Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:19:39.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - Pattern: process metaphors for metropolitan landscapes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2010

Mark J. McDonnell
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne and University of Melbourne
Amy K. Hahs
Affiliation:
Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne and University of Melbourne
Jürgen H. Breuste
Affiliation:
Universität Salzburg
Get access

Summary

Introduction

A broad-based consensus exists among the experts in the ecological, design and planning disciplines that the conservation and restoration of riparian landscapes and watersheds is one of the most important strategies for maintaining regional biodiversity, watershed health and landscape character (e.g. visual quality and sense of place) in the United States (e.g. Naiman et al.,1993; Smith and Hellmund, 1993; Beatley 1994; Forman, 1995; Naiman and Décamps, 1997; Noss et al., 1997; Beatley, 2000; Poiani et al., 2000). Yet this conservation and restoration still represents a unique situation because of the limited scientific research into urban ecosystems and the unique land-use and land-cover issues of metropolitan regions (Guntenspergen et al., Chapter 29). For example, riparian landscapes are part of floodplain systems, which have unique human-induced landscape transformation characteristics that involve regulation, infrastructure demands, stakeholders' environmental values, land-use patterns and recreational activities.

The metropolitan region is a perfect opportunity for linking conservation science to the design and planning of urban riparian landscapes and watersheds. Yet, experts in these disciplines have not reached consensus about the best approach for balancing concerns for regional biodiversity, water quality and quantity, landscape character and recreational use. At times, these disciplines have conflicting perspectives about which of these goals is most important in the urban environment. Many scholars attribute this problem to a lack of a holistic vocabulary that aids translation of disciplinary theories and concepts (McIntyre et al., 2000; Musacchio and Wu, 2004; Pickett et al., 2004, Chapter 3).

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecology of Cities and Towns
A Comparative Approach
, pp. 484 - 502
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×