Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2022, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (3): 347-359.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.03.001
• Ecological Community Management • Next Articles
YU Qiao1,*(
), DU Mengjiao1, LI Haochen1, TANG Xizi2, LI Xiaoyan3
Received:2020-10-31
Accepted:2021-07-21
Online:2022-05-30
Published:2022-04-18
Contact:
YU Qiao
Supported by:YU Qiao, DU Mengjiao, LI Haochen, TANG Xizi, LI Xiaoyan. Research on the Integrated Planning of Blue-Green Space towards Urban-Rural Resilience: Conceptual Framework and Practicable Approach[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022, 13(3): 347-359.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.03.001
Fig. 1 The blue-green spaces along natural-to-artificial gradients
| Scale | Related planning | Objective | Content or method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macro scale | Watershed planning | Pursue healthy urban watersheds, healthy hydrology, habitat, water quality, and the maintenance of diverse ecological functions and processes | Focus on the relationship between land use, land cover, water movement and storage, and water quality. Establish a vision, goals, strategies, and actions |
| Riparian ecosystem management | Protect major ecological services and restore natural resources while meeting current and future social, economic, political and cultural needs | Includes adaptive management, natural resource management, strategic management, and command and control management | |
| Ecological corridor planning | Integrate the spatial-temporal pattern of urban development and ecological resources, recreation site construction, historical preservation, and natural ecological maintenance, etc. | Corridor construction, determine spatial elements, patch morphology, corridor length and width, characteristics and functions, and construction guidelines | |
| Meso scale | Green open space | Compound functions including wildlife habitat, landscape quality, watershed protection, recreation and quality of life functions | Propose planning classification, develop quantitative standards, and formulate guidelines for the design of various service levels and facilities |
| River greenway planning | Integrate natural and cultural resources, strengthen links between urban and rural areas, form green networks, and provide comprehensive functions | The planning includes greenway selection, the tour system, greenway greening and greenway facilities, greenway design guidance, etc. | |
| Urban water system planning | Water safety guarantees, water quality targets, water landscape construction, water culture protection, etc. | Consider population density, surface conditions, water resources, water system spatial layout, functional orientation, land coordination, etc. | |
| Micro scale | Riparian ecological restoration | Consider the health and sustainability of the riparian ecosystem, combine water conservancy engineering with ecology, and perform self-repair functions | Choose vegetation suitable for the riparian area and design the landscape, roads, greenery and recreational facilities |
| Water-storm management | Provide appropriate space for rainwater storage and purification in the surrounding areas | Vertical design of roads and greenways, low impact facility layout combined with the grey infrastructure | |
| Waterfront park design | Apply ecological design principles and methods, consider ecology, landscape, flood control and other multiple functions | Design and treatment of the plant community, landscape architecture, road paving system and revetment in the green space |
Table 1 The current related planning of blue-green space at the three spatial scales
| Scale | Related planning | Objective | Content or method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macro scale | Watershed planning | Pursue healthy urban watersheds, healthy hydrology, habitat, water quality, and the maintenance of diverse ecological functions and processes | Focus on the relationship between land use, land cover, water movement and storage, and water quality. Establish a vision, goals, strategies, and actions |
| Riparian ecosystem management | Protect major ecological services and restore natural resources while meeting current and future social, economic, political and cultural needs | Includes adaptive management, natural resource management, strategic management, and command and control management | |
| Ecological corridor planning | Integrate the spatial-temporal pattern of urban development and ecological resources, recreation site construction, historical preservation, and natural ecological maintenance, etc. | Corridor construction, determine spatial elements, patch morphology, corridor length and width, characteristics and functions, and construction guidelines | |
| Meso scale | Green open space | Compound functions including wildlife habitat, landscape quality, watershed protection, recreation and quality of life functions | Propose planning classification, develop quantitative standards, and formulate guidelines for the design of various service levels and facilities |
| River greenway planning | Integrate natural and cultural resources, strengthen links between urban and rural areas, form green networks, and provide comprehensive functions | The planning includes greenway selection, the tour system, greenway greening and greenway facilities, greenway design guidance, etc. | |
