Integrated Urban-Ecological Planning: Review and Recommendations for Practice

NOTE: On 2-15-16, a section titled "Eco-Science Integration of Urban and Ecological Realms" was addd to this post.

Abstract

For decades, North American planners have been searching for a specific nexus that would integrate urban and environment in a single unified system, investigating such concepts as ecological planning, sustainable development, smart growth, and ecocities among many others. At the same time, researchers in landscape ecology, urban ecology, social-ecological systems, and sustainability science have independently proposed the integration of urban and ecological realms. Review of the Journal of American Planning Association reveals that environmental planning papers infrequently cite that eco-science research. This article introduces planners to the eco-science disciplines and literature that have called for the integration of urban and ecological, briefly reviews the planning literature to demonstrate where the discipline is with respect implementing “green” policies, plans, and programs, and identifies innovative techniques planners can apply to increase adoption rates of urban-ecological measures.

Key Words: integrating urban-ecological, urban-ecological planning, using values to frame pro-environmental measures.

Introduction

North American planners[1] are well aware of the focus on green, smart growth, or sustainability issues (Campbell 1996; Connolly et al. 2013; Rees and Wackernagel 1996; Turcu 2013; Young 2011). Organizing concepts in the planning literature that demonstrate an on-going awareness of the contributions of urbanization to various environmental problems include McHarg’s (1969) pioneering ecological planning, ecodevelopment (Riddell 1981), new urbanism (Katz 1993), urban ecosystems (Rebele 1994), sustainable development (Jepson Jr. 2001), smart growth (Meck 2002), landscape urbanism (Waldheim 2006), ecocities (Register 2006), integrative ecological planning (Vasishth 2008); biophilic cities (Beatley 2010), ecological urbanism (Mostafavi and Doherty 2010), and ecoregional planning (Mason 2011) among others. Efforts in the last several decades by practicing planners have sought to address urban-environmental compartmentalization and resource use issues through application of the above concepts as well as techniques such as increased urban densities/compact cities, mass transit, growth boundaries, and reduced carbon footprints. Planners/designers seem to be trying to move beyond the built environments their profession helped create that degrade natural resources and ecosystems and contribute to a non-sustainable way of life by emphasizing pro-environmental actions (Berke 2009; Jepson Jr. 2004a).

After reading numerous articles published in planning journals on various North America pro-environmental issues, the author was struck by the few citations of peer-reviewed research by scientists whose work addressed urban-ecological topics. To determine if that impression was accurate, the author searched all issues of the Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA) from 2003 to 2013 for articles concerning environmental topics. Since the focus of this paper is on North American planning, JAPA was used as a surrogate to represent all planning journals publishing papers based on North American environmental issues in urban, suburban, and peri-urban areas. Nineteen articles were identified, some of which focused on natural landscape issues while others addressed more general topics, such as sustainability, smart/compact growth, or citizen involvement in environmental matters. The references sections of those articles were then searched for citations of peer-reviewed scientific research published in ecological or environmental journals. The total number of references contained in those papers was 1,078; the number of peer-reviewed urban-ecological papers cited was 56, or 5.2 percent of the total. The JAPA article citing the most urban-ecological research contained 20; the paper with the least urban-ecological citations had zero. If the article citing the most eco-science research were eliminated as unrepresentative of the whole since it contained nearly 36 percent of all the peer-reviewed scientific papers found, the number of those citations drops to 36, or 3.4 percent of the total, indicating a low level of inclusion of peer-reviewed research in JAPA articles. Based on the percent of peer-reviewed urban-ecological research cited in planning papers, even if readers perused each scientific paper listed in the references section, their exposure to urban-ecological literature relevant to planning would be limited.

Although it is difficult to assess the multi-faceted practical effects of planners not being well-informed with respect to urban-ecological principles and practices, research by Brody (2003a) provides a certain insight. He analyzed a random sample of Florida jurisdictions to measure ecosystem protection components contained in comprehensive plans. He found that the strongest predictor of plan quality was a high level of disturbance or threat to biodiversity, indicating that plans included pro-environmental measures only after the jurisdictions experienced significant adverse effects to biodiversity and not before. Brody concluded: “This style of environmental management is costly, inefficient, and in many cases practically not feasible” (2003a, 829). Brody determined that the driver of environmental plan quality was adverse ecological effects and not leadership by practicing planners. A closely related study of local comprehensive plans by Brody (2003b, 533) determined that Florida jurisdictions “have not been able to effectively incorporate the principles of ecosystem management into their planning frameworks.” According to Brody, the resulting comprehensive plans fail to incorporate specific measures to protect natural resources, lack the basic building blocks for cross-jurisdictional cooperation, and are not fully implemented after adoption.

Since the study of urban ecosystems is part of terrestrial ecology, a search by the author identified internally organized and externally recognized sub-disciplines that apply ecological principles and approaches to urbanized areas and hinterlands and interlink that information with principles and concepts from both social and physical sciences and particularly with planning and design disciplines. Landscape ecology, urban ecology, and social-ecological systems were selected as being the most representative of ecological disciplines that study human-dominated systems. Sustainability science was added after the author became exposed to the nature of the research performed by scientists self-identified as working in that discipline. In this paper, the characteristic attributes of landscape ecology, urban ecology, social-ecological systems, and sustainability science are briefly examined as is their literature with regard to research that integrates ecological and urban/regional realms or has relevance to planning practice.[2]

As a partial remedy to overcoming the challenges associated with implementing urban-ecological policies and programs, Berke (2007) and Spirn (2003) advocated expanding planning education to include ecological concepts and analytical methods. More recently, Spirn (2012, 21) called for “a series of literature reviews on ecological urbanism and its subfields, reviews that provide a critical, comprehensive overview . . .” This paper addresses those concerns by introducing planners to the eco-science disciplines that have been calling for the integration of ecological and urban realms, briefly reviewing the planning practice literature to demonstrate where the discipline is regarding implementing “green” measures, and identifying techniques planners can apply to increase adoption rates of urban-ecological measures.

Four Eco-Science Disciplines: An Overview

Landscape Ecology (LE)

Landscape ecology, one of the first concepts[3] to address connections between culture and environment, was articulated in the 1930s by Carl Troll (1971),[4] a German biogeographer focused on identifying relationships between human agency and ecological processes in various scales and spatial development patterns. His ideas were further developed in landscape architecture (Spirn 1985) and became the basis of what is known as the “European” School of LE that emphasizes typology, classification, and land planning and is largely concerned with environmental systems influenced directly by human agency (Beatley 2000). Despite its name, those ideas are well represented in North America and elsewhere and inform much of the recent movement to integrate urban and environment. Although in the past adherents of that tradition paid less attention to the ecosystem aspect of the urban-environment nexus than to the “built” landscape, that focus has been changing over the last several decades (Spirn 2012; Stremke and Koh 2010) under the influence of proponents working to eliminate barriers between nature-focused environmentalists and human-focused urbanists (Farr 2007).

The “American” School of LE arose in the early 1980s (Forman and Godron 1981; Naveh and Lieberman 1984) in the U.S. and has been largely influenced by ecologists concentrating on natural or semi-natural ecological systems. That School is more involved in abstract ecological theory and dynamic computer-based models (Brown, Aspinall, and Bennett 2006) than the European School, though Wu (2006) maintained those differences are overemphasized and instead focused on underlying commonalities. Although the American School is largely integrated with ecological science (Turner 2005) several leading researchers have called for greater emphasis on culture as the critical glue that unites the natural and social sciences in the study of landscape (Hersperger 1994; Musacchio 2011; Wu 2010).

Urban Ecology (UE)

Urban ecology is a multi-disciplinary field that seeks to understand how ecological and cultural processes intertwine in human-dominated urban and urbanized landscapes and to engage in research that enables those coupled human-natural systems to become more sustainable (McIntyre, Knowles-Yánez, and Hope 2000). The field has its origins in ecology, systems ecology, resource economics, landscape architecture, geography, urban planning, sociology, and anthropology among others (Marzluff 2008). Proponents believe that understanding urban systems requires them to be studied as landscapes integrating context and spatial relations with cultural and ecological processes (Cadenasso and Pickett 2008; Grimm et al. 2008). That new landscape perspective emphasizes heterogeneity, cross-disciplinarity, holism, and the integration of pattern, process, scale, and hierarchical linkages in urban areas (Cadenasso, Pickett, and Schwarz 2007).

Social-Ecological Systems (SES)

The SES concept was first defined by the ecologist, C. S. Holling (1973), and elaborated upon by numerous colleagues (Gunderson, Holling, and Light 1995; Olsson et al. 2006). According to those ecologists, an SES consists of a biogeophysical unit delimited by spatial/scalar or functional boundaries and associated social actors and institutions that together constitute a dynamic and complex system of natural and socioeconomic resources (Bengtsson et al. 2003).

Proponents have identified three related attributes of SES that influence their future paths: resilience (Folke 2006), adaptability (Smit and Wandel 2006), and transformability (Gunderson and Holling 2002). Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to absorb shocks and reorganize while undergoing change so as to retain essentially the same identity, function, structure, and feedbacks (Adger et al. 2005a). For planners, the implications are significant because understanding how urban-environmental systems react to stress is a critical element in managing the capacity of those systems to cope with, adapt to, and shape change and thus become sustainable (Berkes, Colding, and Folke 2003). Adaptability is the capacity of the human agents in the system to influence resilience, meaning to purposefully manage/govern an SES (Smit and Wandel 2006). Thus, human intentions and actions, which are critical elements in the roles played by planners/designers, directly affect the system’s resilience and future (Walker et al. 2004). Transformability is the capacity to cross thresholds and create fundamentally new development scenarios when ecological and socioeconomic conditions make the existing system untenable (Folke et al. 2010). Transformational change may occur at larger scales and enable resilience at smaller scales (note that scale is used here in the sense of map scale).

Sustainability Science (SS)

Sustainability science emerged in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries when the U.S. National Research Council (1999) and Kates et al. (2001) identified sustainability in terms of a stronger analytic and scientific approach to nature-society interactions along evidence-based quantitative indicators and trajectories. Thus, defined by the problems it addresses rather than by the disciplines it employs, SS is a new scientific approach that focuses explicitly on dynamic interactions between natural and social systems (Clark and Dickson 2003) and on how those interactions affect the challenge of sustainability (Reitan 2005). A complementary view by Kajikawa (2008) emphasized the multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary characteristics of the emerging discipline. The backgrounds of most SS researchers are in the environmental sciences; their research topics typically reflect that orientation. An analysis of titles of 232 research papers in the sustainability section of PNAS demonstrated the major focus of 62 percent was on sustaining environmental life support systems, contrasted with 38 percent that primarily addressed human well-being (Kates 2011). According to Clark (2007, 1737), “Sustainability science is a field defined by the problems it addresses rather than by the disciplines it employs” and focuses “on understanding the complex dynamics that arise from interactions between human and environmental systems.” That emphasis on an integrated and coupled human-environment system (Jianguo Liu et al. 2007) defines SS’s core and differentiates it from political and human ecology. Clark (2007) suggested SS as a promising approach in addressing systemic human-nature relationships and complex place-based problems because it serves as a bridge connecting blue-sky theorizing and pragmatic problem solving.

Brief Comparison of the Four Eco-Sciences

LE, UE, and SES differ in several important ways. The LE research approach is more broadly focused spatially within the foundational context of ecosystem ecology. Research in UE emphasizes analysis of urban settings in the context of ecosystem ecology and has a greater focus on planning communities using ecologically appropriate designs. Despite those differences, the technical approaches of the two disciplines are similar, with UE perhaps applying more analytical techniques (Ridd 1995) and computer-based models (Polasky et al. 2008). Both disciplines study the structure and function of various types of landscapes, though urban ecologists are, by definition, much more involved with urban-focused topics and the effects of human occupance (Pickett et al. 2001) and governance (Benvie 2005) while landscape ecologists are typically more concerned with natural, semi-natural, forested, and agricultural environments (Bennett, Radford, and Haslem 2006). Both involve research into issues of scale, spatial patterns, ecological process, non-linear interactions, and land use legacies.

