Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T05:09:07.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Design and Planning of Residential Landscapes to Manage the Carbon Cycle: Invention and Variation in Land Use and Land Cover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

By
Lauren Lesch Marshall  and
Joan Iverson Nassauer
Edited by
Daniel G. Brown ,
Derek T. Robinson ,
Nancy H. F. French  and
Bradley C. Reed
Daniel G. Brown
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Derek T. Robinson
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Nancy H. F. French
Affiliation:
Michigan Technological University
Bradley C. Reed
Affiliation:
United States Geological Survey, California
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Science has advanced our understanding of the interactions between landscape patterns and processes, including the relationship among land use, land cover, and carbon (C) sequestration. However, there is a gap between this understanding and its implementation in policy and on-the-ground decision making. Design can help to bridge this gap when it is based on scientific knowledge as well as values that are recognized by citizens and society (Nassauer and Opdam 2008).

Innovative designs that offer new, environmentally beneficial landscape patterns can also intentionally use the appearance of landscapes to represent recognizable cultural values. While the C cycle is only partly visible to humans, the plants and landforms that affect C cycling are vividly apparent; it dramatically affects how people value landscapes (Gobster et al. 2007). Because landscapes that provide ecosystem services do not necessarily look attractive or valuable, visible cues to value sometimes must be intentionally “added in” by design (Nassauer 1992). Such cues include scenic landscape beauty, as well as clear signs of human presence, such as neatness and care (Nassauer 1995). Design can help to ensure that landscape patterns that enhance C storage endure over time, protected from human disturbances, if the landscape looks valuable or attractive. Aligning human perceptions and cultural values with ecosystem services by design may help to create landscapes that are both culturally and ecologically sustainable (Nassauer 1997).

Type
Chapter
Information
Land Use and the Carbon Cycle
Advances in Integrated Science, Management, and Policy
 , pp. 477 - 502
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amthor, J.S., and Huston, M.A. 1998. Terrestrial ecosystem responses to global change: A research strategy, ed. E.W. Group. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Baer, S.G., Rice, C.W., and Blair, J.M. 2000. Assessment of soil quality in fields with short and long term enrollment in the CRP. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(2):142–146.Google Scholar
Brown, D.G., Johnson, K.M., Loveland, T.R., and Theobald, D.M. 2005. Rural land-use trends in the conterminous United States 1950–2000. Ecological Applications, 15(6):1851–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duiker, S., and Lal, R. 1999. Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon sequestration in a luvisol in central Ohio. Soil and Tillage Research, 52(1–2):73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornara, D., and Tilman, D. 2008. Plant functional composition influences rates of soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. Journal of Ecology, 96:314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galatowitsch, S., Frelish, L., and Phillips-Mao, L. 2009. Regional climate change adaptation strategies for biodiversity conservation in a midcontinental region of North America. Biological Conservation, 142:2012–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galatowitsch, S.M. 2009. Carbon offsets as ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 17(5):563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B. 2000. Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C., and Fry, G. 2007. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22:959–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D.E., and Brown, R.D. 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(1):57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A.J., Knight, R.L., Marzluff, J.M., Powell, S., Brown, K., Gude, P.H., and Jones, K. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Pattern, mechanisms and research needs. Ecological Applications, 15(6):1893–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabro, J.D., Sainju, U., Stevens, W.B., and Evans, R.G. 2008. Carbon dioxide flux as affected by tillage and irrigation in soil converted from perennial forages to annual crops. Journal of Environmental Management, 88:1478–1484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environmental Behavior, 33(4):507–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knops, J., and Tilman, D. 2000. Dynamics of soil nitrogen and carbon accumulation for 61 years after agricultural abandonment. Ecology, 81(1):88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M., and Sullivan, W.C. 1998. Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety and preference. Environmental Behavior, 30(1):135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurganova, I., De Gerenyu, V., Myakshina, T., Sapronov, D., Lichko, V., and Yermolaev, A. 2008. Changes in carbon stocks of former croplands in Russia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 15(4):10–15.Google Scholar
Lewis, J.L. 2008. Perceptions of landscape change in a rural British Columbia community. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(1):49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C.A. 2003. Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.: Practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes and restrictions. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(1):9–17.Google Scholar
McPherson, G., Simpson, J., Marconett, D., Peper, P., and Aguaron, E. 2009. Urban forests and climate change [online]. USDA, Forest Service. .
Milesi, C., and Running, S.W. 2005. Biogeochemical cycling of turf grass in the U.S. Environmental Management, 36(3):426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misgav, A. 2000. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48:143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., and Nair, V.D. 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172:10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 1988. The aesthetics of horticulture: Neatness as a form of care. American Society of Horticultural Science, 23(6):973–977.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology, 6(4):239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 1993. Ecological function and the perception of suburban residential landscapes. In Managing urban and high use recreation settings, ed. P.H. Gobster. Gen. tech. rep. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2):161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J. I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology, ed. J.I. Nassauer. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 2004. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands, 24(4):756–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J.I. 2011. Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100:321–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, J.I., Halverson, B., and Roos, S. 1997. Bringing garden amenities into your neighborhood: Infrastructure for ecological quality a guidebook for cities and citizens. Duluth: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Nassauer, J.I., and Opdam, P. 2008. Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 23:633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassauer, , , J.I., Wang, Z., and Dayrell, , , E. 2009. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92:282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouyat, R., Groffman, P.M., Yesilonis, I., and Hernandez, L. 2002. Soil carbon pools and fluxes in urban ecosystems. Environmental Pollution, 116:S107–S118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qian, Y.L., Bandaranayake, W., Parton, W.J., Mecham, B., Harivandi, M.A., and Mosier, A.R. 2003. Landscape and watershed processes: Long term effect of clipping and nitrogen management in turfgrass on soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics: The century model simulation. Journal of Environmental Quality, 32:1694–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rishbeth, C. 2005. Ethno-cultural representation in the urban landscape. Journal of Urban Design, 9(3):311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, C.E., and Mirowsky, J. 1999. Disorder and decay: The concept and measurement of perceived neighborhood disorder. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3):412–434.Google Scholar
Sainju, U., Senwo, Z., Nyakatawa, E., Tazisong, I., and Reddy, K. 2008. Tillage, cropping systems, and nitrogen fertilizer source effects on soil carbon sequestration and fractions. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37(3):880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schroeder, H.W., and Anderson, L.M. 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16:178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J.A., Currie, W.S., Eshleman, K.N., Kuers, K., Monteleone, S., Negley, T.L.,…Thomas, C.L. 2008. Forest to reclaimed mind land use change leads to altered ecosystem structure and function. Ecological Applications, 18(1):104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirgy, M.J., and Cornwell, T. 2002. How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 59:79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbeiss, S., Bebler, H., Engels, C., Temperton, V.M., Buchmann, N., Roscher, C.,…Gleixner, G., 2008. Plant diversity positively affects short-term soil carbon storage in experimental grasslands. Global Change Biology, 14:2937–2949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend-Small, A., and Czimczick, C.I. 2010. Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf. Geophysical Research Letters, 37:L02707.Google Scholar
Turner, K., Lefler, L., and Freedman, B. 2005. Plant communities of selected urbanized areas of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71:191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Little Arnot photograph series [online]. .
Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., and Dokken, D.J. 2000. IPCC special report on land use, land-use change and forestry [online]. .
West, T., and Post, W. 2002. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation a global data analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66(6):1930–1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, K.J.H., and Cary, J. 2002. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environmental Behavior, 34(2):256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, K.L. 2003. Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3):117–126.Google Scholar

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
×