IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p4666-d541149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process

Author

Listed:
  • Yoonshin Kwak

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA)

  • Brian Deal

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA)

  • Grant Mosey

    (School of Architecture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820, USA)

Abstract

Given that evolving urban systems require ever more sophisticated and creative solutions to deal with uncertainty, designing for resilience in contemporary landscape architecture represents a cross-disciplinary endeavor. While there is a breadth of research on landscape resilience within the academy, the findings of this research are seldom making their way into physical practice. There are existent gaps between the objective, scientific method of scientists and the more intuitive qualitative language of designers and practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to help bridge these gaps and ultimately support an endemic process for more resilient landscape design creation. This paper proposes a framework that integrates analytic research (i.e., modeling and examination) and design creation (i.e., place-making) using processes that incorporate feedback to help adaptively achieve resilient design solutions. Concepts of Geodesign and Planning Support Systems (PSSs) are adapted as part of the framework to emphasize the importance of modeling, assessment, and quantification as part of processes for generating information useful to designers. This paper tests the suggested framework by conducting a pilot study using a coupled sociohydrological model. The relationships between runoff and associated design factors are examined. Questions on how analytic outcomes can be translated into information for landscape design are addressed along with some ideas on how key variables in the model can be translated into useful design information. The framework and pilot study support the notion that the creation of resilient communities would be greatly enhanced by having a navigable bridge between science and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoonshin Kwak & Brian Deal & Grant Mosey, 2021. "Landscape Design toward Urban Resilience: Bridging Science and Physical Design Coupling Sociohydrological Modeling and Design Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4666-:d:541149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4666/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4666/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu Huang & Weining Xiang & Jianguo Wu & Christoph Traxler & Jingzhou Huang, 2019. "Integrating GeoDesign with Landscape Sustainability Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Hao Wang & Qiping Shen & Bo-sin Tang, 2014. "A Review of Planning Support Systems for Urban Land Use Planning," Springer Books, in: Jiayuan Wang & Zhikun Ding & Liang Zou & Jian Zuo (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 233-248, Springer.
    3. Leah V. Gibbons & Scott A. Cloutier & Paul J. Coseo & Ahmed Barakat, 2018. "Regenerative Development as an Integrative Paradigm and Methodology for Landscape Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    5. Anu Ramaswami & Christopher Weible & Deborah Main & Tanya Heikkila & Saba Siddiki & Andrew Duvall & Andrew Pattison & Meghan Bernard, 2012. "A Social‐Ecological‐Infrastructural Systems Framework for Interdisciplinary Study of Sustainable City Systems," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(6), pages 801-813, December.
    6. Francisco Javier Moreno Marimbaldo & Miguel-Ángel Manso-Callejo & Ramon Alcarria, 2018. "A Methodological Approach to Using Geodesign in Transmission Line Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-30, August.
    7. Helen Couclelis, 2005. "“Where has the Future Gone?†Rethinking the Role of Integrated Land-Use Models in Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(8), pages 1353-1371, August.
    8. Michele Campagna & Elisabetta Anna Di Cesare & Andrea Matta & Matteo Serra, 2018. "Bridging the Gap Between Strategic Environmental Assessment and Planning: A Geodesign Perspective," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 7(1), pages 34-52, January.
    9. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2017. "Collaborative use of geodesign tools to support decision-making on adaptation to climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 247-266, February.
    10. Brian Deal & Haozhi Pan & Varkki Pallathucheril & Gale Fulton, 2017. "Urban Resilience and Planning Support Systems: The Need for Sentience," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 29-45, January.
    11. N. Komninos & C. Kakderi & A. Panori & P. Tsarchopoulos, 2019. "Smart City Planning from an Evolutionary Perspective," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 3-20, April.
    12. Yexuan Gu & Brian Deal & Linda Larsen, 2018. "Geodesign Processes and Ecological Systems Thinking in a Coupled Human-Environment Context: An Integrated Framework for Landscape Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Michele Campagna & Elisabetta Anna Di Cesare & Chiara Cocco, 2020. "Integrating Green-Infrastructures Design in Strategic Spatial Planning with Geodesign," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    14. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2015. "Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    15. Fivos Papadimitriou, 2012. "The Algorithmic Complexity of Landscapes," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(5), pages 591-611, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kwak, Yoonshin & Deal, Brian & Heavisides, Tom, 2021. "A large scale multi criteria suitability analysis for identifying solar development potential: A decision support approach for the state of Illinois, USA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 554-567.
    2. Wei Gao & Gengyu Chen & Fanying Jiang & Jiake Shen & Yuncai Wang, 2021. "To Act or Not to Act: Are Natural Landscapes a Key Force in the Resilience of Historic Urban Landscapes?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-33, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    3. Duy X. Tran & Diane Pearson & Alan Palmer & David Gray, 2020. "Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-29, June.
    4. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    5. Pelzer, Peter, 2017. "Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 84-95.
    6. Gerber, Pierre J. & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Pak-uthai, Thanee & Robinson, Timothy P., 2008. "Decision support for spatially targeted livestock policies: Diverse examples from Uganda and Thailand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 37-51, March.
    7. Kwak, Yoonshin & Deal, Brian & Heavisides, Tom, 2021. "A large scale multi criteria suitability analysis for identifying solar development potential: A decision support approach for the state of Illinois, USA," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 554-567.
    8. te Brommelstroet, Marco, 2010. "Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 25-41.
    9. Sonali Sharma & Pawan Kumar Joshi & Christine Fürst, 2022. "Exploring Multiscale Influence of Urban Growth on Landscape Patterns of Two Emerging Urban Centers in the Western Himalaya," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.
    11. te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Bertolini, Luca, 2008. "Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 251-259, July.
    12. Yexuan Gu & Brian Deal & Linda Larsen, 2018. "Geodesign Processes and Ecological Systems Thinking in a Coupled Human-Environment Context: An Integrated Framework for Landscape Architecture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-24, September.
    13. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 96-107.
    14. Kai Lu & Tao Tang & Chunhai Gao, 2020. "The Depth-First Optimal Strategy Path Generation Algorithm for Passengers in a Metro Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.
    15. Sofia Eckersten & Berit Balfors & Ulrika Gunnarsson-Östling, 2021. "Challenges and Opportunities in Early Stage Planning of Transport Infrastructure Projects: Environmental Aspects in the Strategic Choice of Measures Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2020. "Planning support science: Developments and challenges," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1326-1342, October.
    17. Chiara Cocco & Piotr Jankowski & Michele Campagna, 2019. "An Analytic Approach to Understanding Process Dynamics in Geodesign Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    18. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    19. Ali Noudoostbeni & Kiran Kaur & Hashem Salarzadeh Jenatabadi, 2018. "A Comparison of Structural Equation Modeling Approaches with DeLone & McLean’s Model: A Case Study of Radio-Frequency Identification User Satisfaction in Malaysian University Libraries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Karina RADCHENKO, 2024. "Factors influencing the content of Smart City initiatives(particularly based on institutional theories of organization)," Smart Cities and Regional Development (SCRD) Journal, Smart-EDU Hub, Faculty of Public Administration, National University of Political Studies & Public Administration, vol. 8(3), pages 55-64, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4666-:d:541149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.