3.9 Article

Exploring eco-aesthetics for urban green infrastructure development and building resilient cities: A theoretical overview

Journal

COGENT SOCIAL SCIENCES
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 1-18

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2018.1478492

Keywords

eco-aesthetics; green infrastructure; ecosystem services; resilience; socio-ecological resilience; Sub-Saharan Africa; Ghana

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eco-aesthetics offers cultural, socio-economic and environmental benefits for building sustainable green infrastructure systems. However, eco-aesthetics in urban green infrastructure is apparently inadequate in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), coupled with the high vulnerability of cities in the region to the impacts of climate change and environmental disasters. This creates fragile urban environments that undermine the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in SSA. The need to build more resilient cites in SSA with capabilities to survive and thrive amidst environmental problems is vital to ensure sustainable development. Literature review is used to explore the fundamental theories of eco-aesthetics and its possible contributions towards building resilient cities, with references to the case of a typical developing country in SSA, Ghana. Through discussions, this paper demonstrates how urban planning strategies directed towards eco-aesthetics will help cities, especially in SSA, achieve socio-ecological resilience and the SDGs. In order to successfully realise future proposals for eco-aesthetics in Ghana, three main factors likely to limit the implementation of eco-aesthetics are identified as financial, lack of awareness and land acquisition barriers. Recommendations for overcoming these barriers have been outlined to help promote eco-aesthetics and build socio-ecological resilient cities in Ghana and SSA in general.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available