Susta inabl e L ands cape P l a nn i n g

This book takes as its starting point the need to examine critically the case
for landscape reconnection. It looks at alleged disconnections and their
supposed consequences. It explores the arguments about reconnecting the
natural and human elements of whole landscapes. More broadly, it considers
landscape as an arena within which science, humanities and professions can
find common ground, and in which vivid social learning can occur about
key social and environmental issues. It takes a dynamic view of landscape, in
contrast to the popular image of timeless, traditional scenery. It accepts that
even the most cherished cultural landscapes will change and, indeed, it views
‘change drivers’ as a potentially positive means of creating new connectivities
between people and place. It recognises the growing interest in promoting
resilience and ecosystem services across extensive landscapes – such as by
creating new ‘space’ for water and wildlife.

Paul Selman is Emeritus Professor of Landscape at the University of Sheffield,

where he was formerly Head of Department. He has published extensively
on landscape, environmental management and sustainable development,
and has undertaken research for a range of government agencies as well as
Research Councils.
Su s t a i nab l e L an d scape
Pla n n i ng

T he Re con ne c t i o n A g e n d a

Paul Sel ma n
First published 2012
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2012 Paul Selman
The right of Paul Selman to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Selman, Paul H.
Sustainable landscape planning : the reconnection agenda / Paul Selman.
  p. cm.
“Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada”–T.p. verso.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Ecological landscape design. 2. Ecological landscape design–
Europe. 3. Sustainable development–Planning. 4. Sustainable
development–Europe–Planning. 5. Landscape ecology. 6. Landscape
ecology–Europe. 7. Landscape protection. 8. Landscape protection–
Europe. 9. Land use–Environmental aspects. 10. Land use–
Environmental aspects–Europe. I. Title.
SB472.45.S45 2012
658.4´083–dc23                  2012000773
ISBN: 978-1-84971-262-0 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-84971-263-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-11986-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by HWA Text and Data Management, London
Co nte nts

List of figures vi
List of tables viii
List of boxes ix

1 Landscape – connections and disconnections 1

2 Functions, services and values of landscapes 21

3 Change and resilience in landscapes 42

4 Physical connections in landscapes 68

5 Social connections in landscapes 91

6 Landscape connectivity in the future: thinking and doing 118

References 143
Index 157
Figures

1.1 The Peak District National Park, UK: a classic example of a

relatively wild landscape that has evolved through an interplay
between physical geography and human activities 3
1.2 Cultural landscape: seen and unseen forms, relationships,
practices and processes 5
1.3 The cultural landscape as an integrative medium for multiple
fields of knowledge 19
2.1 The cultural landscape as a system of structures, functions,
services and values 23
2.2 A taxonomy of ecosystem services 24
2.3 Active management of woodland in the South Yorkshire Forest,
UK, to promote multifunctional benefits of biodiversity,
recreation, scenery, community engagement and sustainable fuel 25
2.4 Principal physical systems and their spatial linkages within the
landscape 28
2.5 The nature and benefits of social learning 37
2.6 Vicious and virtuous circles in the landscape 40
2.7 Broad linkages between natural and social landscape systems 41
3.1 An illustrative DPSIR model for the cultural landscape 44
3.2 Combinations of knowable and unknowable circumstances in
future situations 53
3.3 A recently established flood meadow in Gelderland,
The Netherlands, managed for biodiversity and periodic
floodwater storage 56
3.4 Transformative change in a social–ecological system 61
4.1 Flooding in the Upper Don Valley, Sheffield 73
4.2 A DPSIR model of flood generation in agricultural landscapes 75
4.3 Effect of urbanization on water discharge peaks 78
4.4 Idealized elements of an ecological network 85
4.5 Progressive development of a hypothetical landscape network 87
4.6 Key areas of connectivities between natural systems and their
links to people 89
 List of figures vii

5.1 Lindisfarne Island, UK: a key example of a landscape possessing

great time-depth and cultural resonances, which combine with
highly distinctive physical qualities 93
5.2 A summary of linkages between people and their landscapes 117
6.1 Residents in the Dearne Valley, South Yorkshire, UK, create a
frieze depicting past and future engagements with the river
landscape 124
6.2 Building landscape quality objectives into future scenarios 125
6.3 Alternative strategic emphases related to landscape character
and condition 126
6.4 Multiple ecosystem services in a connected urban landscape in
Massachusetts, USA: the Back Bay Fens and Boston Common
in Boston’s ‘Emerald Necklace’ 128
6.5 Arenas for pursuing landscape connectedness through improved
policy, planning, design and management 142
Ta ble s

1.1 Cultural landscape: the seen and unseen 4

1.2 Demographic factors that appear to influence our relationship to
landscape 12
3.1 Desirable drivers of landscape change and key delivery
mechanisms for their attainment 47
3.2 Enabling society to adapt to shocks in the behaviour of cultural
landscape systems: an idealized illustration of differences
between classical natural resource management theory and
ecological resilience theory 65
4.1 Climate adaptation via green infrastructure – an indicative
typology 72
4.2 The nature and function of blue infrastructure 80
5.1 Planning measures that can support the multifunctional benefits
of urban agriculture 115
6.1 Relating GI ‘services’ to social policy priorities 131
Boxes

1.1 Guidance to UK politicians on multifunctional landscape 7

1.2 The various ways in which humans might respond to nature 9
2.1 The key drivers of landscape change 22
2.2 Services and benefits of green space 27
2.3 Estimated climatic services of wooded landscapes 30
3.1 Potential key drivers of landscape change in the twenty-first
century 45
3.2 Principal areas of similarity between social–ecological systems
and cultural landscapes 49
3.3 Key concepts relating to the resilience of social–ecological
systems 59
4.1 A summary of landscape intervention effects on an urban
climate 71
4.2 Key reasons for urban flooding associated with grey
infrastructure 74
4.3 Some benefits of SuDS 77
4.4 Effects of climate change on species and habitats 83
4.5 Key principles and components of an ecological network 86
5.1 Cultural ecosystem services of landscape 94
5.2 Links between social capital and sense of place 98
6.1 Key landscape-related themes emerging from scenarios about
the future 122
6.2 Landscape quality objectives for Catalonia 127
6.3 Selected proposals for landscape connection in government
policy 130
6.4 Different types of green space that can be integrated into green
infrastructure 132
6.5 Potential barriers to the implementation of GI 136
6.6 Potential ways of securing forest habitat networks 138
Ch a p t e r 1

L and sc a pe – con n e ct i o n s a n d
dis c o nne c ti on s

I n t rodu ction
Most people feel they have a reasonably clear idea of what landscape means.
Typically, they think of fine scenery, a painting, a designed garden, an urban
park, or perhaps their local green spaces. In reality, even people who claim to be
specialists in landscape rarely understand its full range of meanings. Landscape
architects, landscape ecologists, cultural geographers, physical geographers,
art historians, spatial planners, archaeologists, social psychologists and others
use the term in very different ways and often have blind spots about each
other’s theories and methods. Landscape is a term that is both disputed
between specialists and also difficult to translate between languages.
The origins of the term ‘landscape’ have been widely discussed. Writers
agree that the most influential terms have been the German ‘landschäft’ and
the Dutch ‘landschap’ (or, archaically, ‘landskab’). It has been suggested that
these are, respectively, a geographically ‘bounded area’ and a more visual
or artistic ‘perceived area’. Wylie (2007) helpfully explores the ambiguities
in these apparently simple distinctions. Different nuances of these terms,
and their equivalents in various languages, may imply additional ideas
about ownership and belonging, regional identity, and physical morphology.
As Wylie notes, dictionary definitions typically converge on the idea of
landscape being a portion of land or scenery that the eye can view at once.
This notion conflicts, however, with scholarly and professional practices
that study landscape ecological processes over ranges of many kilometres,
map landscape character across regions, or deconstruct unseen qualities that
contribute to ‘place’.
Broadly speaking, different conceptions of landscape locate themselves
along a spectrum from a visual and painterly view at one end, where a framed
scene with selectively foregrounded features is captured for an admiring gaze,
to a more inhabited concept of landscape at the other, where people, land and
history combine to create a sense of belonging associated with a mappable
region. The extremes overlap extensively – a landscape painting is often
of greatest interest for the people, customs or work that it depicts, whilst
2 Sustainable Landscape Planning

landscapes noted for their distinctive culture and history will often also be
recognizable by their scenery.
Many languages lack a term that adequately translates landscape. Problems
even arise in Europe between the Germanic north’s landschäft (landscape,
landschap, etc.) and the Romance south’s paysage (paesaggio, paisaje, etc.),
whose meanings differ significantly. Over the past century or so, the scientific
appropriation of landscape has added new complexities. Geomorphologists
refer to landscape as the physical nature of the earth’s surface, on which
formative processes operate. Ecologists see landscape as a land–water area
larger than the habitat, across which species act out their life-cycle processes
of birth, immigration, death and emigration; whilst archaeologists conceive
of an area beyond the individual site or monument that is infused with a
complementary time-depth. Sustainability scientists refer to landscape as
a space possessing multifunctional properties that integrate natural and
human ecosystem services, whilst resilience scientists view landscape as an
encompassing social–ecological system that is vulnerable to destabilization.
Behavioural scientists understand landscape as a human life-space that
provides us with affordances for survival and pleasure, and which affect our
behaviour, mood and well-being. In terms of creative enterprise, throughout
most of civilization, skilled designers have converted land into landscape,
using physical materials and plants to create gardens, parks, demesnes,
squares and other private and public spaces.
This book concerns the cultural landscape, a term that also lends itself to
endless dispute. The European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe,
2000) has defined landscape as an area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors – a definition that is now widely accepted by practitioners, although
scholars would dissect it mercilessly. Pragmatically, however, it is a useful
working definition. The overriding feature is that ‘culture’ combines with
‘nature’, so that human agency becomes an important driver of a landscape’s
appearance and functionality (Figure 1.1).
Landscape is different from scenery, although in popular language they
are rarely separated; even in policy and technical language the two may
be conflated. Scenery is essentially visual – it may simply be enjoyed as a
sweep of countryside, or it may be mapped by techniques that identify its
characteristics and possibly even quantify its relative importance. The visual
qualities of landscape – delightful or dramatic scenery, generally combined
with ‘picture postcard’ villages – have, in practice, dominated spatial planning
and environmental management policy, despite the occasional statement
suggesting a more sophisticated view. Yi-Fu Tuan (1977) has also shown how
‘scenery’ is in part imaginary and illusory, comparable to a staged performance
in drama. More recent researchers have emphasized how landscapes have
been appropriated and airbrushed, so that they can be commodified for
commercial purposes such as promoting tourism and speciality foods.
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 3

Figure 1.1 The Peak District National Park, UK: a classic example of a relatively wild
landscape that has evolved through an interplay between physical geography and human
activities

Landscape, even as a painterly artifice or as a designed area of public

realm, comprises far more than the visual, although, given the primacy
of sight amongst the senses, it is usually something that people intuitively
‘perceive’. In addition to its perceived properties, however, landscape is
rich with stories, nutrient cycles, carbon fluxes, customary laws, economic
activities and manifold other mysteries. The crises faced by many landscapes,
and the potential of landscape to frame lives, livelihoods, scientific enquiry
and public policy, cannot be understood within a narrowly visual conception.
An understanding of landscape must go ‘beyond the view’ (Countryside
Agency, 2006). The multifaceted nature of landscape – comprising a spectrum
of interconnected relationships, practices and processes – is summarised in
Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2.