The dominant approach in SES differs from those characterizing both LE and UE in its reliance on systems theory, resilience, and adaptive management emphasizing linkages and feedback controls in developing the capacity to manage complexity and change (Berkes and Folke 1998). Because the SES approach is highly integrative—involving non-linear economics, complex systems theory, ecosystems science, and institutional theory—and focuses on crisis and change as well as resource use and management, it is more people- or cultural-oriented than LE (Becker and Ostrom 1995). However, much like UE, SES research is built on an empirical practice that acknowledges the complex web of synergies, constraints, and opportunities that develop between nature and culture and attempts to overcome the disconnect that limits the theoretical and practical integration of evolution/ecology and economy/institutions.

Ecology is the glue that binds LE, UE, and SES. As ecological sciences, all three are grounded in the biogeophysical world of spatial-temporal phenomena complete with boundaries and limits, gradients and patterns, cross- and multi-scalar issues, systemic interdependencies, and a combination of the myriad structural and functional factors that constitute natural, social, and hybrid systems. The question then arises as to how SS fits into an urban-ecological planning model. It does so through the concept of sustainability with regard to the cultural element that is inextricably intertwined with the natural world (de Groot et al. 2010). Sustainability research typically involves interdisciplinary groups of researchers engaged in cross-disciplinary processes and investigates such issues as depletion of natural resources, biodiversity loss, and land use change (Jerneck et al. 2011). In a significant way, the dynamic interactions between society and natural Earth systems form the glue that binds SS to LE, UE, and SES. Place, as the nexus of human interaction with nature, appears at the interdisciplinary center of SS and forms the integrating element that draws together the ecologically-based disciplines.

What all four disciplines have in common is their scientific approach to investigating nested attributes of an environmental system and resources created by that system that affect people who use the system and rely on those resources, which is where culture, cities, and planning are interlinked. Urban-ecological research in the four sciences is conducted within a set of constraints or rules initiated by formal and informal local and regional governance systems that influence temporal and spatial interactions and outcomes. Although constraints among the four sciences may vary, the common intersections of research trends and issues are numerous.

Research in the four eco-sciences has focused on a variety of topics/issues that directly or indirectly involve the integration of cultural-urban with ecological realms. Much of that research is on issues practicing planners deal with professionally and is likely to attract their attention. Several common integrated urban-ecological research themes are identified below and representative studies from the eco-sciences are cited: land use/land cover (Foster et al. 2003; Quay 2004; Theobald and Hobbs 2002), governance and adaptive management (Adger et al. 2003; Fabricius et al. 2007; Folke et al, 2005), scale and cross-scalar interactions in human/natural systems (Cash et al. 2006; Chowdhury et al. 2011; Hein et al. 2006), spatial patterns of urbanization and ecosystems (Alberti 2007; Kinzig et al. 2005; Wu et al. 2011). Innovative research in the four eco-sciences demonstrates that they are not simply “repackaging” the truism that development should be more environmentally sensitive. That research has focused on integrating humans into models to build a more complete understanding of how ecological systems work under the constraints formed by human use of natural resources. It is only in the last four decades that ecologists have come to recognize that “most aspects of the structure and functioning of Earth’s ecosystems cannot be understood without accounting for the strong, often dominant influence of humanity” (Vitousek et al. 1997, 494).

The eco-science approaches and the topics investigated are sufficiently similar that they can be synthesized with planning under a single rubric, Integrated Urban-Ecological Planning (IUEP), a term expressing the concept of multiple disciplines and multiple participants, including jurisdictions, stakeholders, and citizens addressing a common theme. IUEP is presented in this paper in an integrated, generic, decision-making arena of action and practice rather than as a discipline-specific object of academic study or a simple technique to be mastered. It is a model to be used by urbanists from a range of disciplines working together to address social and environmental issues from an urban-ecosystems perspective (Polasky et al. 2008).

Eco-Science Integration of Urban and Ecological Realms

Many planners may not be aware of significant contributions by researchers in LE, UE, SES, and SS to the integration of urban and environment. Although those scientific approaches are far from identical, their similarities are many and incorporate, at least in part, urban-environment nexus concerns comparable to those articulated by planners and other urbanists. Research in the four eco-sciences has been focused on a variety of topics/issues that directly or indirectly involve the integration of cultural-urban and ecological realms. Much of that research is on issues practicing planners deal with professionally and is likely to attract their attention. That urban-ecological research is briefly reviewed below.

Landscape ecology research contained in professional journals includes numerous topics of interest to planners: governance (Görg 2007; Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009), land use/land cover (Buyantuyev and Wu 2010; Foster et al. 2003; Mercer Clarke et al. 2008; Nassauer et al. 2009: Quay 2004), scaling issues (Cain et al. 1997; Musacchio and Wu 2004; Turner, M., 1989; Turner, M., et al. 1989; Wu and Hobbs 2002; Wu 2004), spatial patterns of urbanization and ecosystems (Biamonte et al. 2011; Luck and Wu 2002; Nassauer et al. 2004; Wu et al. 2011), integrating natural and social sciences within the planning process (Jackson and Steiner 1985; Silva et al. 2008), operationalizing landscape sustainability and design (Musacchio 2011; Nassauer and Opdam 2008), social processes and landscape patterns (Field et al. 2003), coupled human and natural systems (Monticino et al. 2006), urbanization gradients (Minor and Urban 2010), connectivity and heterogeneity in urban landscapes (Schleicher et al. 2011; Zipperer et al. 2000), spatial tools and modeling in sustainable landscape planning (Dzialak et al. 2011), and human settlement and ecosystem function (Collins et al. 2000). Landscape ecologists have examined in considerable detail such planning-related topics as barriers to implementation of low-impact and conservation subdivision design, paying specific attention to developer perceptions and resident demand (Bowman and Thompson 2009), and the cost effectiveness of native plants in residential landscape designs (Helfand et al. 2006).

Urban ecosystem research of significance to practicing planners includes the following topics: urban-centered governance and adaptive management plans (Benvie 2005; Kremen and Ostfeld 2005), land use (Bain and Brush 2008; Cadenasso et al. 2007; Kremen et al. 2007; Theobald and Hobbs 2002; Wear et al. 1998), scale and cross-scalar interactions in human and natural systems (Cash et al. 2006; Michael Conroy et al. 2003; Peterson 2000), urban patterns and ecological function (Alberti 1999 and 2007; Alberti and Marzluff 2004; Grimm and Redman 2004; Mitchell and Parkins 2011), human agency and ecosystems (Elias et al. 2013; Wolf et al, 2013), cultural influences on animal behavior (Clucas and Marzluff 2012; Kertson et al. 2011; Webb et al. 2011; Withey and Marzluff 2009), urban gradients (Blair, 1999; Grimm et al. 2008b; McDonnell and Pickett 1990; Nagy and Lockaby 2011), spatially interlinked socioeconomic and environmental sub-sets (Gergel et al. 2002; Kinzig et al. 2005; Pickett et al. 2008; Rees 1997), ecological networks and spatial planning practices (Opdam et al. 2006; Zellner 2007 and 2008), interlinked ecological and socioeconomic systems (Pickett et al. 2001; Redman et al. 2004), restoring and designing ecosystems (Martinez and Lopez-Barrera 2008), coupled human-natural systems (Jianguo Liu et al. 2007), effects of human agency in altering ecosystems (Pickett and Cadenasso 2008 and 2009), and urban variables as determinants of environmental stewardship (Troy et al. 2007).

Major urban-ecological themes addressed by SES researchers of interest to practicing planners include: governance and adaptive management (Armitage 2005; Becker and Ostrom 1995; Brondizio et al. 2009; Colding et al. 2006; Danter et al. 2000; Dietz et al. 2003; Ernstson et al. 2010; Fabricius et al. 2007; Folke et al, 2005; Lebel et al. 2006; Rathwell and Peterson 2012), spatial-temporal scales and levels (Armitage et al. 2009; Chowdhury et al. 2011; Cumming et al. 2006; Zurlini et al. 2006), ecological systems and land-use (Colding 2007; Daily et al. 2009), economics and carrying capacity (Arrow et al. 1995), human agency/occupance and adaptive ecosystems (Bengtsson et al. 2003; Folke et al. 2004), how an integrated approach by SES researchers would affect policy and practitioners (Miller et al. 2004), sustainability of SES systems (Ostrom 2009), and natural and man-induced ecological changes and land planning (Zurlini et al. 2006). Perhaps the two most important trends in SES research for planners is the prominence of governance and scale since land use regulation and spatial planning are integral elements in how humans structure their settlements. Certainly one measure of the growing significance of the contributions of social scientists in general to SES research was the 2009 award of the prestigious Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel to the well-known public policy analyst, Elinor Ostrom (1990, 2005, and 2009; also see Ostrom et al. 2007), for her analysis of the multi-faceted roles of non-governmental stakeholders in the political-economic governance of commonly held natural resources.

The Sustainability Science approach emphasizes the complex, intertwined character of humanity and the natural resource base on which it depends, focusing on how human institutions, systems, and beliefs influence complex interactions between culture and environment. That approach functions as the place-based bridge linking the multiple scales and domains of the biogeophysical, social, and technological world. Among the numerous SS research themes of interest to practicing planners are: governance (Adger et al. 2003; Adger and Jordan 2009; Dernbach and Mintz 2011; Karl and Turner 2002; Pretty 2003; Turner II and Robbins 2008), land use (DeFries et al. 2004; Nielsen-Pincus et al. 2010; Turner II et al. 2007), scale (Adger et al. 2005b; Hein et al. 2006), coupled human-natural systems (Turner II et al. 2003a and 2003b), participatory tools in natural resources management (Kearney et al. 2007), urban impacts on soils and their implications for restoration planning (Pavao-Zuckerman 2008), innovation and a sustainable urban future in industrialized cities (Han et al. 2012), conservation planning and the mitigation of adverse environmental effects (Kiesecker et al. 2010), community-level vitality in sustainable development (Dale et al. 2010), sustainable urban ecosystems (McPherson et al. 1997; Mincey et al. 2013), and urban sustainability indicators (Kennedy et al. 2011; Munier 2011).

Eco-scientists were the first to document in scientific detail and with a full suite of concepts the nature of the reciprocal influences between human activity (disturbance) and ecosystem dynamics. That research has demonstrated the significance and utility of such conceptual frameworks as urban-rural gradients; energy flow and nutrient cycling in urbanized areas; and species distribution, abundance, and interactions caused by land use changes and the consequent effects on ecological pattern and process. In discussing the scientific basis of design in promoting landscape sustainability, Musacchio argued that the eco-sciences “can contribute to systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people’s contact with nature, and complex place-based problems” (2009, 993; see also Musacchio and Wu 2004). It is vital for planners determined to integrate urban and environment to expand their awareness of that research and develop a fuller understanding of how to best apply information developed by eco-scientists to urban challenges.

Planning Practice and IUEP Challenges: A Review

The literature discussed herein is a small part of the body of eco-science and planning research that has focused on urban and ecological realms. Cook et al. (2004) expanded a developing integration concept by proposing “adaptive experimentation” to take advantage of overlap between ecologists and urban planners/designers. Applying the same logic, Felson and Pickett (2005) proposed a strong interdisciplinary partnership between planners, landscape architects, and ecologists in “designed experiments,” the products of which would become part of the urban mosaic. They advocated using urban design projects as ecological experiments, making planners/designers, architects, and ecologists integral to the improvement of cities. Pickett et al. (2011) advanced the integrative concept by proposing the “Humane Metropolis” as an interdisciplinary tool to promote environmental and social quality, linking the eco-sciences with planning/design. Musacchio (2009) and Nassauer and Opdam (2008) supported the coupling of design and scientific method and emphasized the critical role played by sustainability in integrating environmentally responsible issues into landscape research and practice. Their compelling arguments proposed planning/design as the cement that would bind ecological scientists and urban practitioners with the goal of science affecting urban landscape change through increased sustainability. In a similar argument, Clark and Dickson (2003, 8059) maintained that sustainability focuses “on the dynamic interactions between nature and society, with equal attention to how social change shapes the environment and how environmental change shapes society.” Clark (2007, 1737) further held that sustainability research addressed systemic relationships and complex place-based problems while supporting the “integrative task of managing particular places where multiple efforts to meet multiple human needs interact with multiple life-support systems in highly complex and often unexpected ways.”