| Urban water system planning | Water safety guarantees, water quality targets, water landscape construction, water culture protection, etc. | Consider population density, surface conditions, water resources, water system spatial layout, functional orientation, land coordination, etc. | |
| Micro scale | Riparian ecological restoration | Consider the health and sustainability of the riparian ecosystem, combine water conservancy engineering with ecology, and perform self-repair functions | Choose vegetation suitable for the riparian area and design the landscape, roads, greenery and recreational facilities |
| Water-storm management | Provide appropriate space for rainwater storage and purification in the surrounding areas | Vertical design of roads and greenways, low impact facility layout combined with the grey infrastructure | |
| Waterfront park design | Apply ecological design principles and methods, consider ecology, landscape, flood control and other multiple functions | Design and treatment of the plant community, landscape architecture, road paving system and revetment in the green space |
| Supporting theory | Specific theory | Main methods | Applicable spatial levels | Key application steps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The theory of ecology | Watershed (river) ecology | Watershed planning method, river continuum | Urban-rural area | ▪ Use watershed as an ecosystem analysis unit ▪ Longitudinal connection and maintenance of natural processes of blue-green corridors |
| Urban ecology | Assessment of supply-demand of ecosystem services, tradeoff analysis of ecosystem | Urban-rural area, urban-town district | ▪ Supply-demand assessment of ecosystem service functions ▪ Value tradeoff of the dominant functional orientations of different areas ▪ Analysis of ecological correlations between blue-green space and construction space | |
| Landscape ecology | Landscape ecological network | Urban-rural area, urban-town district | ▪ Scale effect is applied to construct planning spatial hierarchy ▪ Construction of composite functional system of the blue-green space | |
| Interfacial ecology | Ecological interface design | Street-site | ▪ Control of social and ecological attributes of blue-green spaces | |
| Theory of urban and rural ecological planning | Eco-urbanism | Ecological flow system design | Urban-town district, street-site | ▪ Blue-green space ecological design of general urban areas and urban core areas |
| New urbanism | Urban-rural transect, smart code | Urban-rural area, urban-town district, street-site | ▪ The transect is used for the function planning and space design of blue-green space ▪ The smart code is used to manage the construction of spatial boundaries and the index control | |
| Urban-rural ecological planning in mountainous areas | Local ecological wisdom, ecological planning and design | Urban-rural area, urban-town district, street-site | ▪ The analysis and cognition of the blue-green space, especially for its resilience and adaptability ▪ Protection, restoration and construction of mountain areas |
Table 2 The theories and methods that can support the study
| Supporting theory | Specific theory | Main methods | Applicable spatial levels | Key application steps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The theory of ecology | Watershed (river) ecology | Watershed planning method, river continuum | Urban-rural area | ▪ Use watershed as an ecosystem analysis unit ▪ Longitudinal connection and maintenance of natural processes of blue-green corridors |
| Urban ecology | Assessment of supply-demand of ecosystem services, tradeoff analysis of ecosystem | Urban-rural area, urban-town district | ▪ Supply-demand assessment of ecosystem service functions ▪ Value tradeoff of the dominant functional orientations of different areas ▪ Analysis of ecological correlations between blue-green space and construction space | |
| Landscape ecology | Landscape ecological network | Urban-rural area, urban-town district | ▪ Scale effect is applied to construct planning spatial hierarchy ▪ Construction of composite functional system of the blue-green space | |
| Interfacial ecology | Ecological interface design | Street-site | ▪ Control of social and ecological attributes of blue-green spaces | |
| Theory of urban and rural ecological planning | Eco-urbanism | Ecological flow system design | Urban-town district, street-site | ▪ Blue-green space ecological design of general urban areas and urban core areas |
| New urbanism | Urban-rural transect, smart code | Urban-rural area, urban-town district, street-site | ▪ The transect is used for the function planning and space design of blue-green space ▪ The smart code is used to manage the construction of spatial boundaries and the index control | |
| Urban-rural ecological planning in mountainous areas | Local ecological wisdom, ecological planning and design | Urban-rural area, urban-town district, street-site | ▪ The analysis and cognition of the blue-green space, especially for its resilience and adaptability ▪ Protection, restoration and construction of mountain areas |
Fig. 2 The integrated planning concept linking the blue-green space and urban-rural resilience
Fig. 3 The conceptual framework of blue-green space integrated planning
| Hydrological unit | Blue-green space | Potential main functions |
|---|---|---|
| Watershed (Urban-rural areas) | Natural areas | Flora and fauna habitats, water purification |