T he dis conne ct ed l a ndsca pe

This book addresses a core challenge facing contemporary cultural
landscapes. The landscape is more than mere scenery – it is a complex
system comprising natural and social subsystems. Its properties derive from
4 Sustainable Landscape Planning

Table 1.1 Cultural landscape: the seen and unseen (based on Countryside Agency, 2006;
Stephenson, 2007)
Practices Processes Relationships
Experience • the experience of • localization of • meanings,
health and well- culture memories, stories
being • globalization of and symbolism
• creating places that culture • aesthetic and
have meaning and • place-making spiritual qualities
identity • sense of belonging
• hefting and • in-dwelling
traversing
History • remanence of • decay and renewal • genealogical links
former activities • laws and customs
and structures
Land use • construction • human influences • formal land
• farming, forestry on air, water and ownership and
and other land soil dynamics rights
management • cultural
• energy production expectations
and transmission regarding wise use
• communication and access across
networks all land
Natural • land drainage and • landform evolution • sacred sites
form regrading • soil development • inspirational
• restoration and and degradation qualities of hills,
reclamation • coastal processes coastline etc.
Wildlife • wildlife • life-cycle processes • ethical attitudes
management of wild species towards nature
• effects of other • cultural
land uses on perceptions of
biodiversity ‘weed’ and ‘pest’
• reintroduction and species
re-wilding

the dynamic relations between these subsystems, producing a whole that

is more than the sum of the parts. Both in terms of their visual coherence
and their unseen processes, landscapes have generally become more
‘disconnected’ in ways that compromise their character, sustainability
and resilience. A unifying goal of policy, planning and science is thus
to reconnect landscapes in a range of physical and social ways. Physical
reconnections, for example, entail joining up vegetated networks within
an ecological habitat matrix; social ones may involve recovering links
between people and place.
There is a widely held acknowledgement that cultural landscapes have
become fragmented, homogenised and impoverished (Jongman, 2002).
Building on this view, it has often been suggested that the disruption of
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 5

Sense of Memories
place Somewhat
Sense of
Spirituality community beyond the
Largely view
beyond the LANDSCAPE RELATIONSHIPS
view Sense of Genealogical Symbols
history links Wholly
Aesthetics,
Stories within the
beauty Archaeological view
Meanings features
Physical Human-made
LANDSCAPE PRACTICES processes structures
AND PROCESSES
Ecological LANDSCAPE FORMS Contemporary
Historic processes features
events Human Historic
systems features
Natural
Contemporary
landforms
activities
Natural features
Traditional
and vegetation
activities

Figure 1.2 Cultural landscape: seen and unseen forms, relationships, practices and
processes (based on Countryside Agency, 2006; Stephenson, 2007)

systems that make up the physical landscape, and the erosion of bonds
between people and place, might lie at the source of much environmental
and social malaise. Unfortunately, these claims have often been made in an
assertive way, supported by essentialist arguments about the need for people
to ‘reconnect’ with the earth and with the ‘spirit of the place’. This book
seeks to offer a more evidence-based case for such arguments; it draws upon
a wide range of disciplines regarding the alleged disconnection of landscape,
and the theoretical and practical basis for reconnection.
Some of the key types of ‘disconnect’ that have been claimed include:

• loss of attachment between people and the place in which they dwell;
• loss of connection between people and nature;
• loss of connections between past and present, eroding the memories
and meanings of landscape;
• loss of connectivity between ecological habitats;
• loss of linkages within and between ground and surface waters;
• dis-embedding of economic activity from its platial setting;
• lack of effective connectivity in low carbon transport networks;
• loss of connection between town and country.

Variously, these have been associated with declining landscape character,

over-exploitation of land and nature, urban flooding, diminishing biodiversity,
antisocial behaviour, reduced sense of personal agency, unsustainable modes
of energy use and transport, and deteriorating health, fitness and well-being.
Indeed, many of the environmental problems around the world have been
6 Sustainable Landscape Planning

attributed to a profound disconnection between humankind and nature: it

is argued that our reductionist tradition has led us to gaze exploitatively on
the environment as neutral and profitable stuff, rather than to see ourselves
as an inextricable and non-dominant part of ‘nature’.
Hence, various types of reconnection have been advocated, to create sense
of place, sustainable drainage, ecological networks, embedded economies,
healthier lives and adaptive communities. One of the key problems in
justifying such measures, however, is that the evidence for loss of connection
and the potential for reconnection is often weak and unconvincing. The idea
of local communities identifying with a distinctive landscape is perhaps no
more than a yearned-for myth. Indeed, some critics oppose the pursuit of
localism, not least because ‘communities of place’ can be bastions of parish-
pump narrow-mindedness.
This book takes as its starting point the need to examine critically the
case for landscape reconnection. It looks at alleged disconnections and their
supposed consequences. It explores the arguments about reconnecting the
natural and human elements of whole landscapes. More broadly, it considers
landscape as an arena within which science, humanities and professions can
find common ground, and in which vivid social learning can occur about
key social and environmental issues. It takes a dynamic view of landscape,
in contrast to the popular image of timeless, traditional scenery. It accepts
that even the most cherished cultural landscapes will change and, indeed,
it views ‘change drivers’ as a potentially positive means of creating new
connectivities between people and place. It recognizes the growing interest
in creating new ‘space’ for wildlife and water, since reconnection cannot
occur unless there is sufficient elbow room for system processes to establish
a dynamic equilibrium. In many countries, government policies are now
starting to recognize a need for connection and multifunctionality – an
important expression of this in the UK is summarized in Box 1.1.
The terms ‘nature’, ‘culture’, ‘social’ and ‘ecological’ are used extensively
throughout this book. These are all highly contested terms about which much
has been written in the context of various disciplines. Here, they are often
used as shorthand for more complex ideas, and are to be treated as convenient
metaphors rather than as definitive concepts. In this book, ‘nature’ is used
simply to refer to everything in the landscape that is non-human. It does not
necessarily draw upon the body of scholarship about the social construction
of ‘nature’ and the commodification of non-human species. ‘Culture’ is used
broadly to refer to things that people do and think, as well as the material
traces and intangible imprints that they leave on the landscape. ‘Social’ may,
particularly in the context of social–ecological systems, include all human
processes, such as social organization, economic production and trade, the
built environment, health and behaviour. ‘Ecological’ similarly includes
more than biodiversity, and in places is taken to include all the physical
environmental systems that support life.
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 7

Box 1.1 Guidance to UK politicians on multifunctional landscape (Parliamentary

Office of Science and Technology, 2011)

Advice to UK politicians points out that traditional approaches to land use

have focused on single, mono-functional purposes, often with negative
consequences. For example:

• many food production systems will not be viable in the long term due
to heavy reliance on fertilizers and fossil fuels, soil degradation and
emissions of greenhouse gases, and thus need to be redesigned;
• wildlife sites contribute in very important ways to ecosystem services
but they are highly fragmented, mostly too small, insufficiently protected
and under-managed;
• green belts are designated to prevent urban sprawl but can promote
‘leapfrogging’ of development, leading to longer commuting and bigger
urban footprints.

The advice note suggests the promotion of multifunctional landscapes,

wherein a single area of land can deliver multiple ecosystem services, and it
identifies national planning policy guidance as a basis for coordinating land
uses and securing continuity across administrative boundaries.

The following sections introduce some key concepts relating to human

and physical connections in the landscape. These provide a basic terminology
and conceptual repertoire for later chapters.

H u man connec ti ons a n d the l a ndsc a p e : s o m e

p reliminary term i nol ogy
Biophilia, res to ration an d ae sthe tic s
Clearly, humans need ‘nature’ to provide basic requirements such as food
and water. However, it is likely that we also have less visible needs. Wilson
(1984) proposed a hypothesis known as ‘biophilia’, which looked beyond
the basic role of nature in satisfying our physical wants. This hypothesis was
used to suggest that humans have an innate, hereditary attachment to nature
that means we need it not only for essential physical requirements, but also
for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive and spiritual meaning and satisfaction.
If this is true, then we have a natural instinct, which is evolutionary and
inherited, to desire contact with nature. Further, it seems to be important
in guaranteeing genetic fitness and competitive advantage, as well as
contributing to personal identity and fulfilment (Newton, 2007). Pigram
8 Sustainable Landscape Planning

(1993) has suggested that humans have a genetically coded predisposition to

respond positively to content in the natural environment.
Evolutionary biology suggests that detachment from something that was
necessary to our survival and comfort, but which has now become unavailable,
might cause a discord between preferred and actual environment (Grinde,
2009). Thus, our environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) has had an
important impact on the evolution of the human brain (Grinde and Grindal
Patil, 2009). Sometimes, the way we actually live our lives is in conflict with
the way of life for which we are genetically designed – these deviations have
been referred to as mismatches. Some of these are beneficial, such as sleeping
on a mattress instead of on the ground, but others may be detrimental, and
may contribute to disease or reduce our quality of life. The latter are referred
to as discords, and they have a negative impact that, in susceptible individuals,
will cause some form of stress (Grinde and Grindal Patil, 2009). Discords
may impair well-being, and some psychologists have suggested that they may
be remedied by an increased ‘dose’ of the missing qualities. Although any
organ or bodily function can suffer from discords, the human brain appears
to be particularly vulnerable due to its complexity, and its need to mature
over a long period in response to environmental stimuli. It seems likely that
vegetation is agreeable, and that the absence of greenery is sensed, possibly
unconsciously, as a stress factor. This has been suggested as an important
contributor to the high incidence of mental disorders in Western societies.
Kellert (1993) has proposed a useful classification of the different biological
bases on which we might relate to the natural environment (Box 1.2).
Most studies dealing with the psychological benefits of nature lie within
the field of environmental psychology, and are typically based on ideas
about the effects of contact with naturalistic environments. The most
widely studied effect is that of ‘restoration’, which refers to the process of
regaining psychological, social and physical capacity. Kaplan and Kaplan’s
(1989) attention restoration theory and Ulrich’s (1983) psychophysiological
stress reduction framework offer similar ways of explaining restorative
psychological benefits. Throughout our daily lives, we direct our attention to
demanding tasks and deal with disturbing environmental factors, resulting in
mental fatigue. By contrast, environments that provide a possibility for more
effortless attention may help to restore our mental capacity. Surroundings
dominated by elements of nature are thought to be restorative, and some
psychologists argue that physical or visual contact with nature can promote
high-order cognitive functioning, thereby enhancing our observational skills
and ability to reason.
A very influential explanation of the concept of a ‘restorative environment’
– where the recovery of mental energies and effectiveness is enhanced – has
been proposed by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989). In this, the natural environment
is considered to have a special relationship to each of four factors that are
important to a restorative experience. These are:
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 9