Although the functional integration of eco-science with local planning requires many steps (Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove 2004), geographically targeted research programs have been operational for several decades. Examples include the National Science Foundation’s Long Term Ecological Research Network and Urban Long-Term Research Areas and Exploratory Research Projects. Another example of the functional integration of urban-natural communities is the Natural Community Conservation Planning program organized by California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife. Other broad-based initiatives may be similar to the Puget Sound Partnership[5] and Chicago Wilderness (Conroy and Beatley 2007). Locally-focused efforts like the Binghamton (NY) Neighborhood Project/Urban Ecosystems Initiative, a cooperative venture among local university faculty and various community partners, also can play significant roles. Implementing those and other integrative measures would enable eco-scientists and planners to develop more insight into how scientific knowledge and tools affect both societal and local processes and contribute to the quality of future urban landscapes (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).

For several decades, numerous eco-scientists, planners, and landscape designers have proposed what this paper identifies as IUEP (Alberti et al. 2003; Opdam, Foppen, and Vos 2002; Pickett, Cadenasso, and Grove 2004; Redman, Grove, and Kuby 2004; Vasishth 2008). Despite those and other calls for cooperation and collaboration between science and planning, examination of the planning literature reveals little awareness of place-based contributions of the eco-sciences. Although the time seems appropriate for planners to initiate community outreach and education efforts to increase understanding and local implementation of urban-ecological principles (Berke 2007; Brody and Highfield 2005), the lack of adoption of IUEP techniques by planners indicates significant constraints to integrating the urban and ecological realms. As mentioned previously, among those constraints is that many planners seem marginally aware of the substantial body of research in urban-ecological planning issues that has been undertaken in the last several decades. 

Two explanations may account for that situation. The first is much of that research appears in scientific journals planners may not associate with urban-related topics. The second is that many North American planning programs lack emphasis on urban-ecological sciences and thus their graduates are not well informed as to urban-ecological processes (Berke 2007). Even a cursory glance at the curricula of most university planning departments reveals the rarity of faculty members with doctorates in ecology or ecosystem sciences, the paucity of core program requirements in urban-ecological courses, and the general lack of focus on urban-ecological principles and practices (see Berke 2007). Exceptions to that generalization exist, for example, planning programs at the universities of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Washington, British Columbia, and several others, but the greater majority of planning departments lag behind those exceptions.

The planning literature devoted to investigating the adoption of green measures is briefly reviewed to identify other constraints to planners adopting urban-ecological principles. Betsill (2001) determined that institutional barriers—inappropriate bureaucratic structure, lack of administrative capacity, and budgetary constraints—make it difficult for local jurisdictions to implement targeted pro-environmental policies and actions. In research that measured the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions in southern Florida to manage ecological systems, Brody, Highfield, and Carrasco (2004, 47) found that “Without the warning signals of habitat fragmentation and loss of keystone species, planners seem to lack motivation to initiate early protection measures.” They specify the central problem as: “. . . how to motivate communities to protect critical ecosystem components before they are severely impacted by human growth and development.” Brody and colleagues did not speculate on the causes of that lack of motivation but concluded that “reactionary style of environmental planning is costly, inefficient and, in many instances, practically infeasible” (2004, 47).

In several surveys of practicing planners, Conroy (2003, 2006) found that a general understanding of the sustainable development concept existed but had not been accepted as a new or different standard for planning practice. Downs (2005) asked why few cities have adopted smart growth principles. Much like Betsill (2001), he argued that political resistance at state and local levels to changes in governance and authority would make adoption of pro-environmental practices problematic. Downs was critical of the ability of local government to change in a relatively short time what are deeply held land use preferences and discussed an increased role for state government in regulating urban growth boundaries, despite the numerous practical difficulties attending that issue (see also Bengston, Fletcher, and Nelson. 2004; Nelson and Duncan 1995).

Berke (2007) analyzed barriers to the adoption of urban-ecological planning techniques and found that local governments have built-in difficulties that hinder such adoption. He identified critical barriers that inhibit increased local adoption of pro-environmental policies and programs. The first he defined as “a low level of commitment for proactive planning to protect critical natural resources” and emphasized “communities lack ample motivation to take action.” (Berke 2007, 61). The second barrier involved taking action only after significant ecological damage or destruction occurred, a condition Berke identified as the land use management paradox (Burby and French 1981). According to Berke, “The paradox arises when communities adopt high quality plans and plan implementation practices only after the critical natural resources they intend to protect have been lost” (2009, 412). The studies by Berke and Brody suggest “a low level of political commitment for proactive planning to protect critical natural resources” (Berke 2009, 414). Another constraint Berke identified was the spatial mismatch between the local scale characteristic of non-state political jurisdictions and the regional to national scale of ecological issues. That mismatch makes multi-scalar and cross-boundary relationships difficult to address in an ecologically sound manner, especially since local government is ill-equipped to deal with multi-level decision-making, a conclusion shared by Betsill (2001) and Downs (2005).

When Edwards and Haines (2007) evaluated smart growth principles in local comprehensive plans under Wisconsin’s smart growth planning law, the communities analyzed were found to have not fully embraced the smart growth agenda and appeared to be largely paying lip service to state regulations. In a survey of planning directors of communities in the Midwest, Conroy and Iqbal (2009) made two key determinations. First, larger communities have more sustainability-related programs in process or planned for than less populated cities. And second, “communities whose local planning organizations are more overtly aware of sustainability are significantly more likely to be planning for and implementing sustainability activities” (2006, 122). They concluded that although communities may be moving towards consensus through discussions among in-house planning professionals, that process is not linear and “does little to address the reality of a fragmented policy and implementation of decision-making environment” (2006, 122). Grant’s (2009a) study of Canadian cities found that weak political commitment and market/developers constraints to continue building traditional subdivisions combined to frustrate desires of planners to create more environmentally responsible communities. Berke (2008) and Stevens, Berke, and Song (2010) found a widely shared dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of efforts to integrate the dimensions of green or environmentally responsible communities into the ways cities are designed and built. Survey research gathered from five states by Lewis and Baldassare (2010) found the only variable consistently associated with opposition to compact development was conservative political ideology. Research by Garde et al. (2010) that involved 180 Southern California cities found that, even in neighborhood projects identified by local political jurisdiction planners as innovative, sustainable development was not a high priority. Booth and Skelton (2011) presented a case study of an initiative to establish sustainable landscaping demonstration sites in a northern, resource-dependent Canadian community. They found unexpected resistance from within the municipal government that proved critical to the initiative’s lack of success. They attributed the resistance to shared fear of negative public response on the part of municipal staff and council members. In two separate studies that analyzed exurban plans in terms of sustainable development in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area and township plans in Central Ohio, Jun and Conroy (2013 and 2014 respectively) determined that the comprehensive plans did not provide balanced support of sustainability principles.

The situation today in North American planning regarding urban-ecosystem measures has remained relatively unchanged since Stein (2007, 52) reported, “Many land use planning decisions still only incorporate ecological principles and biodiversity considerations in a cursory way, if at all.” Berke’s conclusion in his introduction to the Journal of the American Planning Association Special Issue on green communities was strikingly similar: “. . . there is a widely shared dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of efforts to integrate the dimensions of green communities into the ways we build human settlements” (2008, 393).

Although the above brief review may seem to portend limited prospects for the adoption of IUEP, that is not necessarily the case. Not all indicators concerning adoption of IUEP by individuals and jurisdictions are negative. In an empirical analysis of the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local ecosystem management plans, Brody (2003c) found that the presence of specific stakeholder groups significantly improved plan quality. That research tested and rejected the hypothesis that broad and diverse stakeholder representation in the planning process would have a statistically significant positive effect on plan quality. Rather, Brody determined that the participation of resource-based industry organizations had the strongest positive influence on ecosystem plan quality, a finding that has implications regarding the adoption of urban-ecological measures. O’Connell (2009) determined that, even though politics prevented many cities from adopting comprehensive smart growth policies, as the number of types of groups promoting smart growth increased cities adopted more smart growth policies. That finding is likely to be significant to IUEP acceptance when the role of social networks in the adoption of innovations is considered. In a modification of the theory of diffusion, Darley and Beniger (1981) proposed that social networks are key moderators of influence in the acceptance of innovations. In situations characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty, people rely on information received from social networks of similarly situated individuals as a major input into their decision-making process, a finding that supports O’Connell’s conclusions. According to Rogers (2003), adoption of innovations by organizations and individuals is a process comprised of five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Since IUEP is an innovation in an early stage of diffusion, challenges to adoption must be expected, especially considering most planners have had little to no formal academic training in ecosystem science and thus have limited knowledge of urban-ecological principles and practices. Introducing planners to urban ecology will take time but that training would likely improve IUEP adoption rates. Supporting that argument, Jepson Jr. and Edwards (2010) found that planners generally had only vague impressions about ecological urban development but that their support for it rose as their familiarity increased, indicating a strong role for continuing education and professional development. Outside the field of planning, numerous researchers in psychology argue that the adoption of pro-environmental behavior is dependent on knowledge and learning (McDaniels and Gregory 2004; Simmons and Widmar 1990), which emphasizes the information dissemination role practicing planners frequently play. Meinhold and Malkus (2005) indicated that information can function as a significant moderator for the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors, pointing to reasons for strengthening the environmental information dissemination role for planners in the IUEP adoption process.

Conroy and Beatley (2007) reviewed a variety of sustainability related implementation efforts in Chicago, Illinois, and Cleveland, Ohio, cities whose sustainability efforts they contended are often overlooked in the literature. They argued that small steps towards sustainability, which they characterized as “low hanging fruit,” could prove effective and lead to integrated efforts that may be more theoretically appealing. In an effort to explain why one community-initiated environmental stewardship program has been successful, Shandas and Messer (2008) used data generated by Portland’s Community Watershed Stewardship Program to characterize the prerequisites to developing an effective community-based environmental management program. They found that “community-based watershed stewardship programs, if designed correctly, have the potential to increase citizen trust in government, improve the biophysical environment, and foster participants’ ecological understanding” (2008, 408). Grant (2009b) highlighted the role of effective practice in Vancouver, British Columbia, as a powerful force for social transformation as well-informed planners work in a responsive way with community members and political leaders to achieve pro-environmental policies and programs. Those finding were supported by Hanna (2005), who studied two communities in the Canadian Pacific Northwest where planners played influential roles in the planning process by helping to define realistic possibilities for transition to a more environmentally responsible future. He concluded that the study illustrated the success of planning-based efforts to manage environmental change.

Because IUEP has been proposed as an action-research process, it is necessary to determine if it fits well with the capabilities of practicing planners. Although information dissemination and education-based policies and programs were identified previously as a good fit for planners (Brody 2003b), perhaps the best match is that of public participation that features a collaborative, consensus building, and problem-solving context that engages individual competence and a sense of community pride (De Young 2000; Kaplan 2000; Pelletier and Sharp 2008). De Young (1996) and Kaplan (1990) also found that context-appropriate environmental information provided in a citizen participatory effort helps reduce individual confusion and uncertainty about how to proceed and gives people the opportunity to develop familiarity, confidence, and competence in terms of the proposed urban-ecological program and thus raises the likelihood of adoption. Planners should also be aware that step-by-step procedural guidance in a public participation effort is an essential form of behavior-relevant knowledge transfer (Halford and Sheehan 1991) that can play a critical role in the adoption of IUEP measures. A key study by Burby (2003) of citizen involvement determined that evidence from plan-making processes in the States of Florida and Washington indicated that greater stakeholder involvement resulted in stronger comprehensive plans, a finding applicable to urban-ecological planning. He also found that with greater stakeholder involvement planning proposals were more likely to be implemented. In the context of understanding of local policy making, Xinsheng Liu and colleagues (2010, 87) determined that “The local policy process appears to be most influenced by consensus- and coalition-building,” a conclusion that resonates with well-known participation techniques discussed by numerous planners (Cohen 2012; Forester 1999; Healey 2003; Innes and Booher 2004). Another method of promoting the adoption of pro-environmental measures that has been advocated by planners is creating a more persuasive approach that appeals to common environmental values to minimize opposition and generate support that crosses political and ideological lines (Goetz 2008; Lewis and Baldassare 2010; Merrick and Garcia 2004).

