IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i13p8220-d856200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green Infrastructure and Urban-Renewal Simulation for Street Tree Design Decision-Making: Moderating Demands of Stormwater Management, Sunlight and Visual Aesthetics

Author

Listed:
  • Nano Langenheim

    (Melbourne School of Design, University of Melbourne, Masson Rd, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia)

  • Marcus White

    (School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia)

Abstract

The design of green infrastructure in urban renewal sites is complex, requiring engagement with existing communities and future sustainable development goals, consideration of existing and future urban forms, changing climatic conditions, and the sites often being in low-lying and flood-prone areas. Traditional street tree decision-making approaches are inadequate for addressing the scale, environmental complexity, and mutability of decisions involved in urban renewal projects—new tree selection approaches that consider complex competing criteria for tree selections addressing stormwater management systems, visual assessment and solar amenity are needed. This paper describes a new method of multi-criteria street design decision modelling that combines outputs from hydrology modelling, digital procedural tree modelling and urban form analysis, with animation and gaming technologies. We evaluate our approach through application to the design of a large-scale, urban renewal project underway in Melbourne, Australia. The results of the study demonstrate the functionality of our model, which allowed the simultaneous output of streetscape visualisation, with tree selection responding to integrated stormwater management infrastructure and flooding, along with the likely overshadowing conditions of urban renewal built-form. Our multi-criteria approach makes a significant contribution to the tools available to urban designers, planners and landscape architects in their pursuit of smarter streetscape design decisions that respond to complex spatial, cultural and climatic urban challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Nano Langenheim & Marcus White, 2022. "Green Infrastructure and Urban-Renewal Simulation for Street Tree Design Decision-Making: Moderating Demands of Stormwater Management, Sunlight and Visual Aesthetics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-28, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:8220-:d:856200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/8220/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/13/8220/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcus R. White & Nano Langenheim, 2018. "A Spatio-Temporal Decision Support System for Designing With Street Trees," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 7(4), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Laurans, Yann & Mermet, Laurent, 2014. "Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 98-105.
    3. Elisa Palazzo, 2019. "From water sensitive to floodable: defining for water resilient cities," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 137-157, January.
    4. Sallis, James F & Bull, Fiona & Burdett, Ricky & Frank, Lawrence D. & Griffiths, Peter & Giles-Corti, Billie & Stevenson, Mark, 2016. "Use of science to guide city planning policy and practice: how to achieve healthy and sustainable future cities," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68652, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Jaecheol Kim, 2017. "Comparing the Influences of the D/H Ratio, Size, and Facade Design of an Enclosed Square on Its Perceptual Qualities as a Sustainable Urban Space in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Mohajeri, N. & Gudmundsson, A. & Kunckler, T. & Upadhyay, G. & Assouline, D. & Kämpf, J.H & Scartezzini, J.L., 2019. "A solar-based sustainable urban design: The effects of city-scale street-canyon geometry on solar access in Geneva, Switzerland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 173-190.
    7. Arlie Adkins & Jennifer Dill & Gretchen Luhr & Margaret Neal, 2012. "Unpacking Walkability: Testing the Influence of Urban Design Features on Perceptions of Walking Environment Attractiveness," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 499-510.
    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. Jin Su & Mo Wang & Mohd Adib Mohammad Razi & Norlida Mohd Dom & Noralfishah Sulaiman & Lai-Wai Tan, 2023. "A Bibliometric Review of Nature-Based Solutions on Urban Stormwater Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Gretchen M. Luchauer & Stephanie Freeman-Day & Burnell C. Fischer, 2023. "Urban Stream Corridors and Forest Patches—The Connections: A Case Study of Bloomington, IN," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, May.

    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. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Valentinas Podvezko & Ieva Ubarte & Arturas Kaklauskas, 2017. "MCDM Assessment of a Healthy and Safe Built Environment According to Sustainable Development Principles: A Practical Neighborhood Approach in Vilnius," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-30, April.
    2. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    3. Marre, Jean-Baptiste & Billé, Raphaël, 2019. "A demand-driven approach to ecosystem services economic valuation: Lessons from Pacific island countries and territories," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Nibedita Mukherjee & Jean Huge & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas & Nico Koedam, 2014. "Ecosystem service valuations of mangrove ecosystems to inform decision making and future valuation exercises," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/217963, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Johan Nordensvard & Jason Alexandra & Markus Ketola, 2021. "Internalizing Animals and Ecosystems in Social Citizenship and Social Policy: From Political Community to Political Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Sustainable Streetscape and Built Environment Designs around BRT Stations: A Stated Choice Experiment Using 3D Visualizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    7. Judith Schröder & Susanne Moebus & Julita Skodra, 2022. "Selected Research Issues of Urban Public Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-28, May.
    8. Eggimann, Sven, 2022. "Expanding urban green space with superblocks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    9. Battista, Geoffrey A. & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Stores and mores: Toward socializing walkability," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 53-60.
    10. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Paula Hooper & Sarah Foster & Billie Giles-Corti, 2019. "A Case Study of a Natural Experiment Bridging the ‘Research into Policy’ and ‘Evidence-Based Policy’ Gap for Active-Living Science," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    12. Hrabrin Bachev, 2021. "Modes of Governance for Ecosystem Services in Bulgarian Farms," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 8, pages 145-174.
    13. Jeffrey, Dana & Boulangé, Claire & Giles-Corti, Billie & Washington, Simon & Gunn, Lucy, 2019. "Using walkability measures to identify train stations with the potential to become transit oriented developments located in walkable neighbourhoods," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 221-231.
    14. Schindler, Mirjam & Wang, Judith Y.T. & Connors, Richard D., 2021. "A two-stage residential location and transport mode choice model with exposure to traffic-induced air pollution," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. Massingue, Suzanna Allen & Oviedo, Daniel, 2021. "Walkability and the Right to the city: A snapshot critique of pedestrian space in Maputo, Mozambique," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    17. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    18. Bogyeong Lee & Sungjoo Hwang & Hyunsoo Kim, 2021. "The Feasibility of Information-Entropy-Based Behavioral Analysis for Detecting Environmental Barriers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    20. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:13:p:8220-:d:856200. 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.