Box 1.2 The various ways in which humans might respond to nature (summarized
from Kellert, 1993)

• utilitarian – the practical and material exploitation of nature for various

human needs such as food;
• naturalistic – the satisfaction derived from direct contact with nature
related to mental and physical development, for example our acquisition
of outdoor skills;
• scientific – the systematic study of nature, to develop our knowledge
and observational skills;
• aesthetic – the physical appeal of nature and its effect on our inspiration,
calm and security;
• symbolic – the use of nature in language, metaphor and communication;
• humanistic – strong affection for and emotional attachment to nature;
• moralistic – reverence or ethical concern for nature, sometimes related
to conduct and order;
• dominionistic – physical control and dominance of nature, developing
our ability to regulate and ‘tame’ our surroundings;
• negativistic – fear of nature, and our ability to defend ourselves against it.

• being away – for an environment to be restorative one must feel a sense

of distance and a feeling of escape from some aspects of life that are
ordinarily present, notably, distractions, obligations, pursuits, purposes
and thoughts;
• extent – the scope and connectedness of an environment that is
extensive in time and space, and that is also sufficiently connected to
allow us to construct an image of a larger whole;
• fascination – derived from the distinction between directed (voluntary)
attention and involuntary attention, such that nature is assumed to act
on the involuntary attention whilst the directed attention (which can
be depleted) recovers; and
• compatibility – the fit between environment, the individual’s inclination
and their activities within the environment.

More subtly, the effect of nature on our level of attentiveness or fatigue

may relate to subconscious cues. Thus, objects within the field of vision
may exert an influence even if the conscious brain does not recognize their
existence. Whilst the visual presence of plants may have a positive effect
on well-being and health, perhaps also the absence of plants may suggest
an unnatural, and thus potentially unsafe, environment. Non-visual aspects
of plants, such as fragrance and improved acoustics, may also play a role
(Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström, 2007).
10 Sustainable Landscape Planning

Miller (2005), writing about the ‘extinction of experience’ (Pyle, 1978)

considered that most people’s sensory experience has been seriously
impoverished. He suggested that this was strongly related to the fact
that around half of the world’s people live in urban areas where they are
increasingly disconnected from nature. For various reasons, he argued
that the places where people live and work should be designed in ways
that provide opportunities for meaningful interactions with the natural
world. As well as enhancing our well-being, this could lead us to demand
greener environments and attach higher priority to landscape creation and
protection more generally. Miller noted that our development of land has
had a homogenizing effect on biodiversity, greatly reducing native habitats
and producing habitats that are dominated by a relatively small number of
species suited to highly urbanized areas. In addition, whilst some native
species do manage to remain in cities, they tend to be in sites away from the
neighbourhoods where most people live. Hence, most people suffer biological
impoverishment because they encounter biological uniformity in their day-
to-day lives. This is compounded by a ‘shifting baseline of environmental
generational amnesia’, because the environment encountered during our
childhood becomes the baseline against which we evaluate our environment
later in life, so that we continually ratchet down our expectations regarding
the quality of natural areas closest to our homes and workplaces. Further, our
pace of life is accelerating so that the rhythms of human activity, both in the
overscheduled lives of adults and the ‘virtual’ play environments of children,
become more and more different from those of the natural world. Thus,
our ‘extinction of experience’ is characterized by a cycle of impoverishment
initiated by the homogenization and reduction of local flora and fauna, and
followed by emotional separation, disaffection and apathy. In turn, because
we do not care for or demand ecologically rich neighbourhoods, we end
up living in more biologically depauperate environments with still deeper
isolation from nature.
Urban environments offer major opportunities for reconnection. Even
though they may not contain many rare or exciting species, they do provide
plenty of illustrations of ecological processes and, given suitable attention
to aesthetic and conservation values, have the potential to engage a broad
segment of the public. It also seems likely that people who establish personal
connections with natural areas are more highly motivated to protect such
environments. Thus, ‘reconciliation ecologists’ (Rosenzweig, 2003) have
argued that partnerships between designers and ecologists, and those who
actually live and work in places, can help to find ways of modifying urbanized
habitats so that they meet human needs and also provide for nature. Kahn
(1999) suggests that estrangement or disconnection from nature goes back
to childhood, and so proposes involving children more actively in designing
urban green space, and enabling them to forge their own connections with
the natural world. It has been suggested that this will occur spontaneously if
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 11

appropriate places are provided. Formal parks and traditional playgrounds

are often inadequate for this purpose, whereas areas of undeveloped and
unmanaged land close to the home might better enable children to realize
their potential for self-teaching. Evidence indicates that children who play in
wild environments show a greater affinity and appreciation for such places
later in life.
Bauer et al. (2009) have looked at the contemporary experience of
biophilia. In this regard, van den Born et al. (2001) referred to a ‘new
biophilia’ whereby people typically feel that nature has a value of its own,
and relatively few consider humans to be superior to nature. Specifically,
Bauer et al. examined people’s attitudes to the process of re-wilding, or the
reversion of agriculturally improved land to semi-natural habitat. In places,
this is occurring as a conscious policy choice, but in the upland areas of
Switzerland, where the study took place, it is mainly an unplanned process
resulting from the abandonment of hill farming. Its consequences for
landscape can be summarized as:

• reduction or extinction of many species of flora and fauna linked with

disappearing cultural diversity;
• change from fine towards coarse grained patterns of landscape;
• reduction or disappearance of open spaces and their transformation
into dense scrub that in turn has negative consequences for the aesthetic
value of cultural landscapes;
• merging of forested patches, resulting in an increased risk of wildfires;
• modification of geomorphological processes on slopes that increases
the risk of soil erosion.

Bauer et al.’s findings identified four different expressions of biophilia

amongst their survey group, namely, nature-connected users, nature
sympathizers, nature controllers and nature lovers. The nature-connected
users had a utilitarian attitude towards nature, yet considered themselves to
be part of nature and felt emotionally close to it. They wished nature to be
protected, and had a preference for gardens to look neat and manicured. The
nature sympathizers were rather emotionally distanced from nature but did
tend to be quite biophilic: they felt that diversity of nature was important,
that nature does not have to please humans, and that controlling nature was
not always the best way to prevent natural hazards. Nature controllers held
more preservationist views about the protection of nature: they did not feel
especially close to nature, and wanted to influence it so that it looked well
kept and organized. The nature lovers attached very high priority to the
diversity of nature and its pristine character, they felt a part of nature, and
they supported the idea of leaving nature to develop more spontaneously
and reducing human influence. The types differed significantly in terms
of age, provenance (urban or rural), place of residence (urban or rural)
12 Sustainable Landscape Planning

Table 1.2 Demographic factors that appear to influence our relationship to landscape
(based on Natural England, 2009a)
Age Slight variation in response to landscape depending on age and amassed
experience – younger tend to be more interested in active recreational
side of landscape experience, whilst older (or with stressful jobs) are
more interested in aesthetic/calming/tranquillity benefits and associated
landscape memories
Physical Determined by age, health or disability – influences degree of
capabilities dependence on facilities and access services, but does not necessarily
stop enjoyment of the experience of the landscape or the desire to seek
different landscape characteristics
Gender Women more influenced than men by safety and security that may
affect the places, times and circumstances in which visits (especially
alone or with young children) are undertaken; slight differences in
qualities sought; women more likely to be in company of children and
so sense potential of landscape for play, stimulus, etc.
Situational Availability of time and current life circumstances
Group Landscape experience is affected by social context – whether
composition experienced with family members, friends, colleagues, strangers (such
or social as when children make spontaneous friends when playing) or mainly on
context their own; influences mood, topics of discussion, etc.
Perspectives Some landscapes were preferred close-up (e.g. deciduous woodland),
within the others from a distance (e.g. conifer plantations)
landscape
Awareness Awareness of geology, history, wildlife habitats, etc. – increased
factors familiarity with a place assisted ‘sense of place’ and reminiscing
Structure People seeking more organized or formal experiences had more
and function specific requirements of the landscape (e.g. rock faces for climbing);
preferences people preferring a more informal experience were more likely to
absorb the landscape in a more intuitive or organic way
Specialism Whether people have a specialist interest or knowledge that they
pursue outdoors

and membership of environmental organizations. For example, nature-

connected users tended to be older, while nature sympathizers were younger;
nature-connected users tended to be rural; and nature sympathizers and
nature lovers were more likely to be members of environmental protection
organizations. Amongst the authors’ wider findings was confirmation of the
point that attitudes that emerge in childhood tend to be retained and even
reinforced in adulthood (c.f. van den Born et al., 2001).
Policy-oriented research (Natural England, 2009a) has identified a
range of different attitude types amongst people, showing differing levels
of integration or engagement with the landscape (Table 1.2). They ranged
from those who were more transactional, seeing the landscape as a place to
obtain exercise or entertainment, to those who considered the landscape to
be part of the fabric of their lives either because they worked there or had
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 13

deep-seated specialist interests. The research also found some differences in

the way people experience the landscape according to demographic factors
(their age, physical capabilities and gender), situational factors (such as the
composition of their visiting group), their awareness or familiarity with the
landscape, and their personal preferences (e.g. for structured or unstructured
activity).
A great deal of literature on landscape has emphasised ‘beauty’, and the
way that visual inputs can give pleasure to the mind. Landscape aesthetics
persistently draws on ideas such as complexity, choice of colours, perspective
and balance. This results in a ‘visual aesthetic’ in which landscape is presumed
to give delight to the observer. The visual aesthetic has been a long-standing
focus of landscape policy, so that measures to protect scenically important
land have sought to minimize rates and degrees of unsympathetic change.
This has evolved into policies that seek to reinforce strong visual character
and reduce the visually chaotic consequences of intensive land development
and management. We will note in due course how this visual aesthetic has
been contrasted with the idea of an ‘ecological aesthetic’. Thus, whilst
some landscapes elicit aesthetic experiences that have traditionally been
called ‘scenic beauty’, others elicit different aesthetic experiences, such as
perceived care, attachment and identity. Hence, there is a possibility that
we can develop, or perhaps reacquire, an ecological aesthetic that looks
beyond the prettiness and tidiness of a landscape to detect cues about its
underlying sustainability and resilience. In turn, we may have to move away
from exercising fastidious care of urban green spaces and the preservation
of rural prettiness in order to develop new ideas about caring for landscapes
with non-classical beauty and a measure of environmental risk (Nassauer,
1997). Thus, reconnecting to landscapes means looking beyond the view,
to understand the dynamics that are unseen but critical to social–ecological
resilience, and perhaps to re-educate ourselves in a new ethic of landscape
care.

