4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability

期刊

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 993-1013

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y

关键词

Sustainability science; Translational landscape research and practice; Landscape sustainability; Urbanization; Globalization; Coupled human and natural systems; Designed landscapes; Complex place-based problems; Human-nature interactions; Biodiversity conservation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landscape researchers and practitioners, using the lens of sustainability science, are breaking new ground about how people's behaviors and actions influence the structure, function, and change of designed landscapes in an urbanizing world. The phrase-the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability-is used to describe how sustainability science can contribute to translational landscape research and practice about the systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people's contact with nature, and complex place-based problems. In the first section of this article, important definitions about the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability are reviewed including the six Es of landscape sustainability-environment, economic, equity, aesthetics, experience, and ethics. A conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes is introduced. The interrelatedness, opportunities, contradictions, and limitations of the conceptual framework are discussed in relation to human health/security, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and resource management. The conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes follows the tradition in which landscape researchers and practitioners synthesize emerging trends into conceptual frameworks for advancing basic and applied activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据