IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3914-d528485.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges for Landscape Architecture: Designed Urban Ecosystems and Social Acceptance

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Salizzoni

    (Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy)

Abstract

The creation of new ecosystems within urban contexts has undeniable benefits for city dwellers in terms of increased urban biodiversity and related provisioning of ecosystem services. However, designing new ecosystems in areas with a high population density or which are subject to intensive use may also generate negative impacts on the anthropic dimension and cause social conflicts that, in turn, can undermine the project’s effectiveness. This article focuses on the quite unexplored issue of anthropic “costs” that new urban ecosystems can generate, and on design and management challenges that they open up in terms of social acceptance. Landscape architecture, as a synthesis of ecological, aesthetic, and ethical aspects, seems to be the most appropriate framework for adopting a holistic approach to the design of new urban ecosystems. The article analyzes three Italian landscape architecture projects. All projects adopted spatial measures oriented at fostering perception, understanding, and acceptance of the recreated ecosystems, while preserving them from anthropic impacts. However, these efforts are sometimes jeopardized by a lack of concomitant operational measures, such as stakeholder involvement and site maintenance. Co-existence of delicate habitats and urban functions is thus not utopic but asks that projects effectively integrate ecological sciences, landscape design and management, as well as social-oriented practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Salizzoni, 2021. "Challenges for Landscape Architecture: Designed Urban Ecosystems and Social Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3914-:d:528485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3914/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3914/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    3. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Baker, K. & Baylis, K. & Bull, G.Q. & Barichello, R., 2019. "Are non-market values important to smallholders' afforestation decisions? A psychometric segmentation and its implications for afforestation programs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    6. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    7. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Byeong-Il Ahn & Eui-Gyeong Kim, 2016. "Metropolitan Residents’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Life Zone Forest for Mitigating Heat Island Effects during Summer Season in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    8. Gałecka-Drozda Anna & Raszeja Elżbieta, 2018. "Useful wasteland - the potential of undeveloped land in modification of urban green infrastructure based on the city of Poznań," Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development, Sciendo, vol. 22(4), pages 225-230, December.
    9. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    10. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "PES for the poor? Preferences of potential buyers of forest ecosystem services for including distributive goals in the design of payments for conserving the dry spiny forest in Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 71-79.
    12. Dimitrios Kalfas & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for Urban and Suburban Green," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    13. Permadi, Dwiko B. & Burton, Michael & Pandit, Ram & Race, Digby & Walker, Iain, 2018. "Local community's preferences for accepting a forestry partnership contract to grow pulpwood in Indonesia: A choice experiment study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 73-83.
    14. Sato, Masayuki & Aoshima, Ippei & Chang, Youngho, 2021. "Connectedness to nature and the conservation of the urban ecosystem: Perspectives from the valuation of urban forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    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:7:p:3914-:d:528485. 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.