Techniques to Increase IUEP Adoption Rates

The question that must be addressed is how practicing planners, the greater majority of whom are not familiar with scientific research into urban, suburban, or exurban ecosystems, are going to be able to build support from the public and jurisdictional governing bodies for natural resource policies, programs, regulations, and outreach actions. One answer is for planners to apply the recommendations of academic planners like Berke, Brody, Conroy and Beatley, and others to increase the rate of adoption of environmental measures. The dilemma posed by that course of action is the majority of those recommendations are of the business as usual variety, albeit promoting innovation and increased intensity of effort, such as improved factual basis of plans, increased use of GIS, increased monitoring, better comprehensive plans, more regional partnerships, prioritizing ‘low-hanging fruit’ opportunities, better diagnostics, etc. (Berke 2007, 2009; Brody 2003a, 2003c; Conroy and Beatley 2007). But those approaches fail to address the issues identified as related to the lack of environmental progress in local jurisdictions, specifically: little motivation to change, weak political/institutional commitment, political ideology, and market constraints (Berke 2007, 2009; Booth and Skelton 2011; Brody 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Brody, Highfield, and Carrasco 2004; Grant 2009a; Jacques, Dunlap, and Freeman 2008; Lewis and Baldassare 2010). As Brody, Highfield, and Carrasco (2004, 47) stated clearly: “A central issue for local watershed planning thus becomes how to motivate communities to protect critical ecosystem components before they are severely impacted by human growth and development.” If those commentators and others are accurate reporters of the reasons why “green” principles have not been widely adopted, then marginally changing business as usual will have limited beneficial effects on adoption of IUEP measures because causative factors were unaddressed, i.e. lack of motivation, political/institutional resistance, market constraints, ideology, etc.

A game-changing effort is required to derail the status quo. That effort must address causative factors identified in the planning literature as barriers to IUEP adoption or it will be minimally effective. This paper focuses specifically on those causative factors by proposing the use of social psychology techniques to motivate pro-environmental behavior that focus on widely shared American values. Those techniques have been identified through four decades of intra- and cross-cultural empirical research and have been tested for validity and reliability (Alibeli and White 2011; de Groot and Steg 2008). Building on the Norm-Activation Theory (Schwartz 1977), Model of Human Values (Schwartz 1992), and New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978), Paul Stern and colleagues (Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993; Stern and Dietz 1994; Stern et al. 1995) constructed the Value-Belief-Norm Theory that posited a causal chain of variables—values, ecological worldview, adverse consequences, perceived ability to reduce threat, and personal norms—that lead to environmentally responsible behavior. Stern and colleagues demonstrated that attitudes of environmental concern are rooted in a person’s value system. That system of widely shared values can be used by planners to increase agreement on pro-environmental measures. The three approaches listed below as Primary Techniques to increase adoption of IUEP measures are recommended in this paper specifically because they have been shown through decades of empirical psychology research to be effective in motivating environmentally responsible behavior.

Primary IUEP Adoption Techniques

Use of Widely Shared Values to Frame Pro-Environmental Measures

Practicing planners can use core beliefs that characterize Americans as a group (Schwartz 1992) to frame pro-environmental messages that appeal to people who hold differing political/ideological positions and thus increase individual and group agreement. Those widely shared values are self-enhancement and openness to change. Self-transcendence values, including social and biospheric altruism, are also shared by Americans but at lower levels (see Schultz and Zelezny 2003) and can be combined with self-interest and openness to change since pro-environmental behavior is multiply determined with respect to values, motivations, and intentions (Allen and Ferrand 1999; Brandon and Lewis 1999; Lindenberg and Steg 2007). Creating frames with broad-spectrum appeal that ensure that self-motivating values are compatible with openness to change, self-transcending, and biospheric domains requires weaving together various shared value threads. Although those value or moral positions may have separate, multiple origins, when combined and applied to message frames they increase the effectiveness of the message and motivate individuals to adopt pro-environmental attitudes despite differences in ideological/political beliefs (Feinberg and Willer 2013; Schultz 2002; Schultz and Zelezny 2003).

Competence-Based Participation

The idea of public participation that frames pro-environmental behavior as a value-based dimension is grounded in the research of urban planner Raymond De Young and psychologist Stephen Kaplan. De Young (1996, 2000) developed the concept of intrinsic satisfaction as motivation for individuals to act environmentally responsibly. Those satisfactions include the drive for personal competence as well as participating in community activities. Kaplan’s Reasonable Person Model of pro-environmental behavior (2000, 491) focused on reducing “the corrosive sense of helplessness” individuals may feel about serious environmental problems through participatory problem-solving and personal competence gained by working with others to find solutions that are satisfying as well as environmentally responsible. Both approaches are information/knowledge-based and grounded in step-by-step procedures that reduce uncertainty by guiding process. Those approaches allow for multiple motivations (e.g. self-interest and altruistic/biospheric values) and also require the participation of experts (planners). The related Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000) contends that autonomy supportive contexts that encourage people to make informed, un-coerced decisions and are informational (characteristics of well-structured citizen participation efforts) are likely to enable intrinsic motivation and competence, elements that are necessary for effective pro-environmental behavior. That Theory shares critical elements with De Young’s intrinsic satisfaction and competence research and Kaplan’s focus on competence and participant-based problem-solving, which strengthens the argument for planners to apply those factors to public involvement programs associated with value-based pro-environmental messages. However, it should be noted that not all citizen involvement efforts can be assumed to meet the competence-based standard.

Information/Knowledge/Learning

Many researchers believe that environmentally responsible behavior is dependent on knowledge and learning and that information can function as a significant moderator for the relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviors. As mentioned previously, step-by-step procedural guidance in public participation is an essential form of behavior-relevant knowledge transfer (Halford and Sheehan 1991) that can play a critical role in the adoption of IUEP measures, a conclusion shared by Gamba and Oskamp (1994), who found the relationships between environmental values and behavior are stronger when environmental knowledge is higher. Activities in this category include planners raising public awareness of local ecological conditions through science-based educational programs, recognizing the importance of infusing plans with ecology-based information, as well as participating in continuing education, professional development, and Certification Maintenance (Brody, Highfield, and Carrasco 2004; Jepson Jr. and Edwards 2010; Koontz 2014; Meinhold and Malkus 2005; Simmons and Widmar 1990; Theobald et al. 2008).

The three Primary Techniques form a unified approach that interweaves widely shared values, the intrinsic satisfactions of competence and participation, and context-appropriate environmental information/knowledge/learning that reduces confusion and uncertainty about how to proceed and presents people with opportunities to develop familiarity, confidence, and competence in terms of the proposed environmental message (De Young 1996; Kaplan 1990). The following Secondary IUEP Adoption Techniques should be combined with the Primary Techniques in response to specific local context.

Secondary IUEP Adoption Techniques

·         Planners should encourage local jurisdictions to hire planning staff with urban-ecological capabilities (Miller et al. 2008) and to collaborate with local academic eco-scientists (Broberg 2003).

·         Apply constraint-based planning techniques to help resolve barriers and challenges to IUEP adoption (Ernst 2011; McKenzie-Mohr 2000).

·         Develop effective and context-focused IUEP practice and outreach techniques (Grant 2009b; Hanna 2005).

·         Open dialogue between ecologists, planners/designers, park/recreation professionals, and public works engineers regarding cooperating/collaborating on environmental issues to achieve buy-in from all departments (Grant 2009a).

·         “Construct and support regional networks among stakeholder groups and government agencies that operate across local boundaries” (Berke 2007, 68).

Concluding Remarks

As has been demonstrated by numerous researchers, the insights of IUEP can be incorporated into urban planning and design (Odell, Theobald, and Knight 2003) as critical elements in comprehensive and district plans, codified in land use and zoning regulations, and realized in urban planning projects (BenDor and Doyle 2009). In that sense, IUEP is a process that can be added to planners’ capabilities in much the same manner geographic information systems was incorporated years ago. Yet, in another sense, that involving the education and training of planners, it is a different matter entirely since specific practical roles IUEP might play have yet to be fully identified.

Collaboration between planners and eco-scientists has several major facets that should be addressed as the process of interlinking planning and ecology unfolds. First, the IUEP praxis opens new action-research opportunities that would connect to the growing emphasis on local participatory planning and the changing relationships between “experts” and citizens (Beunen and Opdam 2011). Since scientific knowledge can only influence local decision-making if it is understood, accepted, and acted on by governing bodies, stakeholders, and citizens in the affected areas, eco-scientists wanting to contribute to societal change must recognize that they need to participate in networks that use different criteria to assess the value and utility of scientific knowledge (Susskind, Field, and van der Wansem 2005) and to limit use of scientific “jargon” when communicating with policy makers and the public. Although that interaction may result in “culture shock” that may prove difficult for some scientists to accept (Norgaard, Kallis, and Kiparsky 2009), meaningful collaboration has the potential of allowing the infusion of ecological goals and approaches into planning projects and incorporated as appropriate into regulations that guide urban development. Second, eco-scientists working to integrate urban-ecosystems need to incorporate more practicing urban planners as essential members of their research efforts at the same time as practicing planners need to reach out to eco-scientists to help devise policies, regulations, and programs to create better cities (Alberti et al. 2003). That two-way street is yet to be built though foundational work has been accomplished in the research cited above. Third, scalar and cross-boundary issues are viewed very differently by planners and eco-scientists. Planners typically work at scales ranging from site-specific to jurisdiction-wide and seldom engage in cross-boundary issues unless regional planning is involved, while eco-scientists typically work at much broader scales and only pay attention to ecosystem boundaries, unless governance is an issue. Fourth, the “environment” understood and regulated by planners is not the same as the “ecosystem” understood and studied by scientists. For example, the environmental sections of most comprehensive or district plans do not even skim the surface of detail required by eco-scientists in their research. And fifth, the “environment” has no natural home in the structure of most American local political jurisdictions. Environmental issues are typically treated on a piece-meal basis in existing departments of planning/urban development, parks/recreation, and public works. Initiating a new department would require increasing budget allocations for professional staff, projects, and programs (Betsill 2001; Downs 2005).

Appealing to widely shared values is not a technique with which most planners are familiar, but the advantages include increased agreement/decreased opposition, fewer adversarial positions in which parties attempt to defeat their opponents, and de-emphasis on political/ideological issues by appealing to values and environmental concerns shared by most citizens/stakeholders. Although moving society toward a more environmentally beneficial future is difficult (Gunder 2006; Millard-Ball 2013; Rees 2009), implementation of an integrated urban-ecological planning praxis is a significant step in the direction of creating more environmentally responsible cities (Spirn 2012). Despite the political and market pressures aligned under the “In Growth We Trust” banner, now is the time for planners to “walk the talk” by integrating urban and environment into a single, balanced reality to help resolve numerous environmental, economic, and equity conflicts that are certain to arise as planners strive to make cities better places in which to live, work, and visit (Campbell 1996). As Spirn (2012, 21) has boldly stated: “The reasons for embracing and promoting ecological urbanism are compelling. At stake is the future of humanity . . .”

September 2014

References

Adger, W. Neil, Katrina Brown, Jenny Fairbrass, Andrew Jordan, Jouni Paavola, Sergio Rosendo, and Gill Seyfang. 2003. “Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decision-Making.” Environment and Planning A 35 (6): 1095-1110.

Adger, W. Neil, Terry P. Hughes, Carl Folke, Stephen R. Carpenter, and Johan Rockström. 2005a. “Social-Ecological Resilience to Coastal Disasters.” Science 309 (5737): 1036-1039.

Adger, W. Neil, Nigel W. Arnell, and Emma L. Tompkins. 2005b. “Successful Adaptation to Climate Change across Scales.” Global Environmental Change 15 (2): 77-86.

Adger, W. Neil, and Andrew Jordan, eds. 2009. Governing Sustainability. London: Cambridge University Press.

Alberti, Marina. 1999. “Modeling the Urban Ecosystem: A Conceptual Framework.” Environment and Planning B 26 (4): 605-630.

Alberti, Marina. 2007. “Ecological Signatures: The Science of Sustainable Urban Forms.” Places 19 (3): 56-60.

Alberti, Marina, and John M Marzluff. 2004. “Ecological Resilience in Urban Ecosystems: Linking Urban Patterns to Human and Ecological Functions.” Urban Ecosystems 7 (3): 241-265.

Alberti, Marina, John M. Marzluff, Eric Shulenberger, Gordon Bradley, Clare Ryan, and Craig Zumbrunnen. 2003. “Integrating Humans into Ecology: Opportunities and Challenges for Urban Ecology.” BioScience 53 (12): 1169-1179.

Alibeli, Madalla A., and Neil R. White. 2011. “The Structure of Environmental Concern.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 2 (1): 1-8.

Allen, James B., and Jennifer L. Ferrand. 1999. “Environmental Locus of Control, Sympathy, and Proenvironmental Behavior: A Test of Geller’s Actively Caring Hypothesis.” Environment and Behavior 31 (3): 338-353.

