land use and management (ie contami-nants and nutrients from a catchment dominated byintensively grazed pastures might be compared to that ofan equivalent-sized catchment dominated by hay fields).The efficiency of the wetlands in reducing nutrient loadsand treating other agricultural chemicals would beassessed at input and outpoint points. To better under-stand the impacts of different landscape features, such aswindbreaks, woodlots, and riparian buffers, on microcli-mate (climate of a small area or microhabitat), weatherstations could be located throughout the site. Manyopportunities exist for incorporating monitoring into thedesign development of the site-scale projects. One exam-ple is designing the parking area of the Research and

LEGEND

CirculationMajor roads

Minor roads

Pedestrian paths

Pedestrian parking

FieldsField cropsPasture

Vegetable cropsOrnamental cropsOrchardsTurfForestry

LandscapeHedgerows

Forest

Prairie

River

Wetland

Savanna

FFiigguurree 44.. The University of Illinois Field Research Station emphasizes landscapeperformance, including ecological, production, and social functions. The multi-functional landscape includes all four categories of ecosystem services – productionservices, regulation services, cultural services, and supporting services. In designing thelandscape pattern for multifunctionality, land suitability was the first consideration inplacement of fields with specific requirements for soil type, topography, or hydrology.Areas were provided for long-term research on mixed-cropping systems, organic crops,and perennial crops, as well as historic ecosystems such as wetlands, forests, andprairies. Buffers offer connectivity between important habitat throughout the landscape.At the site scale, planting designs were developed for cultural functions to improve visualquality, encourage education, and reveal ecological functions.

= 1 km

N


Education Center to permit comparison of stormwaterinfiltration and treatment from different paving materials(pervious asphalt, permeable pavers, gravel).

� Conclusions

The development of a framework for ecological design oflandscapes demonstrates the importance of a multi-scaleand multi-temporal approach for creating multifunc-

tional landscapes strongly grounded in ecological princi-ples from the fields of landscape ecology, agroecology, andecological design. We recognize, however, that ecologicallandscape design is a complex process, including criticalfeedback loops that will alter the outcome. In order to besuccessful, these projects should include involvement ofecologists throughout the entire design process. Thisstudy also brought to light several areas of concernregarding the relationship between the fields of ecologyand landscape design. The first is that ecologists rarelyremain involved in the design process beyond the initialphases of landscape assessment, perhaps due to fundinglimitations on individual projects. In this paper, we haveprovided some basic recommendations for the role ofecologists throughout the design process, but a greatereffort is needed to encourage communication betweendesign professionals and research scientists, and adequatefunds must be appropriated to facilitate this effort.

A second concern is the absence of applied researchthat might provide specific design guidelines for multi-functional landscapes. Calkins (2005) demonstrated thatthe lack of research on ecological design strategies haslimited their implementation in design projects. Anothercritical limitation to the full integration of ecology indesign is the lack of support for design projects by muchof the scientific community; the very small number ofdesign projects found in the scientific literature is evi-dence of this. If we are to bridge the gap between the sci-entists who study the landscape and the professionals whodesign the landscape, we must consider opportunities topublish research on designed landscapes and support theinclusion of research-based design projects in peer-reviewed publications.

Finally, we are concerned that our research and edu-cation systems have not encouraged the interdiscipli-nary programs that might produce experts who under-stand both ecology and design. We feel that thisproblem needs to be addressed in the very early stagesof the education process, by promoting the enrollmentof ecology students in design studios, and encouragingdesign students to expand their coursework in the sci-ences. As McHarg appropriately stated in 1969, “Thereclearly is a desperate need for professionals who areconservationists by instinct, but who care not only topreserve but to create and manage” (McHarg 1969). Ifecologists do not recognize the importance of thedesigned landscape to their field and become involvedin the design process, they will not be prepared to meetthe challenges of the future: human population growth,degradation of landscapes, and competition for limitednatural resources.

� Acknowledgements

The authors thank W Jarrell for supporting the designprocess and the UIFRS stakeholders for participating ininterviews and design phase.

FFiigguurree 55.. Proposed (a) location, (b) diagram, (c) plan view,and (d) perspective view of the University of Illinois Researchand Education Center.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

219



220


� References Ahern J, Leduc E, and York ML. 2006. Biodiversity planning and

design – sustainable practices. Washington, DC: Island Press. Anderson ST and West SE. 2006. Open space, residential property

values, and spatial context. Reg Sci Urban Econ 3366: 773–89. Baschak LA and Brown RD. 1995. An ecological framework for the

planning, design and management of urban river greenways.Landscape Urban Plan 3333: 211–25.

Brandt J and Vejre H (Eds). 2004. Multifunctional landscapes, vol 1:theory, values and history. Southampton, UK: WIT Press.