Spa ce and pla c e

Geographers and planners often make a distinction between ‘space’
and ‘place’. The former is concerned simply with the social and physical
attributes of a location or area, and the role of actual or perceived distance.
The notion of place relates more deeply to attributes that make a place
special and distinct, and it often derives from the activities and experiences
of people who live there. For example, Olwig (2008) refers to two different
ways of seeing landscape. The first involves binocular vision, movement
and knowledge gained from a coordinated use of the senses in carrying out
various tasks on earth, fields, pastures, country and ground (Ingold, 1993).
The second derives primarily from a monocular perspective that is fixed
and distant from the body. Thus, the former engenders a sense of belonging
14 Sustainable Landscape Planning

that generates landscape as the place of ‘dwelling and doing’ – it might be

thought of as the landscape of community. The latter constructs a feeling
of possession and staged performance in which those who ‘gaze’ over
the land are organized in a hierarchy of power – it might be thought of
as the landscape of the colonist, proprietor, military surveyor, planner or
even tourist. Olwig further suggests that the former has ‘platial’ qualities,
comprising farms, fenced fields and regional polities (Mels, 2005); it is not
so much a scenic surface as a woven material created through the merging
of body and senses that occurs through ‘dwelling’. The latter, by contrast, is
‘spatial’; it is typified by the surveyor’s orthogonal gaze, for example, as a
basis for agricultural improvement.
Policy makers often suggest that people attach to places, and that it is
desirable to protect and enhance the special qualities of places in ways
that reinforce a sense of pride and belonging. The notion of ‘power of
place’ was championed by English Heritage, stemming from the premise
that ‘the historic environment has the potential to strengthen the sense of
community and provide a solid basis for neighbourhood renewal’ (English
Heritage, 2000, p. 23). Planners have often referred to the importance of
place‐shaping, including the active involvement of people in defining the
distinctive qualities of their place and in contributing to decisions that affect
these qualities. Although the terms ‘power of place’ or ‘place-shaping’ rarely
occur in official documents, there is widespread use of related terms such
as community cohesion, citizenship, well-being, inclusive communities,
community empowerment, identity and agency (Bradley et al., 2009).
In terms of urban design, the ancient term genius loci has latterly been
reintroduced to refer to a sense of place associated with the physical and
symbolic values in a locality (Jiven and Larkham, 2003). The Norwegian
architect Christian Norberg-Schulz (1980) identified four ingredients that
create a genius loci: the topography of the earth’s surface; the cosmological
light conditions and the sky; buildings; and symbolic and existential meanings
in the cultural landscape. The notion of local character as produced through
the sum of its parts has been used by academic disciplines linked to practice –
for instance in urban design’s concern with authenticity and its relationship
with new developments, in marketing’s focus on place‐branding, or the
interest in ‘place‐shaping’ within public art projects (Graham et al., 2009).
The key idea is that places can be shaped to encourage a more defined ‘sense
of place’ with which people can more actively engage.
In a well known critique of such ideas, Massey (2005) noted that we
tend to yearn for imagined pasts when places were supposedly inhabited
by close-knit communities. She recognized our urge to preserve places
that appeared to conform to this imagined past and criticized it as a
reactionary, sentimentalized and defensive response through which we
try to retrieve sanitized ‘heritages’. Although Massey challenged many of
the more uncritical assumptions about place and locality, she did conclude
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 15

that distinctive locales do exist, to which people may display emotional

attachment. However, the social composition of these places, and their
absorption of non-local cultural influences, means that their character
and composition are constantly changing. The subsequent discussions
about place perhaps give greater emphasis to the physical characteristics of
landscape, although it is important to be aware of Massey’s social critique,
and to avoid naive assumptions about the ways in which occupants of a
locality identify with it.

P hy s ical connect i ons a n d the l a ndsca p e : s o m e

p r elimin ar y term i nol ogy
Ecological conne cti vi ty
Biological conservation has, since the early part of the twentieth century,
centred on the concept of ecosystems, and so has prioritized the protection
of natural and semi-natural habitats. In places, there has been a particular
interest in habitats that support charismatic or attractive animals and plants.
Whilst this focus remains important, it has not proved wholly effective;
biodiversity has continued to decline, principally due to trends on land
outside protected areas.
More recent approaches to ecological management have aimed at
overcoming the effects of isolation on protected areas. First, scientists
have addressed the issue of optimum shape and size of reserves and other
protected lands – if these are the wrong shape, they may be disproportionately
damaged by ‘edge effects’ that cause disturbance of sensitive core areas, and
if they are the wrong size they may be unable to support the feeding and
life-cycle requirements of key species. Second, there has been a growing
emphasis on joining up ‘networks’ of protected sites, either by improving
the ways in which reserves complement each other over space (e.g. staging
posts for migratory wildfowl) or by physically connecting habitats by linear
corridors, which may in certain configurations assist population movements
and the mixing of gene pools. Third, there has been a concern to promote
wildlife friendly conditions in the wider matrix of land use, for example
by making agricultural landscapes less monocultural so that they become
more permeable and porous to wildlife movements. Finally, there has been
a recent interest in building resilience in habitats and wildlife populations
so that they have sufficient space and functionality to recover from major
disturbances such as climate change.

Hyd rological c o nn ec tiv ity

Since around the seventeenth century, people have progressively applied
new technologies to ‘tame the flood’ in order to permanently inhabit low-
16 Sustainable Landscape Planning

lying areas with high potential for agriculture and trade. Water tables have
been systematically lowered and rivers straightened, whilst groundwater
reserves have been exploited. As towns have spread, so rivers have been
increasingly engineered, to be harnessed for industrial power or to stop
flooding. Although rivers are still often valued and enjoyed, they are also
often marginalized and even hidden, and wetlands have been extensively
drained. Sometimes people are only aware that a river exists when it floods,
leading to demands for it to be regulated and culverted even more. This has
led to an ‘engineered disconnection’ (Wheater and Evans, 2009) between
rivers and their natural floodplains.
The conventional ‘grey infrastructure’ – concrete, asphalt and steel
– approach to floodplain management can only succeed within limits.
Floodplains are, in principle, highly suitable for human habitation: they
provide flat and fertile lands, access to drinking and industrial water, and
good communications by land and water. In the first instance, conventional
civil engineering may be a very effective way of enabling people to occupy
floodplains safely and prosperously. Once development exceeds a certain
level, however, recurrent problems occur. Buildings inevitably creep into the
traditional floodplain as suitable development land becomes scarce; rivers
and groundwaters become excessively polluted by domestic and industrial
waste; the hardening of urban surfaces as they are ‘sealed’ by impermeable
construction materials causes unnaturally rapid run-off; over-engineered
stretches of river may simply cause flood hazards to be shifted from one
location to another; and problems associated with groundwater can cause
buildings to be attacked ‘from below’. Further, the loss of natural functions
in floodplains can reduce their resilience to adapt to changes in climate such
as increasing frequency and intensity of rainfall events.
In response to these problems, new approaches seek to ‘unseal’ surfaces
and reinstate connections between land, surface waters and groundwater
in the functional floodplain. These approaches are broadly referred to as
sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) – sometimes written as sustainable
urban drainage systems (SUDS). SuDS cannot solve all flooding issues but
offer many benefits compared with traditional systems, and they provide
habitat creation as well as flood attenuation. Such approaches may also
need to be coupled to highly participative styles of planning, so that social
and institutional learning begins to occur in ways that enable people and
organizations to live and work with new approaches that sometimes involve
acceptance of increased levels of flood risk.

Gr een infra s tructu re

The term ‘green infrastructure’ has become increasingly popular as a
planning concept (Natural England, 2009c). It encompasses ideas about
ecological and hydrological connectivity, and a general reduction in reliance
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 17

on grey infrastructure. It is usually, although not necessarily, applied to urban

areas, and typically suggests that there is a natural resource base to the city,
which, if sustainably managed and physically reconnected, can contribute in
a multifaceted way to the amelioration of living conditions. It builds upon
a long tradition of providing public open space, and represents the current
evolution of thinking about ways in which green spaces in urban areas
can best be provided and maintained in order to provide a range of public
benefits. It is sometimes referred to as blue–green infrastructure, reflecting
the importance of water circulation alongside green space, or as natural
infrastructure, recognizing the additional significance of air and soil. It is
viewed as being equivalent to the grey infrastructure of roads, sewers and
so forth that provide an essential foundation for urban development. Green,
unlike grey, infrastructure, however, cannot be hidden away underground,
and it requires the active involvement of communities and landowners in its
use and maintenance.

Active tra nsport

The personal and environmental benefits of ‘active transport’ – walking,
jogging, cycling, horse riding – have long been recognized, but the facility
to practise them safely and enjoyably, especially in major towns, has been
seriously curtailed by the spread of development and growth in traffic. Also,
the possibility to take purposeful journeys – aimed at a destination such
as the workplace rather than undertaken simply as a leisure outing – has
been reduced by the haphazard nature of rights-of-way networks and the
severance of through routes by development. In the open countryside, this
has sometimes been addressed by the creation of long distance paths and
cycle routes, and more ambitious ‘greenway’ networks. Opportunities for
safe, continuous active transport in cities, however, have often been woefully
deficient.
The creation of cycle lanes has been achieved with varying degrees of
success in many cities. However, there is increased interest in the possibility
of integrating active transport with multifunctional green infrastructure
networks, where a far higher quality of experience can be achieved. Moreover,
where these networks are genuinely multifunctional – for example, providing
practical transport connections as well as a more general suite of environmental
services – it will be easier to justify their funding and protection.