Armitage, Derek R. 2005. “Adaptive Capacity and Community-Based Natural Resource Management.” Environmental Management 35 (6): 703-715.

Armitage, Derek R., Ryan Plummer, Fikret Berkes, Robert I. Arthur, Anthony T. Charles, Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, Alan P. Diduck, et al. 2009. “Adaptive Co-Management for Social-Ecological Complexity.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (2): 95-102.

Arrow, Kenneth, Bert Bolin, Robert Costanza, Partha Dasgupta, Carl Folke, Crawford S. Holling, Bengt-Owe Jansson, et al. 1995. “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment,” Science 268 (5210): 520-521.

Bain, Daniel J., and Grace S. Brush. 2008. “Gradients, Property Templates and Land Use Change.” The Professional Geographer 60, 2: 224-237.

Bassett, Thomas J. and Karl S. Zimmerer. 2004: “Cultural Ecology.” In Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century, edited by Gary L. Gaile and Cort J. Willmott, 97-112. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beatley, Timothy. 2000. “Preserving Biodiversity.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (1): 5-20.

Beatley, Timothy. 2010. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Becker, C. Dustin, and Elinor C. Ostrom. 1995. “Human-Ecology and Resource Sustainability: The Importance of Institutional Diversity.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26 (1): 113-133.

BenDor, Todd K., and Marin W. Doyle. 2009. “Planning for Ecosystem Service Markets.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (1): 59-72.

Bengtsson, Janne, Per Angelstam, Thomas Elmqvist, Urban Emanuelsson, Carl Folke, Margareta Ihse, Fredrik Moberg, and Magnus Nystro. 2003. “Reserves, Resilience, and Dynamic Landscapes.” Ambio 32 (6): 389-396.

Bengston, David N., Jennifer O. Fletcher, and Kristen C. Nelson. 2004. “Public Policies for Managing Urban Growth and Protecting Open Space: Policy Instruments and Lessons Learned in the United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2-3): 271-286.

Bennett, Andrew F., James Q. Radford, and Angie Haslem. 2006. “Properties of Land Mosaics: Implications for Nature Conservation in Agricultural Environments.” Biological Conservation 133 (2): 250-264.

Benvie, Norman S. 2005. “A Case for Using Adaptive Platforms in the Development and Implementation of Urban-Centred Adaptive Management Plans.” Urban Ecosystems 8 (3-4): 285-311.

Berke, Philip R. 2007. “Ecology and New Directions for Land Use Planning: Barriers and Opportunities to Change.” In Lasting Landscapes: Reflection on the Role of Conservation Science in Land Use Planning, edited by Rebecca I. Kihslinger and Jessica Wilkinson, 59-71. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute Press. http://science.natureconservancy.ca/centralinterior/docs/Lasting_Landscapes.pdf

Berke, Philip R. 2008. “The Evolution of Green Community Planning, Scholarship and Practice: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Green Communities.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 393-407.

Berke, Philip R. 2009. “Integrating Bioconservation and Land Use Planning: A Grand Challenge of the Twenty-First Century.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 10 (3): 407-433.

Berkes, Fikret, and Carl Folke, eds. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, Fikret, Jan Colding, and Carl Folke, eds. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. London: Cambridge University Press.

Beunen, Raoul, and Paul Opdam. 2011. “When Landscape Planning Becomes Landscape Governance, What Happens to the Science?” Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (4): 324-326.

Betsill, Michele M. 2001. “Mitigating Climate Change in US Cities: Opportunities and Obstacles.” Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 6 (4): 393-406.

Biamonte, Estaban, Luis Sandoval, Eduardo Chacón, and Gilbert Barrantes. 2011. “Effect of Urbanization on the Avifauna in a Tropical Metropolitan Area.” Landscape Ecology 26 (2): 183-194.

Blair, Robert B. 1999. “Birds and Butterflies along an Urban Gradient: Surrogate Taxa for Assessing Biodiversity?” Ecological Applications 9 (1): 164-170.

Booth, Annie, and Norman Skelton. 2011. “Anatomy of a Failed Sustainability Initiative: Government and Community Resistance to Sustainable Landscaping in a Canadian City.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 7 (1): 56-68.

Bowman, Troy, and Jan Thompson. 2009. “Barriers to Implementation of Low-Impact and Conservation Subdivision Design: Developer Perceptions and Resident Demand.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92, 2: 96-105.

Brandon, Gwendolyn, and Alan Lewis. 1999. “Reducing Household Energy Consumption: A Qualitative and Quantitative Field Study.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (1): 75-85.

Broberg, Len. 2003. “Conserving Ecosystems Locally: A Role for Ecologists in Land-Use Planning.” BioScience 53 (7): 670-673.

Brody, Samuel D. 2003a. “Examining the Effects of Biodiversity on the Ability of Local Plans to Manage Ecological Systems.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (6): 817-837.

Brody, Samuel D. 2003b. “Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management through Local Land Use Planning.” Population and Environment 24 (6): 511-540.

Brody, Samuel D. 2003c. “Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 (4): 407-419.

Brody, Samuel D., and Wesley E. Highfield. 2005. “Does Planning Work? Testing the Implementation of Local Environmental Planning in Florida.” Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (2): 159-175.

Brody, Samuel D., Wesley E. Highfield, and Virginia Carrasco. 2004. “Measuring the Collective Planning Capabilities of Local Jurisdictions to Manage Ecological Systems in Southern Florida.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (1): 32-50.

Brondizio, Eduardo S., Elinor C. Ostrom, and Oran R. Young. 2009. “Connectivity and the Governance of Multilevel Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Social Capital.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34 (1): 253-278.

Brown, Daniel G., Richard Aspinall, and David A. Bennett. 2006. “Landscape Models and Explanation in Landscape Ecology: A Space for Generative Landscape Science?” The Professional Geographer 58 (4): 369-382.

Burby, Raymond J. 2003. “Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (1): 33-49.

Burby, Raymond J., and Steven P. French. 1981. Coping with Floods: The Land Use Management Paradox. Journal of the American Planning Association 47(3): 289-300.

Buyantuyev, Alexander, and Jianguo Wu. 2010. “Urban Heat Islands and Landscape Heterogeneity: Linking Spatiotemporal Variations in Surface Temperatures to Land-Cover and Socioeconomic Patterns.” Landscape Ecology 25, 1: 17-33.

Cadenasso, Mary L., and Steward T. A. Pickett. 2008. Urban Principles for Ecological Landscape Design and Management: Scientific Fundamentals. Cities and the Environment 1 (2): 16. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=cate

Cadenasso, Mary L., Steward T. A. Pickett, and Kirsten Schwarz. 2007. “Spatial Heterogeneity in Urban Ecosystems: Reconceptualizing Land Cover and a Framework for Classification.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5 (2): 80-88.

Cain, Douglas H., Kurt Riitters, and Kenneth Orvis. 1997. “A Multi-Scale Analysis of Landscape Statistics.” Environmental Protection 12 (4): 199-212.

Campbell, Scott D. 1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (3): 296-312.

Cash, David W., W. Neil Adger, Fikret Berkes, Po Garden, Louis Lebel, Per Olsson, Lowell Pritchard Jr., and Oran Young. 2006. “Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World.” Ecology and Society 11 (2): 8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/.

Chowdhury, Rinku R., Kelli Larson, J. Morgan Grove, Colin Polsky, Elizabeth Cook, Jeffrey Onsted, and Laura Ogden. 2011. “A Multi-Scalar Approach to Theorizing Socio-Ecological Dynamics of Urban Residential Landscapes.” Cities and the Environment 4 (1). http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/6.

Clark, William C. 2007. “Sustainability Science: A Room of Its Own.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 104 (6): 1737-1738.

Clark, William C., and Nancy M. Dickson. 2003. “Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100 (14): 8059-8061.

Clucas, Barbara, and John M. Marzluff. 2012. “Attitudes and Actions toward Birds in Urban Areas: Human Cultural Differences Influence Bird Behavior.” The Auk 129 (1): 8-16.

Cohen, Alice. 2012. “Rescaling Environmental Governance: Watersheds as Boundary Objects at the Intersection of Science, Neoliberalism, and Participation.” Environment and Planning A 44 (9): 2207-2224.

Colding, Jan. 2007. “Ecological Land-Use Complementation for Building Resilience in Urban Ecosystems.” Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (1-2): 46-55.

Colding, Jan, Jakob Lundberg, and Carl Folke. 2006. “Incorporating Green-Area User Groups in Urban Ecosystem Management.” Ambio 35 (5): 237-244.

Connolly, James J., Erika S. Svendsen, Dana R. Fisher, and Lindsay K. Campbell. 2013. “Organizing Urban Ecosystem Services through Environmental Stewardship Governance in New York City.” Landscape and Urban Planning 109 (1): 76-84.

Conroy, Maria Manta 2003. “The Process of Planning for Sustainable Development: Dimensions, Comparisons, and Insights.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 6 (4): 460-477.

Conroy, Maria Manta, and Timothy Beatley. 2007. “Getting it Done: An Exploration of U.S. Sustainability Efforts in Practice.” Planning Practice and Research 22 (1): 25-40.

Conroy, Maria Manta and Iqbal, Al-Azad. 2009. “Adoption of Sustainability Initiatives in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio.” Local Environment 14 (2): 109-125.

Conroy, Michael J., Craig R. Allen, James T. Peterson, Lowell Pritchard Jr., and Clifton T. Moore. 2003. “Landscape Change in the Southern Piedmont: Challenges, Solutions, and Uncertainty across Scales.” Conservation Ecology 8 (2). http://www.consecol.org/vol8/iss2/art3/.

Cook, William M., David G. Casagrande, Diane Hope, Peter M. Groffman, and Scott L. Collins. 2004. “Learning to Roll with the Punches: Adaptive Experimentation in Human-Dominated Systems.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (9): 467-474.

Cumming, Graeme S. 2011. “Spatial Resilience: Integrating Landscape Ecology, Resilience, and Sustainability.” Landscape Ecology 26 (7): 645-659.

Cumming, Graeme S., David H. M. Cumming, and Charles L. Redman. 2006. “Scale Mismatches in Social-Ecological Systems: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions.” Ecology and Society 11 (1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art14/.

Daily, Gretchen C., Stephen Polasky, Joshua Goldstein, Peter M. Kareiva, Harold A. Mooney, Liba Pejchar, Taylor H. Ricketts, James Salzman, and Robert Shallenberger. 2009. “Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1): 21-28.

Dale, Ann, Christopher Ling, and Lenore Newman. 2010. “Community Vitality: The Role of Community-Level Resilience, Adaptation, and Innovation in Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 2 (1): 215-231.

Danter, K. Jeffrey, Debra L. Griest, Gary W. Mullins, and Emmalou Norland. 2000. “Organizational Change as a Component of Ecosystem Management.” Society and Natural Resources 13 (6): 537-547.

Darley, John M., and James R. Beniger. 1981. “Diffusion of Energy-Conserving Innovations.” Journal of Social Issues 37 (2): 150-171.

DeFries, Ruth S., Jonathon A. Foley, and Gregory P. Asner. 2004. “Land-Use Choices: Balancing Human Needs and Ecosystem Function.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (5): 249-257.

de Groot, Rudolf S., Rob Alkemade, Leon Braat, Lars Hein, and Louise L. Willemen. 2010. “Challenges in Integrating the Concept of Ecosystem Services and Values in Landscape Planning, Management and Decision Making.” Ecological Complexity 7 (3): 260-272.

de Groot, Judith I. M., and Linda Steg. 2008. “Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Value Orientations.” Environment and Behavior 40 (3): 330-354.

De Young, Raymond. 1996. “Some Psychological Aspects of a Reduced Consumption Lifestyle: The Role of Intrinsic Satisfaction and Competence.” Environment and Behavior 28 (3): 358-409.

De Young, Raymond. 2000. “Expanding and Evaluating Motives for Environmentally Responsible Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 509-526.

Dernbach, John C. and Joel A. Mintz. 2011. “Environmental Laws and Sustainability: An Introduction.” Sustainability 3 (3): 531-540.

Dietz, Thomas, Elinor C. Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2003. “The Struggle to Govern the Commons.” Science 302 (5652): 1907-1912.

Downs, Anthony. 2005. “Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More than We Do It.” Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (4): 367-380.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. Van Liere. 1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm’: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Environmental Education 9 (1): 10-19.

Edwards, Mary M., and Anna Haines. 2007. “Evaluating Smart Growth: Implications for Small Communities.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 27 (1): 49-64.