| River corridor network | Wildlife migration, pollution protection, water purification | |
| Country parks | Recreation and tourism, flora and fauna habitats | |
| Large lakes and wetlands | Waterhead area, flora and fauna habitats, pollution protection | |
| Sub-watershed (Urban-town districts) | Small wetland | Pollution protection, flood regulation |
| General lakes, reservoirs | Water storage, flood regulation | |
| Urban parks | Air purification, environmental education, recreation and entertainment, fitness, landscape appreciation | |
| Urban greenway and street | Recreation and entertainment, fitness | |
| Riparian woodland | Pollution protection, banks stabilization, wildlife migration | |
| Residential green areas | Entertainment, landscape appreciation, air purification | |
| Catchment (street-sites) | Residential courtyard | Recreation and landscape appreciation |
| Ponds, swales | Water storage, stormwater retention and regulation | |
| Green roofs | Mitigate heat island effect, stormwater retention | |
| Roadside greenbelt | Windproof, solid dust, landscape appreciation | |
| Green square | Recreation and landscape appreciation |
Table 3 The identification list of blue-green space resources and main functions
| Hydrological unit | Blue-green space | Potential main functions |
|---|---|---|
| Watershed (Urban-rural areas) | Natural areas | Flora and fauna habitats, water purification |
| River corridor network | Wildlife migration, pollution protection, water purification | |
| Country parks | Recreation and tourism, flora and fauna habitats | |
| Large lakes and wetlands | Waterhead area, flora and fauna habitats, pollution protection | |
| Sub-watershed (Urban-town districts) | Small wetland | Pollution protection, flood regulation |
| General lakes, reservoirs | Water storage, flood regulation | |
| Urban parks | Air purification, environmental education, recreation and entertainment, fitness, landscape appreciation | |
| Urban greenway and street | Recreation and entertainment, fitness | |
| Riparian woodland | Pollution protection, banks stabilization, wildlife migration | |
| Residential green areas | Entertainment, landscape appreciation, air purification | |
| Catchment (street-sites) | Residential courtyard | Recreation and landscape appreciation |
| Ponds, swales | Water storage, stormwater retention and regulation | |
| Green roofs | Mitigate heat island effect, stormwater retention | |
| Roadside greenbelt | Windproof, solid dust, landscape appreciation | |
| Green square | Recreation and landscape appreciation |
Fig. 4 The supply and demand of the composite ecosystem service function, and the balance mechanism Note: ES: Ecosystem service; ESUSE: Ecosystem service use. Source from Turkelboom et al., 2015.
Fig. 5 The three planning scales of blue-green space in Meishan City, Sichuan Province. (a) Meishan urban planning area— Regional watershed unit; (b) Mindong District—Sub-catchment unit of urban district; (c) Mindong Binjiang Park—Site catchment unit.
Fig. 6 Blue-green corridor network of Meishan in the urban and rural area
Fig. 7 The blue-green space layout (left) and composite buffers (right) in Mindong area, Meishan City. Note: Source from “Water system planning of Mindong”, Schueler, 1995.
Fig. 8 The stormwater management system in a riparian site of Mindong area, Meishan City.
Fig. 9 The blue-green infrastructure setting in a riparian site of Mindong area, Meishan City.
| Index | Nature preserve (T1) | Rural agricultural area (T2) | Urban fringe area (T3) | General urban area (T4) | Urban core area (T5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population density | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Road density | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Proportion of urban construction land | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Proportion of industrial and mining land in cities and towns | Low | High | Higher | - | - |
| Proportion of village construction land | Low | High | Higher | - | - |
| Proportion of impermeable cover | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Proportion of agricultural land | Lower | High | Middle | Lower | - |
| Urban functional structure in the urban and rural master plan | Tourism type | Agricultural type | Industry, Agricultural type | Comprehensive type | Comprehensive type |
Table 4 The urbanization attribute index of urban-rural transect zoning
| Index | Nature preserve (T1) | Rural agricultural area (T2) | Urban fringe area (T3) | General urban area (T4) | Urban core area (T5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population density | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Road density | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Proportion of urban construction land | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Proportion of industrial and mining land in cities and towns | Low | High | Higher | - | - |
| Proportion of village construction land | Low | High | Higher | - | - |
| Proportion of impermeable cover | Low | Lower | Middle | Higher | High |
| Proportion of agricultural land | Lower | High | Middle | Lower | - |
| Urban functional structure in the urban and rural master plan | Tourism type | Agricultural type | Industry, Agricultural type | Comprehensive type | Comprehensive type |
Fig. 10 Urban-rural transect zoning of Meishan City Note: T1= Nature reserve; T2= Rural agricultural area; T3= Urban fringe area; T4= General urban area; T5= Urban core area.