To wn–country
Land use policy and planning has tended to show a sharp discontinuity
between town and country. Land use changes in towns are predominantly
controlled by spatial planning mechanisms whereas most rural land use
change is exempt from planning control (although it is affected by subdivision
18 Sustainable Landscape Planning

control in some countries). Rural land use management is often strongly

influenced by agricultural and forestry policy. Landscape planning in the
country is often restrictive, focused on the protection of highly scenic areas.
Landscape planning in urbanized and industrialized areas is often focused on
the provision of urban green space and public realm, management of urban
tree stocks, and regeneration of derelict land. Rivers in the countryside are
often used for water supply and agricultural land drainage; urban rivers
are often heavily engineered for flood control and waterfront economic
activities. Between town and country, there is often a messy urban fringe and
sprawling edge city, which acts neither as an effective bridge to the country
nor a gateway to the town.
As cities have become cleaner and more focused on information and
cultural activities, as rural areas have become more like towns in their
economic activities and social composition, and as both increasingly share
a common culture through the Internet and other globalizing trends, so the
difference between town and country has become blurred. This creates a
situation in which: we can no longer have unrealistic assumptions about
preserving a ‘picture postcard’ countryside, but may need to accept new
types of landscape, such as those associated with sustainable energy
production; cities can expect to have a substantial green infrastructure,
providing an accessible landscape that reduces the need for long-distance
carbon-generating leisure trips; and the urban fringe might be promoted as
a multifunctional space assisting continuity between airsheds, hydrological
systems and ecological networks.

C o n clus ion
A study of landscape connections needs to draw upon multiple disciplines.
It needs to assemble evidence from the arts and philosophy, from the social
and behavioural sciences, as well as from the natural sciences and policy and
design professions (Figure 1.3). Often these disciplines do not communicate
very well with each other as they have very different knowledge bases
and research methods. However, landscape requires holistic study, and so
evidence from numerous fields must be synthesized if we are to understand
the nature of disconnections and prospects for reconnection.
Before getting mired in complex explorations of landscape connectivity,
it is useful at the outset to have a brief outline of the overall argument of the
book. In essence, this book proposes that:

• physical landscape systems – such as ecosystems, rivers and microclimates

– have, because of human pressures, become fragmented, damaged and
disconnected;
• people are increasingly disconnected from the places in which they
dwell, because they may work elsewhere, engage in ‘virtual’ worlds,
 Landscape – connections and disconnections 19

Art history, Social psychology, Landscape

literature, urban design architecture
philosophy and
Beauty and Emotional and management
Economics inspiration utilitarian
attachment Occupancy and
Ecosystem Aesthetics, enjoyment
services creativity,
spirituality Distinctive
character Proximity,
intrinsic potential
Attach values

Walking, Transport
cycling, etc. management
Recuperative
Health environments Topography,
sciences Cultural landscape linear routes
Exercise,
socialization
Farming,
forestry, etc.
Rural resource
Biodiversity, Growth media management
pollination, etc.
Carbon capture
Remanence Water circulation
Habitat and Airshed management,
corridor and purification adaptation measures
Ecology management
Heritage Water and flood
management management
Climatology,
Archaeology, Hydrology, civil meteorology
cultural geography engineering

Figure 1.3 The cultural landscape as an integrative medium for multiple fields of
knowledge

be drawn into global cultures, and rely on goods and services from
distant origins;
• many landscapes have become less multifunctional than they used to be,
and more mono-functional, possibly leading to a decline in resilience
and visual interest;
• many natural scientists are concerned about the ways in which
connections within and between environmental systems have been
disrupted;
• some social scientists are concerned about the disruption of cultural
and psychological factors that connect people to locality;
• people often appear to attach values to landscapes, and these values
connect them to particular places and properties of nature;
• there is a diverse body of evidence from a range of disciplines that
reveals the environmental, health and cultural benefits of restoring
certain landscape connectivities;
• restoring connectivities will require action at various ‘landscape scales’
related to the innate dynamics of particular natural and social systems;
• certain natural functions will only reconnect if they are given sufficient
space, whilst certain social functions may only reconnect if they are
given distinctive place;
20 Sustainable Landscape Planning

• if critical connectivities can be reinstated, the landscape will become

more multifunctional – individual functions will be more readily
sustained and they will interact synergistically in ways that make the
whole more than the sum of the parts;
• landscapes that recover connections in this way may well prove to be
more sustainable and resilient;
• if people have closer connections with the landscape itself, they are
likely to make wiser choices that lead to a more resilient future;
• governance mechanisms should recognize the value of and opportunities
for reinstating landscape connectivity.

Many of the desired qualities of cultural landscapes are ‘emergent’ –

that is, they cannot simply be engineered or designed, but have to emerge
spontaneously and unexpectedly. Complex, self-organizing systems need
to be resilient and connected if these phenomena are to stand a chance
of emerging serendipitously. The subsequent chapters explore the ways in
which connections within the landscape can be understood and fostered, so
that fortunate spontaneity and emergence might continue to occur.
Re f ere nce s

Adams, W. M. (2003) Future Nature: A Vision for Nature Conservation. London:

Earthscan.
Ahern, J. (1995) ‘Greenways as a planning strategy’, Landscape and Urban Planning,
33: 131–155.
Bartens, J. and The Mersey Forest Team (2009) Green Infrastructure and Hydrology.
Warrington: The Mersey Forest.
Bauer, N., Wallner, A. and Hunziker, M. (2009) ‘The change of European landscapes:
human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the
implications for landscape management in Switzerland’, Journal of Environmental
Management, 90: 2910–2920.
Baxter (Alan Baxter Associates) (2011) London’s Natural Signatures: The London
Landscape Framework. London: Alan Baxter Associates.
Beckwith, M.E. and Gilster, S.D. (1997) ‘The paradise garden: a model garden
design for those with Alzheimer’s disease’, Activities, Adaptation and Aging, 22:
3–16.
Bennett, G. and Mulongoy, K. J. (2006) Review of Experience with Ecological
Networks, Corridors and Buffer Zones. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, Technical Series No. 23.
Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (eds) (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems:
Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Bird, W. (2007) Natural Thinking. Report to the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds. Sandy, Bedfordshire: RSPB.
Blanc, P. (2008) Le Mur Végétal, de la nature à la ville (‘The green wall in town and
country’). Neuilly-sur-Seine: éditions Michel Lafon.
Bolliger, J., Sprott, J. C. and Mladenoff, D. J. (2003) ‘Self-organization and complexity
in historical landscape patterns’, Oikos, 100: 541–553.
Bourdieu, P. (1997) ‘The forms of capital’, in A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown
and A. Stuart Wells (eds) Education: Culture, Economy, Society, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bradley, D., Bradley, J., Coombes, M. and Tranos, E. (2009) Sense of Place and Social
Capital and the Historic Built Environment. Newcastle: University of Newcastle,
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies.
Broadmeadow, M. S. J., Webber, J. F., Ray, D. and Berry, P. M. (2009) ‘An assessment
of likely future impacts of climate change on UK forests’, in D. J. Read, P. H. Freer-
144 References

Smith, J. I. L. Morison, N. Hanley, C. C. West, and P. Snowdon (eds) Combating

Climate Change – A Role for UK Forests. An assessment of the potential of the
UK’s trees and woodlands to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Edinburgh:
The Stationery Office.
Brummel, R. F., Nelson, K. C., Grayzeck Souter, S., Jakes, P. J. and Williams D. R.
(2010) ‘Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: community wildfire
protection planning in the eastern United States’, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 53: 681–699.
Bruse, M. and Skinner, C. J. (2000) Rooftop Greening and Local Climate: A Case
Study in Melbourne. Biometeorology and Urban Climatology at the Turn of the
Millennium, WMO/TD No. 1026, Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.
BTCV (2002) Well-being Comes Naturally: Evaluation of the Portslade Green Gym.
Research Summary. Doncaster: British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.
Burt, T. P. and Pinay, G. (2005) ‘Linking hydrology and biogeochemistry in complex
landscapes’, Progress in Physical Geography, 29: 297–316.
Cantrill, J. G. and Senecah, S. L. (2001) ‘Using the “sense of self-in-place” construct
in the context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning’,
Environmental Science and Policy, 4: 185–203.
Carlson, A. (2007) ‘On aesthetically appreciating human environments’, in A.
Berleant and A. Carlson (eds) The Aesthetics of Human Environments. Buffalo,
NY: Broadview Press.
Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban
Social Movements. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) (2010)
Multi-functional Urban Green Infrastructure. London: CIWEM.
Chris Blandford Associates (2010) A guide for sustainable communities in Milton
Keynes South Midlands: Adding Value to Development. London: Chris Blandford
Associates.
Christopherson, R. W. (1997) Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Clarke, L. (2010) Delivering green infrastructure in the existing urban environment.
Briefing note. London: Construction Industry Research and Information
Association.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2010) Grey to
Green: How we Shift Funding and Skills to Green Our Cities. London: CABE.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (n.d.) http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/
sustainable-places/advice/urban-food-production (accessed 6 February 2012).
Conservation Fund (2004) Green Infrastructure — Linking Lands for Nature
and People. Case Study 2: Florida’s Ecological Network, Arlington, VA: The
Conservation Fund.
Cooper-Marcus, C. and Barnes, M. (eds) (1999) Healing Gardens: Therapeutic
Benefits and Design Recommendations. New York: John Wiley.
Council of Europe (2000) The European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg: Council
of Europe.
Council of Europe (2006) Landscape Quality Objectives: From Theory to Practice.
Fifth meeting of the Workshops of the Council of Europe for the implementation
of the European Landscape Convention, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
 References 145