Elias, Emile, Mark Dougherty, Puneet Srivastava, and David Laband. 2013. “The Impact of Forest to Urban Land Conversion on Streamflow, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Organic Carbon Inputs to the Converse Reservoir, Southern Alabama, USA.” Urban Ecosystems 16 (1): 79-107.

Ernst, Robert T. 2012. “The Myth of Sustainable Cities.” Practicing Planner 10, 1. http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/2012/spr/.

———. 2013. “Voluntary Pro-Environmental Decisions and Climate Change.” Practicing Planner 11 (3). http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/2013/fall/.

———, and Jerry Weitz. 2013. “Moving beyond Conventional Environmental Planning. Practicing Planner 11 (1). http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/2013/spr/

Ernst, Robert T. 2011. “Constraint-Based Planning.” Practicing Planner 9 (3). http://www.planning.org/practicingplanner/2011/fall/.

Ernstson, Henrik, Stephan Barthel, Erik Andersson, and Sara T. Borgström. 2010. “Scale-Crossing Brokers and Network Governance of Urban Ecosystem Services: The Case of Stockholm.” Ecology and Society 15 (4). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art28/.

Fabricius, Christo, Carl Folke, Georgina Cundill, and Lisen Schultz. 2007. “Powerless Spectators, Coping Actors, and Adaptive Co-Managers? A Synthesis of the Role of Communities in Ecosystem Management.” Ecology and Society 12 (1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art29/

Farr, Douglas. 2007. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Feinberg, Matthew, and Robb Willer. 2013. “The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes.” Psychological Science 24 (1): 56-62.

Felson, Alexander J., and Steward T. A. Pickett. 2005. “Designed Experiments: New approaches to Studying Urban Ecosystems.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 (10): 549-556.

Field, Douglas R., Paul R. Voss, Tracy K. Kuczenski, Roger B. Hammer, and Volker C. Radeloff. 2003. “Reaffirming Social Landscape Analysis in Landscape Ecology: A Conceptual Framework.” Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal 16 (4): 349-361.

Folke, Carl. 2006. “Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 253-267.

Folke, Carl, Stephen R. Carpenter, Brian H. Walker, Marten Scheffer, Thomas Elmqvist, Lance H. Gunderson, and Crawford S. Holling. 2004. “Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem Management.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35 (1): 557-581.

Folke, Carl, Stephen R. Carpenter, Brian H. Walker, Marten Scheffer, F. Stuart (Terry) Chapin III, and Johan Rockström. 2010. “Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.” Ecology and Society 15 (4). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/.

Folke, Carl, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg. 2005. “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (1): 441-473.

Forester, John F. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Forman, Richard T. T., and Michel Godron. 1981. “Patches and Structural Components for a Landscape Ecology.” BioScience 31 (10): 733-740.

Foster, David R., Fredrick Swanson, John Aber, Ingrid Burke, Nickolas Brokaw, David Tilman, and Alan Knapp. 2003. “The Importance of Land Use Legacies to Ecology and Conservation.” BioScience 53 (1): 77-88.

Gamba, Raymond J., and Stuart Oskamp. 1994. “Factors Influencing Community Residential Participation in Commingled Curbside Recycling Programs.” Environment and Behavior 26 (5): 587-612.

Garde, Ajay, Jean-Daniel Saphores, Richard A. Matthew, and Kristen Day. 2010. “Sustainable Neighbourhood Development: Missed Opportunities in Southern California.” Environment and Planning B 37 (3): 387-407.

Gergel, Sarah E., Monica G. Turner, James R. Miller, John M. Melack, and Emily H. Stanley. 2002. “Landscape Indicators of Human Impacts to Riverine Systems.” Landscape 64 (2): 118-128.

Goetz, Edward G. 2008. “Words Matter: The Importance of Issue Framing and the Case of Affordable Housing.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (2): 222-229.

Görg, Christoph. 2007. “Landscape Governance: The ‘Politics of Scale’ and the ‘Natural’ Conditions of Places.” Geoforum 38, 5: 954-966.

Grant, Jill L. 2009a. “Theory and Practice in Planning the Suburbs: Challenges to Implementing New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Sustainability Principles.” Planning Theory and Practice 10 (1): 11-33.

Grant, Jill L. 2009b. “Experiential Planning: A Practitioner’s Account of Vancouver’s Success.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 75 (3): 358-370.

Grimm, Nancy B., Stanley H. Faeth, Nancy E. Golubiewski, Charles L. Redman, Jianguo Wu, Xuemei Bai, and John M. Briggs. 2008a. “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities.” Science 319 (5864): 756-760.

Grimm, Nancy B., David R. Foster, Peter M. Groffman, J. Morgan Grove, Charles S. Hopkinson, Knute J. Nadelhoffer, Diane E. Pataki, and Debra P. C. Peters. 2008b. “The Changing Landscape: Ecosystem Responses to Urbanization and Pollution across Climatic and Societal Gradients.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (5): 264-272.

Grimm, Nancy B., J. Morgan Grove, Steward T. A. Pickett, and Charles L. Redman. 2000. “Integrated Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological Systems.” BioScience 50 (7): 571-584.

Grimm, Nancy B., and Charles L. Redman. 2004. “Approaches to the Study of Urban Ecosystems: The Case of Central Arizona-Phoenix.” Urban Ecosystems 7 (3): 199-213.

Gunder, Michael. 2006. “Sustainability: Planning’s Saving Grace or Road to Perdition?” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (2): 208-221.

Gunderson, Lance H., Crawford S. Holling, and Stephen S. Light. 1995. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gunderson, Lance H., and Crawford S. Holling, eds. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Halford, Graeme and Peter W. Sheehan. 1991. “Human Response to Environmental Changes.” International Journal of Psychology 26 (5): 599-611.

Han, Ji, Psyche Fontanos, Kensuke Fukushi, Srikantha Herath, Niko Heeren, Vincenzo Naso, Claudio Cecchi, Peter Edwards, and Kazuhiko Takeuchi. 2012. “Innovation for Sustainability: Toward a Sustainable Urban Future in Industrialized Cities.” Sustainability Science 7 (1): 91-100.

Hanna, Kevin S. 2000. “The Paradox of Participation and the Hidden Role of Information: A Case Study.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (4): 398-410.

Hanna, Kevin S. 2005. Planning for Sustainability: Experiences in Two Contrasting Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (1), 27-40.

Healey, Patsy. 2003. “Collaborative Planning in Perspective.” Planning Theory 2 (2): 101-123.

Helfand, Gloria E., Joon S. Park, Joan I. Nassauer, and Sandra Kosek. 2006. “The Economics of Native Plants in Residential Landscape Designs.” Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 3: 229-240.

Hein, Lars, Kris van Koppen, Rudolf S. de Groot and Ekko C. van Ierland. 2006. “Spatial Scales, Stakeholders and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services.” Ecological Economics 57 (1): 209-228.

Hersperger, Anna M. 1994. “Landscape Ecology and Its Potential Application to Planning.” Journal of Planning Literature 9 (1): 14-29.

Holling, Crawford S. 1973. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1): 1-23.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2004. “Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century.” Planning Theory and Practice 5 (4): 419-436.

Jackson, Joanne B., and Fredrick R. Steiner. 1985. “Human Ecology for Land-Use Planning.” Urban Ecology 9 (2): 177-194.

Jacques, Peter J. Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman. 2008. “The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism.” Environmental Politics 17 (3): 349-385.

Jepson Jr., Edward J. 2001. “Sustainability and Planning: Diverse Concepts and Close Associations.” Journal of Planning Literature 15 (4): 499-510.

Jepson Jr., Edward J. 2004a. “Human Nature and Sustainable Development: A Strategic Challenge for Planners.” Journal of Planning Literature 19 (1): 3-15.

Jepson Jr., Edward J., and Mary M. Edwards. 2010. “How Possible Is Sustainable Urban Development? An Analysis of Planners’ Perceptions about New Urbanism, Smart Growth and the Ecological City.” Planning Practice and Research 25 (4): 417-437.

Jerneck, Anne, Lennart Olsson, Barry Ness, Stefan Aerberg, Matthias Baier, Eric Clark, Thomas Hickler, et al. 2011. “Structuring Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 6 (1): 69-82.

Jun, Hee-Jung, and Maria Manta Conroy. 2013. “Comprehensive Planning and Sustainability in Georgia’s Exurbs.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 15(3): 329-351.

Jun, Hee-Jung, and Maria Manta Conroy. 2014. Linking Resilience and Sustainability in Ohio Township Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57(6): 904-919.

Kajikawa, Yuya. 2008. “Research Core and Framework of Sustainability Science.” Sustainability Science 3 (2): 215-239.

Kaplan, Stephen. 1990. “Being Needed, Adaptive Muddling and Human-Environment Relationships.” In Coming of Age: Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference, edited by Robert I. Selby, Kathryn H. Anthony, Jean Choi, and Brian Orland, 19-25. Oklahoma City, OK: Environmental Design Research Association. http://www.edra.org/sites/default/files/publications/EDRA21-Kaplan-19-25.pdf

Kaplan, Stephen. 2000. “Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 491-508.

Karl, Herman A., and Christine Turner. 2002. “A Model Project for Exploring the Role of Sustainability Science in a Citizen-Centered, Collaborative Decision-Making Process.” Human Ecology Review 9 (1): 67-71.

Kates, Robert W. 2011. “What Kind of a Science Is Sustainability Science?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (49): 19449-19450.

Kates, Robert W., William C. Clark, Robert Corell, J. Michael Hall, Carlo C. Jaeger, Ian Lowe, James J. McCarthy, et al. 2001. “Sustainability Science.” Science 292 (5517): 641-642.

Katz, Peter. 1993. The New Urbanism: Toward Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Kearney, John, Fikret Berkes, Anthony Charles, Evelyn Pinkerton and Melanie Wiber. 2007. The Role of Participatory Governance and Community-Based Management in Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management in Canada. Coastal Management 35 (1): 79-104

Kennedy, Christopher, Stephanie Pincetl, and Paul Bunje. 2011. “The Study of Urban Metabolism and Its Applications to Urban Planning and Design.” Environmental Pollution 159 (8-9): 1965-1973.

Kertson, Brian N., Rocky D. Spencer, John M. Marzluff, Jeffrey Hepinstall-Cymerman, and Christian E. Grue. 2011. “Cougar Space Use and Movements in the Wildland-Urban Landscape of Western Washington.” Ecological Applications 21 (8): 2866-2881.

Kiesecker, Joseph M., Holly Copeland, Amy Pocewicz, and Bruce McKenney. 2010. “Development by Design: Blending Landscape-Level Planning with the Mitigation Hierarchy.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8 (5): 261-266.

Kinzig, Ann P., Page S. Warren, Chris Martin, Diane Mope, and Madhusudan Katti. 2005. “The Effects of Human Socioeconomic Status and Cultural Characteristics on Urban Patterns of Biodiversity.” Ecology and Society 10 (1): 23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art23/,

Koontz, Tomas M. 2014. “Social Learning in Collaborative Watershed Planning: The Importance of Process Control and Efficacy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57 (10): 1572-1593.

Kremen, Claire, and Richard S. Ostfeld. 2005. “A Call to Ecologists: Measuring, Analyzing, and Managing Ecosystem Services.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 (10): 540-548.

Kremen, Claire, Neal M. Williams, Marcelo A. Aizen, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Gretchen LeBuhn, Robert Minckley, Laurence Packer, et al. 2007. “Pollination and Other Ecosystem Services Produced by Mobile Organisms: A Conceptual Framework for the Effects of Land-Use Change.” Ecology Letters 10 (4): 299-314.

Lebel, Louis, John M. Anderies, Bruce Campbell, Carl Folke, Stephen Hatfield-Dodds, Terry P. Hughes, and James Wilson. 2006. “Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 11 (1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/.

Lewis, Paul G., and Mark Baldassare. 2010.” The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development: Survey Evidence From Five States.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76 (2), 219-237.

Lindenberg, Siegwart, and Linda Steg. 2007. “Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 63 (1): 117-137.

Liu, Jianguo, Thomas Dietz, Stephen R. Carpenter, Marina Alberti, Carl Folke, Emilio Moran, Alice N. Pell, et al. 2007. “Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems.” Science 317 (5844): 1513-1516.

Liu, Xinsheng, Eric Lindquist, Arnold Vedlitz, and Kenneth Vincent. 2010. “Understanding Local Policymaking: Policy Elites’ Perceptions of Local Agenda Setting and Alternative Policy Selection.” Policy Studies Journal 38 (1): 69-91.