Brody SD. 2003. Implementing the principles of ecosystem manage-ment through local land use planning. Popul Environ 2244:511–40.

Brown B. 1998. Holding moving landscapes. In: Brown B, HarknessT, and Johnston D (Eds). Eco-revelatory design: nature con-structed/nature revealed. Landscape J 1177: 52–68.

Calkins M. 2005. Strategy use and challenges of ecological design inlandscape architecture. Landscape Urban Plan 7733: 29–48.

Colding J. 2007. “Ecological land-use complementation” for build-ing resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape Urban Plan 8811:46–55.

de Groot R. 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assessland use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functionallandscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 7755: 175–86.

Diaz N and Apostol D. 1992. Forest landscape analysis and design –a process for developing and implementing land managementobjectives for landscape patterns. Portland, OR: United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestRegion. Publication no R6-ECO-TP-043-92.

Dunnett N and Clayden A. 2007. Rain gardens – managing watersustainably in the garden and designed landscape. Portland,OR: Timber Press.

Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, and Manning AD. 2006. Biodiversity,ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles forcommodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 44: 80–86.

Forman RTT. 2002. The missing catalyst: design and planning withecology roots. In: Johnson BR and Hill K (Eds). Ecology anddesign – frameworks for learning. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Galatowitsch SM. 1998. Ecological design for environmental prob-lem solving. In: Brown B, Harkness T, and Johnston D (Eds).Eco-revelatory design: nature constructed/nature revealed.Landscape J 1177: 99–107.

Grove JM, Cadenasso ML, Burch Jr WR, et al. 2006. Data andmethods comparing social structure and vegetation structure inurban neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. Soc Natur Resour1199: 117–36.

Gustafson EJ. 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what isthe state of the art? Ecosystem 11: 143–56.

Haeuber R. 1998. Ecosystem management and environmental pol-icy in the United States: open window or closed door? LandscapeUrban Plan 4400: 221–33.

Hough M. 1995. Cities and natural process. London, UK:Routledge.

Hulse D, Branscomb A, and Payne S. 2004. Envisioning alterna-

tives: using citizen guidance to map future land and water use. JEcol Appl 1144: 325–41.

Johnston DM and Braden JB. 2007. Green greens: economicimpacts of environmental improvement. In: Wescoat Jr JL andJohnston DM (Eds). Political economies of landscape change.New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Jordon N, Boody G, Broussard W, et al. 2007. Sustainable develop-ment of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 331166: 1570–71.

Lackey RT. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management.Landscape Urban Plan 4400: 21–30.

Lovell ST and Sullivan WC. 2006. Environmental benefits of con-servation buffers in the United States: evidence, promise, andopen questions. Agr Ecosyst Environ 111122: 249–60.

Lyle JT. 1999. Design for human ecosystems – landscape, land use,and natural resources. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Maidment D. 2002. Arc Hydro – GIS for water resources. Redlands,CA: ESRI Press.

Makhzoumi JM. 2000. Landscape ecology as a foundation for land-scape architecture: application in Malta. Landscape Urban Plan5500: 167–77.

McHarg IL. 1969. Design with nature. Garden City, NY: NaturalHistory Press.

Nassauer JI. 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics andecology. In: Nassauer JI (Ed). Placing nature: culture and land-scape ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Orr DW. 1992. Education and the ecological design arts. ConservBiol 66: 162–64.

Otte A, Simmering D, and Wolters V. 2007. Biodiversity at thelandscape level: recent concepts and perspectives for multifunc-tional land use. Landscape Ecol 2222: 639–42.

Spirn AW. 1985. The granite garden, urban nature and humandesign. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Steinitz C. 2002. On teaching ecological principles to designers. In:Johnson BR and Hill K (Eds). Ecology and design: frameworksfor learning. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Thompson JW and Sorvig K. 2000. Sustainable landscape construc-tion – a guide to green building outdoors. Washington, DC:Island Press.

Todd J, Brown EJG, and Wells E. 2003. Ecological design applied.Ecol Eng 2200: 421–40.

van Noordwijk M, Poulsen JG, and Erickson PJ. 2004. Quantifyingoff-site effects of land-use change: filters, flows and fallacies. AgrEcosyst Environ 110044: 19–34.

Viljoen A (Ed). 2005. CPULs – continuous productive urban land-scapes – designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities.Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

Watzin MC and McIntosh AW. 1999. Aquatic ecosystems in agri-cultural landscapes: a review of ecological indicators andachievable ecological outcomes. J Soil Water Conserv 5544:636–44.

Wiggering H, Muller K, Werner A, and Helming K. 2003. The con-cept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In:Helming K and Wiggering H (Eds). Sustainable development ofmultifunctional landscapes. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS Creating multifunctional landscapes...

Documents

Transcript of CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS Creating multifunctional landscapes...