IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2022i1p39-d1012441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Is the Future of the Bush Capital? A Socio-Ecological Approach to Enhancing Canberra’s Green Infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Fahimeh Mofrad

    (School of Design, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia)

  • Maria Ignatieva

    (School of Design, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia)

Abstract

Canberra, a city known as a “garden city” that emerged in the early twentieth century, is developing at a speedy rate. The compact city vision for Canberra was announced in ACT Planning Strategy 2018 while the city encounters climate change impacts. Although urban compaction has its own benefits, it is considered a challenge for maintaining and developing the quality and quantity of urban green spaces. Canberra owns a unique urban design legacy and is known for its bush capital/garden city character, which has intertwined the social and ecological layers of the city. The concern around urban compaction and densification calls for holistic green infrastructure (GI) planning to balance the built and non-built infrastructure. To do so, it is necessary to understand the underlying social-cultural and ecological layers of Canberra’s green spaces and the Ecosystem Services (ESS) they offer. The application of multiple ESS in the current GI planning and governance practices is another issue that needs to be examined to inform future development. Thus, this qualitative research seeks to understand the ESS discourses in Canberra’s GI and the challenges in applying these ESS in planning and governance. We used a socio-ecological approach to design the research and understand the multidimensional values and benefits of Canberra’s green spaces. We adopted semi-structured interviews with twelve experts from relevant disciplines with specific knowledge of Canberra’s urban landscape and green spaces to find out the socio-ecological synopsis of Canberra’s GI and green spaces governance. We found that it is necessary to mainstream multiple ESS in Canberra’s GI to amplify the existing socio-ecological values. The abundance of green spaces in Canberra can be better used to make a multifunctional landscape that serves multiple ESS. However, we identified the maintenance and budget issues as the main challenges that can be addressed by improving community engagement. To design an effective GI network and mainstream ESS in green spaces, the planning and governance system should employ a transdisciplinary, multi-object and multi-scale approach and state-of-the-art technologies. Moreover, this research underlined the importance of a protocol and guidelines that monitor the landscape projects’ design and delivery correspondence to the high-level policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Fahimeh Mofrad & Maria Ignatieva, 2022. "What Is the Future of the Bush Capital? A Socio-Ecological Approach to Enhancing Canberra’s Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:39-:d:1012441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/39/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/39/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela Heymans & Jessica Breadsell & Gregory M. Morrison & Joshua J. Byrne & Christine Eon, 2019. "Ecological Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Jackie Parker & Greg D. Simpson, 2020. "A Theoretical Framework for Bolstering Human-Nature Connections and Urban Resilience via Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Mansoureh Gholami & Daniele Torreggiani & Patrizia Tassinari & Alberto Barbaresi, 2022. "Developing a 3D City Digital Twin: Enhancing Walkability through a Green Pedestrian Network (GPN) in the City of Imola, Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Abdulaziz I. Almulhim & Simon Elias Bibri & Ayyoob Sharifi & Shakil Ahmad & Khalid Mohammed Almatar, 2022. "Emerging Trends and Knowledge Structures of Urbanization and Environmental Sustainability: A Regional Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Martina Artmann & Katharina Sartison, 2018. "The Role of Urban Agriculture as a Nature-Based Solution: A Review for Developing a Systemic Assessment Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-32, June.
    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. Pia Minixhofer & Rosemarie Stangl, 2021. "Green Infrastructures and the Consideration of Their Soil-Related Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas—A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Luiza Vigne Bennedetti & Paulo Antônio de Almeida Sinisgalli & Maurício Lamano Ferreira & Fabiano Lemes de Oliveira, 2023. "Challenges to Promote Sustainability in Urban Agriculture Models: A Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Ana M. Bartolome & Deiyalí A. Carpio & Beatriz Urbano, 2022. "Urban Agriculture Digital Planning for the European Union’s Green Deal," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(59), pages 159-159.
    4. Salvador Rivas-Aceves & Sarah Schmidt, 2022. "Sustainable Gardening for Economic Inclusion, Poverty Reduction, and Culture Preservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Ying Yan & Abdol Aziz Shahraki, 2023. "Exploring the Mutual Relationships between Public Space and Social Satisfaction with Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Mário Santos & Helena Moreira & João Alexandre Cabral & Ronaldo Gabriel & Andreia Teixeira & Rita Bastos & Alfredo Aires, 2022. "Contribution of Home Gardens to Sustainable Development: Perspectives from A Supported Opinion Essay," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Baptiste J-P. Grard & Nastaran Manouchehri & Christine Aubry & Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste & Claire Chenu, 2020. "Potential of Technosols Created with Urban By-Products for Rooftop Edible Production," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Carolina Yacamán Ochoa & Daniel Ferrer Jiménez & Rafael Mata Olmo, 2020. "Green Infrastructure Planning in Metropolitan Regions to Improve the Connectivity of Agricultural Landscapes and Food Security," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, October.
    10. Qureshi, Salman & Tarashkar, Mahsa & Matloobi, Mansour & Wang, Zhifang & Rahimi, Akbar, 2022. "Understanding the dynamics of urban horticulture by socially-oriented practices and populace perception: Seeking future outlook through a comprehensive review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    11. Hyung-Suk Kim & Kyu-Won Kim, 2021. "Sustainable Landscapes in the Traditional Korean Residential Environment: Focus on the Joseon Dynasty," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Jackie Parker & Greg D. Simpson, 2020. "A Theoretical Framework for Bolstering Human-Nature Connections and Urban Resilience via Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, July.
    13. Starfinger, Marcel & Tham, La Thi & Tegegne, Yitagesu Tekle, 2023. "Tree collateral – A finance blind spot for small-scale forestry? A realist synthesis review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    14. Xiaotian Ji & Xiaobao Peng & Sihan Hou, 2025. "What Kind of Relationship Between Government and Business Can Stimulate Regional Green Innovation Development?—Analysis Based on Mixed Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-23, January.
    15. Su Wang & Huaidong He & Qingqing Xiao, 2023. "Coupling Study of Urban Ecological Planning and Environmental Music in Hefei University Town, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Rosmah Murdad & Mardiana Muhiddin & Wan Hurani Osman & Nor Elliza Tajidin & Zainol Haida & Azwan Awang & Mohamadu Boyie Jalloh, 2022. "Ensuring Urban Food Security in Malaysia during the COVID-19 Pandemic—Is Urban Farming the Answer? A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-24, March.
    17. Xinghua Feng & Chunliang Xiu & Jianxin Li & Yexi Zhong, 2021. "Measuring the Evolution of Urban Resilience Based on the Exposure–Connectedness–Potential (ECP) Approach: A Case Study of Shenyang City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    18. Gupta, Pranav & Bharat, Alka & McCullen, Nick & Kershaw, Tristan, 2025. "Promoting sustainable land management: An innovative approach to land-take decision-making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    19. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2025. "Urban Ecosystem Services: Agroecology, Green Spaces, and Environmental Quality for Sustainable Futures," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-8, January.
    20. Evans, D.L. & Falagán, N. & Hardman, C.A. & Kourmpetli, S. & Liu, L. & Mead, B.R. & Davies, J.A.C., 2022. "Ecosystem service delivery by urban agriculture and green infrastructure – a systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(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:jlands:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:39-:d:1012441. 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.