Luck, Matthew A., and Jianguo Wu. 2002. “A Gradient Analysis of Urban Landscape Pattern: A Case Study from the Phoenix Metropolitan Region, Arizona, USA.” Landscape Ecology 17 (4): 327-339.

Marsh, George P. 1874. The Earth as Modified by Human Action: Man and Nature, revised edition. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.

Martínez, M. Luisa and Fabiola López-Barrera. 2008. Special Issue: Restoring and Designing Ecosystems for a Crowded Planet. Ecoscience 15 (1): 1-5.

Marzluff, John M. 2008. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective on the Interaction between Humans and Nature. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.

Mason, Robert J. 2011. “Ecoregional Planning: Retreat or Reinvention?” Journal of Planning Literature 26 (4): 405-419.

McDaniels, Timothy L., and Robin Gregory. 2004. “Learning as an Objective within a Structured Risk Management Decision Process.” Environmental Science and Technology 38, 7: 1921-1926.

McDonnell, Mark J., and Steward T. A. Pickett. 1990. “Ecosystem Structure and Function along Urban-Rural Gradients: An Unexploited Opportunity for Ecology.” Ecology 71 (4): 1232-1237.

McHarg, Ian. 1969. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press for the American Museum of Natural History.

McIntyre, Nancy E., Kimberly Knowles-Yánez, and Diane Hope. 2000. “Urban Ecology as an Interdisciplinary Field: Differences in the Use of ‘Urban’ between the Social and Natural Sciences.” Urban Ecosystems 4 (1): 5-24.

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug. 2000. “Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 543-554.

McPherson, E. Gregory, David J. Nowak, Gordon M. Heisler, C. Susan B. Grimmond, Catherine Souch, Richard H. Grant, and Rowan A. Rowntree. 1997. “Quantifying Urban Forest Structure, Function, and Value: The Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project.” Urban Ecosystems 1 (1): 49-61.

Meck, Stuart, ed. 2002. Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Washington, DC: American Planning Association.

Meinhold, Jana L., and Amy J. Malkus. 2005. “Adolescent Environmental Behaviors: Can Knowledge, Attitudes, and Self-Efficacy Make a Difference?” Environment and Behavior 37 (4): 511-532.

Mercer Clarke, Colleen S. L., John C. Roff, and Shannon M. Bard. 2008. “Back to the Future: Using Landscape Ecology to Understand Changing Patterns of Land Use in Canada, and its Effects on the Sustainability of Coastal Ecosystems.” ICES Journal of Marine Science 65, 8: 1534-1539.

Merrick, Jason R. W., and Margot W. Garcia. 2004. “Using Value-Focused Thinking to Improve Watersheds.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (3): 313-327.

Millard-Ball, Adam. 2013. “The Limits to Planning: Causal Impacts of City Climate Action Plans.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 33 (1): 5-19.

Miller, James R., Martha Groom, George R. Hess, Toddi Steelman, David L. Stokes, Jan Thompson, Troy Bowman, et al. 2008. “Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning.” Conservation Biology 23 (1): 53-63.

Miller, James R., Monica G. Turner, Erica A. H. Smithwick, C. Lisa Dent, and Emily H. Stanley. 2004. “Spatial Extrapolation: The Science of Predicting Ecological Patterns and Processes.” BioScience 54 (4): 310-320.

Mincey, Sarah K., Miranda Hutten, Burnell C. Fischer, Tom P. Evans, Susan I. Stewart, and Jessica M. Vogt. 2013. “Structuring Institutional Analysis for Urban Ecosystems: A Key to Sustainable Urban Forest Management.” Urban Ecosystems (January 2013). Accessed March 15, 2013. DOI 10.1007/s11252-013-0286-3. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11252-013-0286-3#page-1.

Minor, Emily S., and Dean L. Urban. 2010. “Forest Bird Communities across a Gradient of Urban Development.” Urban Ecosystems 13, 1: 51-71.

Mitchell, Ross E., and John R. Parkins. 2011. “The Challenge of Developing Social Indicators for Cumulative Effects Assessment and Land Use Planning.” Ecology and Society 16 (2): 29. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art29/.

Monticino, Michael G., Miguel F. Acevedo, J. Baird Callicott, Travis Cogdill, and Christopher J. Lindquist. 2006. “Coupled Human and Natural Systems: A Multi-Agent-Based Approach.” Environmental Modelling and Software 22, 5: 656-663.

Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Doherty, eds. 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Baden, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers.

Munier, Nolberto. 2011. “Methodology to Select a Set of Urban Sustainability Indicators to Measure the State of the City, and Performance Assessment.” Ecological Indicators 11 (5): 1020-1026.

Musacchio, Laura R. 2009. “The Scientific Basis for the Design of Landscape Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework for Translational Landscape Research and Practice of Designed Landscapes and the Six Es of Landscape Sustainability.” Landscape Ecology 24 (8): 993-1013.

Musacchio, Laura R. 2011. “The Grand Challenge to Operationalize Landscape Sustainability and the Design-In-Science Paradigm.” Landscape Ecology 26 (1): 1-5.

Musacchio, Laura R., and Jianguo Wu. 2004. “Collaborative Landscape-Scale Ecological Research: Emerging Trends in Urban and Regional Ecology.” Urban Ecosystems 7 (3): 175-178.

Nagy, R. Chelsea, and B. Graeme Lockaby. 2011. “Urbanization in the Southeastern United States: Socioeconomic Forces and Ecological Responses along an Urban-Rural Gradient.” Urban Ecosystems 14 (1): 71-86.

Nassauer, Joan I., and Paul Opdam. 2008. “Design in Science: Extending the Landscape Ecology Paradigm.” Landscape Ecology 23 (6): 633-644.

Nassauer, Joan I., J. David Allan, Thomas Johengen, Sandra E. Kosek, and Dana Infante. 2004. “Exurban Residential Subdivision Development: Effects on Water Quality and Public Perception.” Urban Ecosystems 7 (3): 267-281.

Nassauer, Joan I., Zhifang Wang, and Eric Dayrell. 2009. “What Will the Neighbors Think? Cultural Norms and Ecological Design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92 (3-4): 282-292.

Naveh, Zev, and Arthur Lieberman. 1984. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.

Nelson, Arthur C., and James B. Duncan. 1995. Growth Management Principles and Practices. Chicago, IL: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

Nielsen-Pincus, Max, Caren. S. Goldberg, Amy Pocewicz, Joellen Force, Lisette P. Waits, Penelope Morgan, and Lee Vierling. 2010. “Predicted Effects of Residential Development on a Northern Idaho Landscape under Alternative Growth Management and Land Protection Policies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 94 (3-4): 255-263.

Norgaard, Richard B., Giorgos Kallis, and Michael Kiparsky. 2009. “Collectively Engaging Complex Socio-Ecological Systems: Re-Envisioning Science, Governance, and the California Delta.” Environmental Science and Policy 12 (6). http://www.kiparsky.com/pdf/Norgaard_CollectivelyReenvisioningTheDelta_ESP2009.pdf.

O’Connell, Lenahan. 2009. “The Impact of Local Supporters on Smart Growth Policy Adoption.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75 (3): 281-291.

Odell, Eric A., David M. Theobald, and Richard L. Knight. 2003. “Incorporating Ecology into Land Use Planning: The Songbirds’ Case for Clustered Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (1): 72-82.

Olsson, Per, Lance H. Gunderson, Stephen R. Carpenter, Paul Ryan, Louis Lebel, Carl Folke, and Crawford S. Holling. 2006. “Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 11 (1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/.

Opdam, Paul, Ruud Foppen, and Claire Vos. 2002. “Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Spatial Planning in Landscape Ecology.” Landscape Ecology 16 (8): 767-779.

Opdam, Paul, Eveliene Steingröver, and Sabine van Rooij. 2006. “Ecological Networks: A Spatial Concept for Multi-Actor Planning of Sustainable Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (3-4): 322-332.

Ostrom, Elinor C. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

____________. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

____________. 2009. “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.” Science 325 (24): 419-422.

Ostrom, Elinor C., Marco A. Janssen, and John M. Anderies. 2007. “Going beyond Panaceas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 15176-15178.

Pavao-Zuckerman, Mitchell A. 2008. “The Nature of Urban Soils and Their Role in Ecological Restoration in Cities.” Restoration Ecology 16 (4): 642-649.

Pelletier, Luc G., and Elizabeth Sharp. 2008. “Persuasive Communication and Proenvironmental Behaviours: How Message Tailoring and Message Framing Can Improve the Integration of Behaviours through Self-Determined Motivation.” Canadian Psychology 49 (3): 210-217.

Peterson, Garry. 2000. “Political Ecology and Ecological Resilience: An Integration of Human and Ecological Dynamics.” Ecological Economics 35 (3): 323-336.

Pickett, Steward T. A., Geofrey L. Buckley, Sujay S. Kaushal, and Yvette Williams. 2011. “Social-Ecological Science in the Humane Metropolis.” Urban Ecosystems 14 (3): 319-339.

Pickett, Steward T. A., William R. Burch Jr., Shawn D. Dalton, and Timothy W. Foresman. 1997. “Integrated Urban Ecosystem Research: Themes, Needs, and Applications.” Urban Ecosystems 1 (4): 183-184.

Pickett, Steward T. A., William R. Burch Jr., and J. Morgan Grove. 1999. “Interdisciplinary Research: Maintaining the Constructive Impulse in a Culture of Criticism.” Ecosystems 2 (4) 302-307.

Pickett, Steward T. A., and Mary L. Cadenasso. 2008. “Linking Ecological and Built Components of Urban Mosaics: An Open Cycle of Ecological Design.” Journal of Ecology 96 (1): 8-12.

Pickett, Steward T. A., and Mary L. Cadenasso. 2009. “Altered Resources, Disturbance, and Heterogeneity: A Framework for Comparing Urban and Non-Urban Soils.” Urban Ecosystems 12 (1): 23-44.

Pickett, Steward T. A., Mary L. Cadenasso, and J. Morgan Grove. 2004. “Resilient Cities: Meaning, Models, and Metaphor for Integrating the Ecological, Socio-Economic, and Planning Realms.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (4): 369-384.

Pickett, Steward T. A., Mary L. Cadenasso, J. Morgan Grove, Charles H. Nilon, Richard V. Pouyat, Wayne C. Zipperer, and Robert Costanza. 2001. “Urban Ecological Systems: Linking Terrestrial Ecological, Physical, and Socioeconomic Components of Metropolitan Areas.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 32 (1): 127-157.

Pickett, Steward T. A., Mary L. Cadenasso, J. Morgan Grove, Peter M. Groffman, Lawrence E. Band, Christopher G. Boone, William R. Burch Jr., et al. 2008. “Beyond Urban Legends: An Emerging Framework of Urban Ecology, as Illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study.” BioScience 58 (2): 139-150.

Pickett, Steward T. A., Mary L. Cadenasso, and Brian McGrath, eds. 2013. Resilience in Ecology and Urban Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities. Vol. 3 of the Future City Series. London: Springer.

Polasky, Stephen, Erik Nelson, Jeffrey D. Camm, Blair Csuti, Paul Fackler, Eric Lonsdorf, Claire Montgomery, et al. 2008. “Where to Put Things? Spatial Land Management to Sustain Biodiversity and Economic Returns.” Biological Conservation 141 (6): 1505-1524.

Pretty, Jules. 2003. “Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources.” Science 302 (5652): 1912-1914.

Quay, Ray. 2004. “Bridging the Gap between Ecological Research and Land Use Policy: The North Sonoran Collaboration.” Urban Ecosystems 7 (3): 283-294.

Rathwell, Kaitlyn J., and Garry D. Peterson. 2012. “Connecting Social Networks with Ecosystem Services for Watershed Governance: A Social-Ecological Network Perspective Highlights the Critical Role of Bridging Organizations.” Ecology and Society 17 (2): 24. Accessed February 27, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04810-170224.

Rebele, Franz. 1994. “Urban Ecology and Special Features of Urban Ecosystems.” Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 4 (6): 173-187.

Redman, Charles L., J. Morgan Grove, and Lauren H. Kuby. 2004. “Integrating Social Science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social Dimensions of Ecological Change and Ecological Dimensions of Social Change.” Ecosystems 7 (2): 161-171.

Rees, William E. 1995. “Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation?” Journal of Planning Literature 9 (4): 343-361.