Countryside Agency (2006) Landscape: Beyond the View. Cheltenham: Countryside

Agency.
Creedy, J. B., Doran, H., Duffield, S. J., George, N. J., and Kass, G. S. (2009)
England’s Natural Environment in 2060 – Issues, Implications and Scenarios.
Natural England Research Reports, Number 031. Sheffield: Natural England.
Cumming, G. S. (2011) ‘Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience
and sustainability’, Landscape Ecology, 26: 899–909.
Cumulus (2009) Area Schemes and Landscape Partnerships: Assembly of Output Data,
Heritage Lottery Fund, 2008–9. Broadway, Worcestershire: Cumulus Countryside
and Rural Consultants.
Czerniak, J. (2007) ‘Legibility and resilience’, in J. Czerniak and G. Hargreaves (eds)
Large Parks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Davoudi, S., Crawford, J. and Mehmood, A. (eds) (2009) Planning for Climate
Change: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for Spatial Planners. London:
Earthscan.
Dawson, D. (1994) Are Habitat Corridors Conduits for Animals and Plants in
a Fragmented Landscape? A review of the scientific evidence. English Nature
Research Report 94. Peterborough: English Nature.
de Groot, R. (2006) ‘Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use
conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes’, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 75: 175–186.
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. and Boumans, R. (2002) ‘A typology for the description,
classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services’, Ecological
Economics, 41: 393–408.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2010) Adapting to
Coastal Change: Developing a Policy Framework. London: Defra.
Department for Transport (2008) Building Sustainable Transport into New
Developments: A Menu of Options for Growth Points and Eco-towns. London:
Defra.
Despommier, D. (2010) The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century.
New York: Thomas Dunne Books.
Dunnett, N. P. and Kingsbury, N. (2008) Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls, 2nd
edition. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
Edelstein, M. R. (2004) Contaminated Communities: Coping with Residential Toxic
Exposure, 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press/Perseus Books.
Edensor, T. (2000) ‘Walking in the British countryside: reflexivity, embodied practices
and ways to escape’, Body and Society, 6: 81–106.
Edwards, C. (2009) Resilient Nation: How Communities Respond to Systemic
Breakdown. London: Demos.
Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S., and Blahna, D. J. (2000) ‘Attachments to special
places on public lands: an analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and
community connections’, Society and Natural Resources, 13: 421–441.
English Heritage (2000) Power of Place: The Future of the Historic Environment.
London: English Heritage.
Environment Agency (2005) Joining Up: Stockbridge Pathfinder. Science report:
SC010044/SR4. Bristol: Environment Agency.
Environment Agency (2008) Sustainable Drainage Systems – An Introduction. Bristol:
Environment Agency.
146 References

Epstein, S. (1991) ‘Cognitive-experiential self-theory: an integrative theory of

personality’, in R. C. Curtis (ed.) The Relational Self: Theoretical Convergences in
Psychoanalysis and Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Erickson, D. L. (2004) ‘Connecting corridors: implementing metropolitan greenway
networks in North America’, in R. H. G. Jongman and G. Pungetti (eds) Ecological
Networks and Greenways: Concepts, Design, Implementation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
European Environment Agency (EEA) (1995) Europe’s Environment: The Dobris
Assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Evans, E. P., Ashley, R., Hall, J. W., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Saul, A., Sayers, P. B.,
Thorne, C. R. and Watkinson, A. R. (2004) Foresight Future Flooding, Scientific
Summary: Volume 1: Future Risks and Their Drivers. London: Office of Science
and Technology.
Fennell, D. (2008) Ecotourism, 3rd edition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ford R. M. (2006), ‘Social acceptability of forest management systems’, unpublished
PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.
Forest Research (2010) Benefits of Green Infrastructure Case Study. Increasing species
movement; Chattanooga Greenways, Tennessee, USA. Farnham: Forest Research.
Foster, J., Lowe, A. and Winkelman, S. (2011) The Value of Green Infrastructure for
Urban Climate Adaptation. Washington, DC: The Center for Clean Air Policy.
Fuller, R., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H. and Gaston, K. J. (2007)
‘Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity’, Biology Letters,
3: 390–394.
Garmestani, A. S., Allen, C. R. and Gunderson, L. (2009) ‘Panarchy: discontinuities
reveal similarities in the dynamic system structure of ecological and social
systems’, Ecology and Society 14 (1): article 15. Available online at http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art15/
Garnett, T. (2000) ‘Urban agriculture in London: rethinking our food economy’, in
H. de Zeeuw, N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gundel and U. Sabel-Koschella (eds)
Growing Cities, Growing Food. Feldafing, German Foundation for International
Development (DSE).
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A. and Öhrström, E. (2007) ‘Noise and well-being in urban
residential environments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby
green areas’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83: 115–126.
Gill, S., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R. and Pauleit, S. (2007) ‘Adapting cities for climate
change: the role of the green infrastructure’, Built Environment, 33: 97–115.
Gill, S., Goodwin, C., Gowing, R., Lawrence, P., Pearson, J. and Smith, P. (2009)
Adapting to Climate Change: Creating Natural Resilience. Technical report.
London: Greater London Authority.
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.
Graham, H., Mason, R. and Newman, A. (2009) Literature Review: Historic
Environment, Sense of Place, and Social Capital. Commissioned for English
Heritage. Newcastle: International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies
(ICCHS), Newcastle University.
Grieve, Y., Sing, L., Ray, D. and Moseley, D. (2006) Forest Habitat Networks
Scotland, Broadleaved Woodland Specialist Network for SW Scotland. Roslin, UK:
Ecology Division Forest.
 References 147

Grinde, B. (2009) ‘Can the concept of discords help us find the causes of mental
disease?’, Medical Hypothesis, 73: 106–109.
Grinde, B. and Grindal Patil, G. (2009) ‘Biophilia: does visual contact with nature
impact on health and well-being?’ International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 6: 2332–2343.
Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S. (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations
in Human and Natural Systems. Washington DC: Island Press.
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2009) ‘The links between biodiversity, ecosystem
services and human well-being’, in D. Raffaelli and C. Frid (eds) Ecosystem
Ecology: A New Synthesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, British
Ecological Society Ecological Reviews Series.
Hartig, T., Böök, A., Garvill, J., Olsson, T. and Gärling, T. (1996) ‘Environmental
influences on psychological restoration’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37:
378–393.
Haugan, L., Nyland, R., Fjeldavli, E., Meistad, T. and Braastad, B. O. (2006) ‘Green
care in Norway: farms as a resource for the educational, health and social sector’,
in J. Hassink and M. van Dijk (eds) Farming for Health, Dordrecht: Springer.
Hawkins, V. and Selman, P. (2002) ‘Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative
land use scenarios’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 60: 211–224.
Hebbert, M. and Webb, B. (2011) ‘Towards a liveable urban climate: lessons from
Stuttgart’, ISOCARP Review, 7: 120–137.
Henneberry, J., Rowley, S., Swanwick, C., Wells, F. and Burton, M. (2004) Creating
a setting for investment. Report of a scoping study for South Yorkshire Forest
Partnership and White Rose Forest. http://www.environment-investment.com/
images/downloads/csi%20scoping%20study%20final%20report%20dec%2004.
pdf (accessed 6 February 2012).
Herrington, S. (2006) ‘Framed again: the picturesque aesthetics of contemporary
landscapes’, Landscape Journal, 25: 22–37.
Hilty, J. A., Lidicker Jr., W. Z. and Merenlender, A. M. (2006) Corridor Ecology:
The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation,
Washington: Island Press.
HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature (‘The
Environment White Paper’). London: The Stationery Office.
Holling, C. S. and Gunderson, L. H. (2002) ‘Resilience and adaptive cycles’, in L. H.
Gunderson and C. S. Holling (eds) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Washington DC: Island Press.
Hopkins, J. (2009) ‘Adaptation of biodiversity to climate change: an ecological
perspective’, in M. Winter and M. Lobley (eds) What is Land For? The food, fuel
and climate change debate, London: Earthscan.
Ingold, T. (1993) ‘The temporality of the landscape’, World Archaeology, 25: 152–174.
Jenkins, G., Murphy, J., Sexton, D., Lowe, J. Jones, P. and Kilsby, C. (2009) Climate
Projections: Briefing Report, Exeter: Meteorological Office Hadley Centre.
Jenkins, K. M. and Boulton. A. J. (2003) ‘Connectivity in a dryland river: short-term
aquatic microinvertebrate recruitment following floodplain inundation’, Ecology,
84: 2708–2723.
Jiggins, J., van Slobbe, E. and Röling, N. (2007) ‘The organisation of social learning
in response to perceptions of crisis in the water sector of The Netherlands’,
Environmental Science and Policy, 10: 526–536.
148 References

Jiven, G. and Larkham, P. J. (2003) ‘Sense of place, authenticity and character: a

commentary’, Journal of Urban Design, 8: 67–81.
Johnson, J. and Rasker, R. (1995) ‘The role of economic and quality of life values in
rural business location’, Journal of Rural Studies, 11: 405–416.
Jones, M. (2007) ‘The European Landscape Convention and the question of public
participation’, Landscape Research, 32: 613–633.
Jongman, R. H. G. (2002) ‘Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European
landscape’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58: 211–221.
Jongman, R. H. G., Bouwma, I. M., Griffioen, A., Jones-Walters, L. and Van Doorn,
A. M. (2011) ‘The Pan European Ecological Network: PEEN’, Landscape Ecology,
26: 311–326.
Jongman, R. H. G. and Pungetti, G. (eds) (2004) Ecological Networks and Greenways:
Concept, Design, Implementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jorgensen, B. S. and Stedman, R. (2001) ‘Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore
property owners’ attitudes toward their properties’, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 21: 233–248.
Jorgensen, B. S. and Stedman, R. C. (2006) ‘A comparative analysis of predictors of
sense of place dimensions: attachment to, dependence on, and identification with
lakeshore properties’, Journal of Environmental Management, 79: 316–327.
Kabat, P., van Vierssen, W., Veraart, J., Vellinga, P. and Aerts, J. (2006) ‘Climate
proofing The Netherlands’, Nature, 438 (17): 285–286.
Kahn, P. H. Jr (1999) The Human Relationship with Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kahn, P. H. Jr and Kellert, S. R. (eds) (2002) Children and Nature: Psychological,
Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaltenborn, B. P. and Williams D. R. (2002) ‘The meaning of place: attachments
to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among tourists and locals’, Norsk
Geografisk Tidsskrift, 56: 189–198.
Kaplan, S. (1992) ‘The restorative environment: nature and human experience’, in D.
Relf (ed.) The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development:
A National Symposium, Portland, OR: Timber Press.
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989) The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keen, M., Brown, V. and Dyball, R. (eds) (2005) Social Learning in Environmental
Management: Towards a Sustainable Future. London: Earthscan.
Kellert, S. R. (1993) ‘The biological basis for human values of nature’, in S. R. Kellert
and E. O. Wilson (eds) The Biophilia Hypothesis, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kent Wildlife Trust (on behalf of the Wildlife Trusts in the South East) (2006) A Living
Landscape for the South East: The Ecological Network Approach to Rebuilding
Biodiversity for the 21st Century. Maidstone: Kent Wildlife Trust.
Kienast, F., Bolliger, J., Potschin, M., de Groot, R. S., Verburg, P. H., Heller, I.,
Wascher, D. and Haines-Young, R. (2009) ‘Assessing landscape functions with
broad-scale environmental data: insights gained from a prototype development
for Europe’, Environmental Management, 44: 1099–1120.
Kondolf, G. M., Boulton, A. J., O’Daniel, S., Poole, G. C., Rahel, F. J., Stanley, E.
H., Wohl, E., Bång, A., Carlstrom, J., Cristoni, C., Huber, H., Koljonen, S.,
Louhi, P. and Nakamura, K. (2006) ‘Process-based ecological river restoration:
visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost
 References 149

linkages’, Ecology and Society: 11 (2): article 5. Available online at http://www.

ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art5/
Korpela, K. M. (1989) ‘Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation’,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9: 241–256.
Korpela, K. M. (1991) ‘Are favourite places restorative environments?’, in J. Urbina-
Soria, R. Ortega-Arideane and R. Bechtel (eds) Healthy Environments. Oklahoma
City, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.
Korpela, K. and Hartig, T. (1996) ‘Restorative qualities of favourite places’, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 16: 221–233.
Korpela K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, G. F. and Fuhrer, U. (2001) ‘Restorative
experience and self-regulation in favorite places’, Environment and Behavior,
33: 572–589.
Külvik, M. and Sepp, K. (2007) ‘Ecological network experience from Estonia’, in
D. Hill (ed) Making the Connections: A Role for Ecological Networks in Nature
Conservation, Proceedings of the 26th Conference of the Institute of Ecology
and Environmental Management. Winchester, UK: Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management.
Kuo, F. E. and Sullivan, W. C. (2001) ‘Environment and crime in the inner city: does
vegetation reduce crime?’, Environment and Behavior, 33: 343–365.
Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G. and Davies, C. (2009) ‘Benefits and well-being
perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress’, Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening, 8: 97–108.
Land Use Consultants in association with Carol Trewin and Laura Mason (2006)
Exploration of the Relationship between Locality Foods and Landscape Character.
Report to the Countryside Agency, London: Land Use Consultants.
Landscape Character Network (2009) European Landscape Convention 1: What
does it Mean for Your Organisation? Prepared for Natural England by Land Use
Consultants. London: Land Use Consultants.
Landscape Institute (2009) Green Infrastructure: Connected and Multifunctional
Landscapes. London: Landscape Institute.
Latimer, W. and Hill, D. (2008) ‘Mitigation banking: securing no net loss for
biodiversity?’ In Practice (journal of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management), 62: 4–6.
Lawton, J. H., Brotherton, P. N. M., Brown, V. K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A. H.,
Forshaw, J., Haddow, R. W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R. N., Mace, G. M., Southgate,
M. P., Sutherland, W. A., Tew, T. E., Varley, J. and Wynne, G. R. (2010) Making
Space for Nature: A Review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network.
Report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. London:
Defra.
Le Dû-Blayo, L. (2011) ‘How do we accommodate new land uses in traditional
landscapes? Remanence of landscapes, resilience of areas, resistance of people’,
Landscape Research, 103: 417–434.
Lewicka, M. (2005) ‘Ways to make people active: the role of place attachment,
cultural capital, and neighbourhood ties’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25: 381–395.
Livingston, M., Bailey, N. and Kearns, A. (2008) People’s Attachment to Place –
The Influence of Neighbourhood Deprivation. Report to the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. London: Chartered Institute of Housing.
150 References

London Climate Change Project (2009) Adapting to Climate Change: Creating

Natural Resilience. London: Greater London Council.
Louv, R. (2005) The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-
deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Lovell, S. T. (2010) ‘Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use
planning in the United States’, Sustainability, 2: 2499–2522.
Lovell, S. T. and Johnston, D. M. (2009) ‘Designing landscape for performance based
on emerging principles in landscape ecology’, Ecology and Society, 14 (1): article
44. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art44/
Maas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Van Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R. A., de Vries, S. and
Groenewegen, P. (2009) ‘Is green space in the living environment associated with
people’s feelings of social safety?’, Environment and Planning A, 41: 1763–1777.
Mandler, J. M. (1984) Stories, Scripts and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory.
Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.
Manzo, L. C. and Perkins, D. D. (2006) ‘Finding common ground: the importance of
place attachment to community participation and planning’, Journal of Planning
Literature, 20: 335–350.
Massey, D. B. (2005) For Space. London: Sage.
Matarrita-Cascante, D., Stedman, R. and Luloff, A. E. (2010) ‘Permanent and seasonal
residents’ community attachment in natural amenity-rich areas: exploring the
contribution of landscape-related factors’, Environment and Behavior, 42: 197–220.
McFadden, L. (2010) ‘Exploring systems interactions for building resilience within
coastal environments and communities’, Environmental Hazards, 9: 1–18.
Melby, P. and Cathcart, T. (2002) Regenerative Design Techniques: Practical
Applications in Landscape Design. New York: Wiley.
Mels, T. (2005) ‘Between “platial” imaginations and spatial rationalities: navigating
justice and law in the low countries,’ Landscape Research, 30: 321–335.
Mezirow, J. (1997) ‘Transformative learning: theory to practice’, New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 74: 5–12.
Milbrath, L. W. (1989) Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out.
Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Miller, J. R. (2005) ‘Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience’,
TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 20: 430–434.
Milligan, C. and Bingley, A. (2007) ‘Therapeutic places or scary spaces? The impact of
woodland on the mental well-being of young adults’, Health and Place, 13: 799–811.
Mitchell, R. and Popham, F. (2009) ‘Effect of exposure to natural environment on
health inequalities: an observational population study’, Lancet, 372: 1655–1660.
Morris, J. and Urry, J. (2006) Growing Places: A Study of Social Change in The
National Forest. Farnham, UK: Forest Research.
Morris, N. (2003) Health, Well-Being and Open Space: Literature Review. Edinburgh:
OPENspace (Edinburgh College of Art).
Mougeot, L. J. A. (2006) Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development. Ottawa:
International Development Research Centre.
Muro, M. and Jeffrey, P. (2008) ‘A critical review of the theory and application of
social learning in participatory natural resource management processes’, Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management, 51: 325–344.
 References 151

Nanzer, B. (2004) ‘Measuring sense of place: a scale for Michigan’, Administrative

Theory and Praxis, 26: 362–382.
Nassauer, J. I. (1997) ‘Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology’, in J. I.
Nassauer (ed.) Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Natural England (2009a) Experiencing Landscapes: Capturing the ‘Cultural Services’
and ‘Experiential Qualities’ of Landscape. Cheltenham: Natural England.
Natural England (2009b) Green Growth for Green Communities. A selection of
regional case studies. ParkCity Conference 2009, Cheltenham: Natural England.
Natural England (2009c) Green Infrastructure Guidance. Cheltenham: Natural
England.
Natural England (2009d) Global Drivers of Change to 2060. Commissioned report
NECR030. Cheltenham: Natural England.
Natural England (2010) Natural England’s Position on ‘All Landscapes Matter’.
Position statement. Cheltenham: Natural England.
Natural England (2011) Natural England’s Integrated Landscape Project (LIANE).
Sheffield: Natural England.
Newton, J. (2007) Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A Brief Overview of the
Evidence. Bath: University of Bath.
Nicholls, S. and Crompton, J. L. (2005) ‘The impact of greenways on property
values: evidence from Austin, Texas’, Journal of Leisure Research, 37: 321–341.
Nogue, J. (2006) ‘The Spanish experience: landscape catalogues and landscape
guidelines of Catalonia’, in Council of Europe, Landscape Quality Objectives:
From Theory to Practice. Fifth meeting of the Workshops of the Council of Europe
for the implementation of the European Landscape Convention, Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980) Genius Loci, Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture.
New York: Rizzoli.
North West Climate Change Partnership (2011) Green Infrastructure to Combat
Climate Change: A Framework for Action in Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester,
Lancashire, and Merseyside. Prepared by Community Forests Northwest for the
Northwest Climate Change Partnership, Warrington: Mersey Forest and others.
North West Green Infrastructure Think Tank (2009) North West Green Infrastructure
Guide, version 1.1. Warrington: Mersey Forest and others.
North West Green Infrastructure Unit (2009) Green Infrastructure Solutions to
Pinch Point Issues in North West England: How Can Green Infrastructure Enable
Sustainable Development? Warrington: Mersey Forest and others.
O’Connell, P. E., Beven, K. J., Carney, J. N., Clements, R. O., Ewen, J., Fowler, H.,
Harris, G. L., Hollis, J., Morris, J., O’Donnell, G. M., Packman, J. C., Parkin, A.,
Quinn, P. F., Rose, S. C., Shepherd, M. and Tellier, S. (2004) Review of Impacts
of Rural Land Use And Management on Flood Generation – Impact Study Report.
Joint Defra/EA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme,
R&D Technical Report FD2114/TR. Defra: London.
Olwig, K. (1996) ‘Recovering the substantive nature of landscape’, Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 86: 630–653.
Olwig, K. (2008) ‘Performing on the landscape versus doing landscape: perambulatory
practice, sight and the sense of belonging’, in T. Ingold and J. L. Vergunst (eds) Ways
of Walking: Ethnography and Practice on Foot, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
152 References

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (eds)

(1993) OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews.
Environment Monographs 83. Paris: OECD.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2011) Landscapes of the Future.
POSTNOTE 380. London: POST.
Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Handley, J. and Lindley, S. (2003) ‘Promoting the natural
greenstructure of towns and cities: English Nature’s Accessible Natural
Greenspace Standards Model’, Built Environment, 29: 157–170.
Pellizzoni, L. (2001) ‘The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and
reason’, British Journal of Sociology, 52: 59–86.
Petts, J. (2001) Urban Agriculture in London. Copenhagen: World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe.
Petts, J. (2006) ‘Managing public engagement to optimize learning: reflections from
urban river restoration’, Human Ecology Review, 13: 172–181.
Pigram, J. (1993) ‘Human-nature relationships: leisure environments and natural
settings’, in T. Garling and R. Golledge (eds) Behaviour and Environment:
Psychological and Geographical Approaches, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. and Kaminoff, R. (1983) ‘Place-identity: physical
world socialization of the self ’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3: 57–83.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Pyle, R. M. (1978) ‘The extinction of experience’, Horticulture, 56: 64–67.
Ramos, I. L. (2010) ‘Exploratory landscape scenarios in the formulation of landscape
quality objectives’, Futures, 42: 682–692.
Ravenscroft, N. and Taylor, B. (2009) ‘Public engagement in the new productivism’,
in M. Winter and M. Lobley (eds) What is Land For? The food, fuel and climate
change debate. London: Earthscan.
Ray, D. and Moseley, D. (2007) A Forest Habitat Network for Edinburgh and the
Lothians: The Contribution of Woodlands to Promote Sustainable Development
Within the Regional Structure Plan. Roslin, Midlothian: Forest Research.
Read, D. J., Freer-Smith, P. H., Morison, J. I. L., Hanley, N., West, C. C. and
Snowdon, P. (eds) (2009) Combating Climate Change – A Role for UK Forests. An
assessment of the potential of the UK’s trees and woodlands to mitigate and adapt
to climate change. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
Redman, C. L. and Kinzig, A. P. (2003) ‘Resilience of past landscapes: resilience
theory, society, and the longue durée’, Ecology and Society, 7 (1): article 14.
Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss1/art14/
Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.
Relph, E. (1981) Rational Landscapes and Humanistic Geography. London: Croom.
Roe, J. and Aspinall, P. (2011) ‘The emotional affordances of forest settings: an
investigation in boys with extreme behavioural problems’, Landscape Research,
36: 535–552.
Rosenzweig, M. (2003) ‘Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity’,
Oryx, 37: 194–205.
Rowley, S., Henneberry, J. and Stafford, T. (2008) Research Action 4.1 – Land
Values, CSI research action 4.1 Final technical report. http://www.environment-
investment.com/images/downloads/research_action_4.1_uk.pdf (accessed 6
February 2012).
 References 153

Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist,
55: 68–78.
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C. and Walker, B. (2001) ‘Catastrophic
shifts in ecosystems’, Nature, 413: 591–596.
Schneeberger, N., Bürgi, M., Hersperger, A. and Ewald, K. (2007) ‘Driving forces
and rates of landscape change as a promising combination for landscape change
research – an application on the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps’, Land Use
Policy, 24: 349–361.
Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J. and Pfeffer, M. J. (2003) ‘Social learning for collaborative
natural resource management’, Society and Natural Resources, 15: 309–326.
Scott, A., Christie, M. and Tench, H. (2003) ‘Visitor payback: panacea or Pandora’s
box for conservation in the UK?’, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 46: 583–604.
Selman, P. (2006) Planning at the Landscape Scale. London: Routledge.
Selman, P. (2007) ‘Sustainability at the national and regional scales’, in J. Benson
and M. Roe (eds) Landscape and Sustainability, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
Selman, P. (2008) ‘What do we mean by sustainable landscape?’, Sustainability:
Science, Practice, & Policy, 4 (2). Available online at http://sspp.proquest.com/
archives/vol4iss2/communityessay.selman.html
Selman, P. (2009) ‘Planning for landscape multifunctionality’, Sustainability: Science,
Practice, & Policy, 5 (2). Available online at http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/
vol5iss2/communityessay.pselman.html
Selman, P. (2010a) ‘Learning to love the landscapes of carbon-neutrality’, Landscape
Research, 35: 157–171.
Selman, P. (2010b) ‘Landscape planning – preservation, conservation and sustainable
development’, Town Planning Review, 81: 382–406.
Selman, P. (2012) ‘Landscapes as integrating frameworks for human, environmental
and policy processes’, in T. Plieninger and C. Bieling (eds) Resilience and the
Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped
Environments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selman, P. and Knight, M. (2006) ‘On the nature of virtuous change in cultural
landscapes: exploring sustainability through qualitative models’, Landscape
Research, 31: 295–308.
Selman, P., Carter, C., Lawrence, A. and Morgan, C. (2010) ‘Re-connecting with a
neglected river through imaginative engagement’, Ecology and Society, 15 (3):
article 18. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art18/
Shamai, S. and Kellerman, A. (1985) ‘Conceptual and experimental aspects of
regional awareness: an Israeli case study’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie, 76: 88–99.
Shamai, S. and Ilatov, Z. (2005) ‘Measuring sense of place: methodological aspects’,
Tijdschrift voor Economicshe en Sociale Geographie, 96: 467–476.
Smith J. W., Davenport, M. A., Anderson, D. H. and Leahy, J. E. (2011) ‘Place
meanings and desired management outcomes’, Landscape and Urban Planning,
101: 359–370.
Smith, M., Moseley, D., Chetcuti, J. and de Ioanni, M. (2008) Glasgow and Clyde
Valley Integrated Habitat Networks. Report to Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green
Network Partnership. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
154 References

Stedman, R. C. (2002) ‘Towards a social psychology of place: predicting behavior

from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity’, Environment and Behavior,
34: 561–581.
Stedman, R. C. (2003) ‘Is it really just a social construction: the contribution of the
physical environment to sense of place’, Society and Natural Resources, 16: 671–685.
Stephenson, J. (2007) ‘The cultural values model: an integrated approach to values
in landscapes’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 84: 127–139.
Taylor, J. J., Brown, D. G. and Larsen, L. (2007) ‘Preserving natural features: a GIS-
based evaluation of a local open-space ordinance’, Landscape and Urban Planning,
82: 1–16.
Termorshuizen, J. W. and Opdam, P. (2009) ‘Landscape services as a bridge between
landscape ecology and sustainable development’, Landscape Ecology, 24: 1037–
1052.
Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J.,
Collingham, Y. C., Erasmus, B. F. N., Ferreira de Siqueira, M., Grainger, A.,
Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., van Jaarsveld, A. S., Midgley, G. F., Miles,
L., Ortega-Huerta, M. A., Peterson, A. T., Phillips, O. L. and Williams, S.E. (2004)
‘Extinction risk from climate change’, Nature, 427: 145–148.
Tippett, J. (2004) ‘Think like an ecosystem – embedding a living system paradigm
into participatory planning’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17: 603–622.
Town and Country Planning Association (2004) Biodiversity by Design: A Guide for
Sustainable Communities. London: TCPA.
Trumper, K., Bertzky, M., Dickson, B., van der Heijden, G., Jenkins, M. and
Manning, P. (2009) The Natural Fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation.
A UNEP rapid response assessment. Cambridge, UK: United Nations Environment
Programme, UNEPWCMC.
Trust for Public Land (2008) How Much Value Does the City of Philadelphia Receive
from its Park and Recreation System? A report by the Trust for Public Land’s
Center for City Park Excellence, San Francisco, CA: Trust for Public Land.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977) Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Turner, T. (1995) ‘Greenways, blueways, skyways and other ways to a better London’,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 33: 269–282.
Turner, T. (2006) ‘Greenway planning in Britain: recent work and future plans’,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 76: 240–251.
Twigger-Ross, C. L. and Uzzell D. I. (1996) ‘Place and identity processes’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 16: 205–220.
Tzoulas,K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J. and
James, P. (2007) ‘Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green
infrastructure: a literature review’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 81: 167–178.
Ulrich, R. S. (1981) ‘Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects’,
Environment and Behavior, 13: 523–556.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983) ‘Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment’, in I.
Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds) Human Behaviour and Environment: Advances in
Theory and Research. Volume 6: Behaviour and the Natural Environment. New
York: Plenum Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984) ‘View through window may influence recovery from surgery’,
Science, 224: 420–421.
 References 155

Ulrich, R. S. (1992) ‘Influences of passive experiences with plants on individual

wellbeing and health’, in D. Relf (ed) The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being
and Social Development: A National Symposium. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
Ulrich, R. S. (1999) ‘Effects of gardens on health outcomes: theory and research’,
in C. Cooper-Marcus and M. Barnes (eds) Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits
and Design Recommendations. New York: John Wiley.
Valett, H. M., Fisher, S. G., Grimm, N. B. and Camill, P. (1994) ‘Vertical hydrologic
exchange and ecological stability of a desert stream ecosystem’, Ecology, 75: 548–
560.
van den Born, R. J. G., Lenders, R. H. J., De Groot, W. T. and Huijsman, E. (2001)
‘The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries’,
Environmental Conservation, 28: 65–75.
Velarde, M. D., Fry, G. and Tveit, M. (2007) ‘Health effects of viewing landscapes
– landscape types in environmental psychology’, Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 6: 199–212.
Viljoen, A., Bohn, K. and Howe, J. (eds) (2005) Continuous Productive Urban
Landscapes. Designing urban agriculture for sustainable cities. London:
Architectural Press.
Vuorinen, R. (1990) ‘Persoonallisuus ja minuus [Personality and self]’, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.
Waldheim, C. (2006) (ed.) The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press.
Walker, B. and Salt, D. (2006) Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People
in a Changing World. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., Lebel,
L., Norberg, J., Peterson, G. D. and Pritchard, R. (2002) ‘Resilience management
in social–ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach’,
Ecology and Society, 6 (1): article 14. Available online at http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/art14/.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R. and Kinzig, A. (2004) ‘Resilience,
adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems’, Ecology and Society,
9 (2): article 5. Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/
Ward Thompson, C. (2011) ‘Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme’,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 99: 187–195.
Warnock, S. and Brown, N. (1998) ‘A vision for the countryside’, Landscape Design,
269: 22–26.
Watts, K., Humphrey, J., Griffiths, M., Quine, C., and Ray, D. (2005) Evaluating
Biodiversity in Fragmented Landscapes: Principles, Information Note 73.
Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
Wheater, H. and Evans, E. (2009) ‘Land use, water management and future flood
risk’, Land Use Policy, 26S: S251–S264.
The Wildlife Trusts (2007) A Living Landscape for the South East. The ecological
network approach to rebuilding biodiversity for the 21st century. Maidstone: Kent
Wildlife Trust.
The Wildlife Trusts (2009) A Living Landscape: A Call to Restore the UK’s Battered
Ecosystems, for Wildlife and People. Newark, UK: The Wildlife Trusts.
156 References

Willemen, L., Hein, L., van Mensvoort, M. E. F. and Verburg, P. H. (2010) ‘Space for
people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape
functions in a Dutch rural region’, Ecological Indicators, 19: 62–73.
Williams, K., Joynt, J. L. R. and Hopkins, D. (2010) ‘Adapting to climate change in
the compact city: the suburban challenge’, Built Environment, 36: 105–115.
Wilson, E. O. (1984) Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winn, J., Tierney, M., Heathwaite, L., Jones, L., Paterson, J., Simpson, L., Thompson,
A. and Turley, C. (2011) ‘The drivers of change in UK ecosystems and ecosystem
services’, in The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UK
National Ecosystem Assessment, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
Wohl, E. (2004) Disconnected Rivers: Linking Rivers to Landscapes. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Wood, J. D., Richardson, R. I., Scollan, N. D., Hopkins, A., Dunn, R., Buller, H. and
Whittington, F. M. (2007) ‘Quality of meat from biodiverse grassland’, in J. J.
Hopkins, A. J. Duncan, D. I. McCracken, S. Peel and J. R. B. Tallowin (eds) High
Value Grassland. Cirencester, UK: British Grassland Society.
Woodroffe, C. D. (2007) ‘The natural resilience of coastal systems: primary concepts’,
in L. McFadden, E. Penning-Rowsell and R. J. Nicholls (eds) Managing Coastal
Vulnerability. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wylie, J. W. (2007) Landscape. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.