Rees, William E. 1997. “Urban Ecosystems: The Human Dimension.” Urban Ecosystems 1 (1): 63-75.

Rees, William E. 2009. “The Ecological Crisis and Self-Delusion: Implications for the Building Sector.” Building Research and Information 37 (3): 300-311.

Rees, William E., and Mathis Wackernagel. 1996. “Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities Cannot Be Sustainable—And Why They Are a Key to Sustainability.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16 (4-6): 223-248.

Register, Richard. 2006. EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Reitan, Paul H. 2005. “Sustainability Science—And What’s Needed beyond Science.” Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 1 (1): 77-80.

Ridd, Merrill K. 1995. “Exploring a V-I-S (Vegetation-Impervious Surface-Soil) Model for Urban Ecosystem Analysis through Remote Sensing: Comparative Anatomy for Cities.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 16 (12): 2165-2185.

Riddell, Robert. 1981. Ecodevelopment: Economics, Ecology and Development, an Alternative to Growth Imperative Models. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Schleicher, Andrea, Robert Biedermann, and Michael Kleyer. 2011. “Dispersal Traits Determine Plant Response to Habitat Connectivity in an Urban Landscape.” Landscape Ecology 26, 4: 529-540.

Schultz, P. Wesley. 2002. “Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors across Cultures.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 8 (1). http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol8/iss1/4/.

Schultz, P. Wesley, and Lynnette Zelezny. 2003. “Reframing Environmental Measures to Be Congruent with American Values.” Human Ecology Review 10 (2): 126-136.

Schwartz, Shalom H. 1977. “Normative Influences on Altruism.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10, edited by Leonard Berkowitz, 221-279. New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, edited by Mark P. Zanna, 1-65. New York: Academic Press.

Shandas, Vivek, and W. Barry Messer. 2008. “Fostering Green Communities through Civic Engagement: Community-Based Environmental Stewardship in the Portland Area.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 408-418.

Silva, Elisabete A., John F. Ahern, and Jack C. Wileden. 2008. “Strategies for Landscape Ecology: An Application Using Cellular Automata Models.” Progress in Planning 70, 4: 133-177.

Simmons, Deborah, and Ron Widmar. 1990. “Motivations and Barriers to Recycling: Toward a Strategy for Public Education.” Journal of Environmental Education 22 (1): 13-18.

Smit, Barry, and Johanna Wandel. 2006. “Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 282-292.

Spirn, Anne W. 1985. “Urban Nature and Human Design: Renewing the Great Tradition.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 5 (1): 39-51.

Spirn, Anne W. 2003. “Urban Ecosystems, City Planning, and Environmental Education: Literature, Precedents, Key Concepts, and Prospects.” In Understanding Urban Ecosystems, edited by Alan R. Berkowitz, Charles H. Nilon, and Karen S. Hollweg, 201-212. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spirn, Anne W. 2012. Ecological Urbanism: A Framework for the Design of Resilient Cities. http://www.annewhistonspirn.com/pdf/Spirn-EcoUrbanism-2012.pdf.

Stein, Bruce. 2007. “Bridging the Gap: Incorporating Science-Based Information into Land Use Planning.” In Lasting Landscapes: Reflection on the Role of Conservation Science, edited by Rebecca I. Kihslinger and Jessica Wilkinson, 52-59. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute Press. http://science.natureconservancy.ca/centralinterior/docs/Lasting_Landscapes.pdf.

Stern, Paul C., and Thomas Dietz. 1994. “The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.” Journal of Social Issues 50 (3): 65-84.

Stern, Paul C., Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25 (5): 322-348.

Stern, Paul C., Linda Kalof, Thomas Dietz, and Gregory A. Guagnano. 1995. “Values, Beliefs, and Proenvironmental Action: Attitude Formation toward Emergent Attitude Objects.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (18): 1611-1636.

Stevens, Mark R., Philip R. Berke, and Yan Song. 2010. “Creating Disaster-Resilient Communities: Evaluating the Promise and Performance of New Urbanism.” Landscape and Urban Planning 94 (2): 105-115.

Stremke, Sven, and Jusuck Koh. 2010. “Ecological Concepts and Strategies with Relevance to Energy-Conscious Spatial Planning and Design.” Environment and Planning B 37 (3): 518-532.

Susskind, Lawrence E., Patrick Field, and Mieke van der Wansem. 2005. “Integrating Scientific Information, Stakeholder Interests, and Political Concerns in Resource and Environmental Planning and Management.” In Fostering Integration: Concepts and Practices in Resource and Environmental Management, edited by Kevin S. Hanna and D. Scott Slocombe, 181-203. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

Termorshuizen, Jolande W., and Paul Opdam. 2009. “Landscape Services as a Bridge between Landscape Ecology and Sustainable Development.” Landscape Ecology 24 (8): 1037-1052.

Theobald, David M., and N. Thompson Hobbs. 2002. “A Framework for Evaluating Land Use Planning Alternatives: Protecting Biodiversity on Private Land.” Conservation Ecology 6 (1). http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art5/.

Theobald, David M., N. Thompson Hobbs, Tammy Bearly, Jim A. Zack, Tanya Shenk, and William E. Riebsame. 2000. “Incorporating Biological Information in Local Land-Use Decision Making: Designing a System for Conservation Planning.” Landscape Ecology 15 (1): 35-45.

Troll, Carl. 1971. “Landscape Ecology (Geoecology) and Biogeography: A Terminology Study.” Geoforum 71 (8): 43-46.

Troy, Austin R., J. Morgan Grove, Jarlath P. M. O’Neil-Dunne, Steward T. A. Pickett, and Mary L. Cadenasso. 2007. “Predicting Patterns of Vegetation and Opportunities for Greening on Private Urban Lands.” Environmental Management 40 (3): 394-412.

Turcu, Catalina. 2013. “Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56 (5): 695-719.

Turner, Monica G. 1989. “Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 20 (1): 171-197.

Turner, Monica G. 2005. “Landscape Ecology in North America: Past, Present and Future.” Ecology 86 (8): 1967-1974.

Turner, Monica G., Robert V. O’Neill, Robert H. Gardner, and Bruce T. Milne. 1989. “Effects of Changing Spatial Scale on the Analysis of Landscape Pattern.” Landscape Ecology 3 (3-4): 153-162.

Turner II, Billie L., Roger E. Kasperson, Pamela A. Matson, James J. McCarthy, Robert W. Corell, Lindsey Christensen, Noelle Eckley, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Amy Luers, Marybeth L. Martello, Colin Polsky, Alexander Pulsipher, and Andrew Schiller. 2003a. “A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14): 8074-8079.

Turner II, Billie L., Pamela A. Matson, James J. McCarthy, Robert W. Corell, Lindsey Christensen, Noelle Eckley, Grete K. Hovelsrud-Broda, Jeanne X. Kasperson, Roger E. Kasperson, Amy Luers, Marybeth L. Martello, Svein Mathiesen, Rosamond Naylor, Colin Polsky, Alexander Pulsipher, Andrew Schiller, Henrik Selin, and Nicholas Tyler. 2003b. “Illustrating the Coupled Human-Environment System for Vulnerability Analysis: Three Case Studies.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100 (14): 8080-8085.

Turner II, Billie L., Eric F. Lambin, and Anette Reenberg. 2007. “Land Change Science Special Feature: The Emergence of Land Change Science for Global Environmental Change and Sustainability.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (52): 20666-20671.

Turner II, Billie L., and Paul Robbins. 2008. “Land-Change Science and Political Ecology: Similarities, Differences, and Implications for Sustainability Science.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33 (1): 295-316.

U.S. National Research Council. 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Vasishth, A. 2008. “A Scale-Hierarchic Ecosystem Approach to Integrative Ecological Planning.” Progress in Planning, 70 (3): 99-132.

Vitousek, Peter M., Harold A. Mooney, Jane Lubchenco, and Jerry M. Melillo. 1997. “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems,” Science 277 (5325): 494-499.

Waldheim, Charles, ed. 2006. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press.

Walker, Brian H., Crawford S. Holling, Stephen R. Carpenter, and Ann P. Kinzig. 2004. “Resilience, Adaptability, and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 9 (2). http://www. ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/.

Walker, Peter A. 2005. “Political Ecology: Where Is the Ecology?” Progress in Human Geography 29 (1): 73-82.

Wear, David N., Monica G. Turner, and Robert J. Naiman. 1998. “Land Cover along an Urban-Rural Gradient: Implications for Water Quality.” Ecological Applications 8 (3): 619-630, accessed September 9, 2011. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761%281998%29008%5B0619%3ALCAAUR%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Webb, William, John M. Marzluff, and Jeffrey Hepinstall. 2011. “Linking Resource Use with Demography in a Synanthropic Population of Common Ravens.” Biological Conservation 144 (9): 2264-2273.

Withey, John, and John M. Marzluff. 2009. “Multi-Scale Use of Lands Providing Anthropogenic Resources by American Crows in an Urbanizing Landscape.” Landscape Ecology 24 (2): 281-293.

Wolf, Kathleen L., Dale J. Blahna, Weston Brinkley, and Michele Romolini. 2013. “Environmental Stewardship Footprint Research: Linking Human Agency and Ecosystem Health in the Puget Sound Region.” Urban Ecosystems 16 (1): 13-32.

Wu, Jianguo. 2004. “Effects of Changing Scale on Landscape Pattern Analysis: Scaling Relations.” Landscape Ecology 19 (2): 125-138.

Wu, Jianguo. 2006. “Landscape Ecology, Cross-Disciplinarity, and Sustainability Science.” Landscape Ecology 21 (1): 1-4.

Wu, Jianguo. 2010. “Landscape of Culture and Culture of Landscape: Does Landscape Ecology Need Culture?” Landscape Ecology 25 (8): 1147-1150.

Wu, Jianguo, and Richard Hobbs. 2002. “Key Issues and Research Priorities in Landscape Ecology: An Idiosyncratic Synthesis.” Landscape Ecology 17 (4): 355-365.

Wu, Jianguo, G. Darrel Jenerette, Alexander Buyantuyev, and Charles L. Redman. 2011. “Quantifying Spatiotemporal Patterns of Urbanization: The Case of the Two Fastest Growing Metropolitan Regions in the United States.” Ecological Complexity 8 (1): 1-8.

Young, Robert F. 2011. “Planting the Living City: Best Practices in Planning Green Infrastructure—Results from Major U.S. Cities.” Journal of the American Planning Association 77 (4): 368-381.

Zellner, Moira L. 2007. “Generating Policies for Sustainable Water Use in Complex Scenarios: An Integrated Land-Use and Water-Use Model of Monroe County, Michigan.” Environment and Planning B 34 (4): 664-686.

Zellner, Moira L. 2008. “Embracing Complexity and Uncertainty: The Potential of Agent-Based Modeling for Environmental Planning and Policy.” Planning Theory and Practice 9 (4): 437-457.

Zimmerer, Karl S. 2010. “Retrospective on Nature-Society Geography: Tracing Trajectories (1911-2010) and Reflecting on Translations.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (5): 1076-1094.

Zipperer, Wayne C., Jianguo Wu, Richard V. Pouyat, and Steward T. A. Pickett. 2000. “The Application of Ecological Principles to Urban and Urbanizing Landscapes.” Ecological Applications 10 (3): 685-688.

Zurlini, Giovanni, Kurt H. Riitters, Nicola Zaccarelli, Irene Petrosillo, K. Bruce Jones, and Loretto Rossi. 2006. “Disturbance Patterns in a Socio-Ecological System at Multiple Scales.” Ecological Complexity 3 (2: 119-128.

Notes

---

[1] This paper focuses on North American planning, therefore the majority of the literature cited is from U.S. and Canadian sources.

[1] Political ecology and human ecology are not included in this analysis as their orientation to the environment leans heavily on social-cultural-political factors rather than on ecosystem science itself (Bassett and Zimmerer 2004; Walker 2005).

[1] This point is not meant to ignore the pioneering work of Andrew Jackson Downing, Calvert Vaux, or Frederick Law Olmsted in defining landscape architecture as a major planning and design discipline.

[1] The seminal ideas on human agency and the environment expressed by George Perkins Marsh (1874) in the mid-1800s became well integrated into concepts developed by geographers in the U.S. and Europe, including those of Carl Troll.

[1] A State of Washington agency established to lead efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound and its diversity of life. See http://www.psp.wa.gov/