| Urban-rural transect | River corridor width (m) | River network density (km km-2) | Forest cover ratio (%) | Biological abundance | Proportion of impermeable cover (%) | Water area ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature preserve (T1) | 200 | 0.4 | 85 | 0.8 | 5 | 2-5 |
| Rural agricultural area (T2) | 100 | 0.3 | 50 | 0.5 | 10 | 3-8 |
| Urban fringe area (T3) | 50 | 0.2 | 40 | 0.4 | 20 | 8-12 |
| General urban area (T4) | 30 | 0.1 | 30 | 0.3 | 35 | 3-8 |
| Urban core area (T5) | 10 | 0.05 | 20 | 0.2 | 50 | 2-5 |
Table 5 Overall index control of riparian green space at the urban-rural level in Meishan City
| Urban-rural transect | River corridor width (m) | River network density (km km-2) | Forest cover ratio (%) | Biological abundance | Proportion of impermeable cover (%) | Water area ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature preserve (T1) | 200 | 0.4 | 85 | 0.8 | 5 | 2-5 |
| Rural agricultural area (T2) | 100 | 0.3 | 50 | 0.5 | 10 | 3-8 |
| Urban fringe area (T3) | 50 | 0.2 | 40 | 0.4 | 20 | 8-12 |
| General urban area (T4) | 30 | 0.1 | 30 | 0.3 | 35 | 3-8 |
| Urban core area (T5) | 10 | 0.05 | 20 | 0.2 | 50 | 2-5 |
| Urban-rural transect | Land use | Area ratio (%) | Form, scale and layout of green space | Vegetation allocation requirements | Schematic diagram |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature preserve (T1) | T1-EG1 T1-EG2 | >90 | Large and concentrated ecological green patch size, try to keep inner edge ratio of the patch high | Natural native arbor vegetation, canopy density >0.8 |  |
| T1-EG3 | <5 | Higher forest network density for farmland protection, wider roads and river shelterbelts | Evergreen tree > deciduous tree > shrubs > grass | ||
| T1-EG4 | >10 | Less, smaller, and dispersed patches of agriculture and forestry | Proportion of native crops in arbor category > 80% | ||
| Rural agricultural area (T2) | T2-EG1 T2-EG2 | >50 | Concentrated ecological green patch size, try to keep inner edge ratio of the patch high | Natural native arbor vegetation, canopy density >0.7 |  |
| T2-EG3 | 5-10 | Appropriate forest network density for farmland protection, and roads and river shelterbelts | Deciduous trees = evergreen trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T2-EG4 | >30 | Appropriate farmland scale, agro-forestry | Mainly for grasses, herbaceous crops | ||
| Urban fringe area (T3) | T3-EG1 T3-EG2 | 30-50 | Relatively concentrated ecological green patch size, high inner edge ratio of patch | Natural and semi-artificial vegetation, canopy density >0.6 |  |
| T3-EG3 | 30-50 | Appropriate forest network density for farmland protection, and roads and river shelterbelts | Deciduous trees > evergreen trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T3-EG2 | 10-30 | Concentrated and dispersed farmland patch, agro-forestry | Mainly for grasses, herbaceous crops | ||
| General urban area (T4) | T4-G1 | >60 | Central large park is combined with the green space beside the small scattered street | Semi-artificial vegetation community, canopy density > 0.4 |  |
| T4-G2 | 10-30 | Appropriate roads and river shelterbelts | Evergreen trees > deciduous trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T4-G3 | 5-15 | Large area, relatively high green coverage rate | Artificial vegetation | ||
| T4-XG | 5-15 | Meet associated land use needs | Artificial vegetation | ||
| Urban core area (T5) | T5-G1 | 20-40 | Small dispersed green space, strengthen the greening of both sides of streets, squares and sites | Artificial vegetation community, canopy density > 0.2 |  |
| T5-G3 | 30-50 | Small area, relatively lower green coverage rate | Evergreen trees > deciduous trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T5-XG | 5-15 | Meet associated land use needs | Artificial vegetation |
Table 6 The regulation and design guide for blue-green space land use based on transect zoning in Meishan City
| Urban-rural transect | Land use | Area ratio (%) | Form, scale and layout of green space | Vegetation allocation requirements | Schematic diagram |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nature preserve (T1) | T1-EG1 T1-EG2 | >90 | Large and concentrated ecological green patch size, try to keep inner edge ratio of the patch high | Natural native arbor vegetation, canopy density >0.8 | |
| T1-EG3 | <5 | Higher forest network density for farmland protection, wider roads and river shelterbelts | Evergreen tree > deciduous tree > shrubs > grass | ||
| T1-EG4 | >10 | Less, smaller, and dispersed patches of agriculture and forestry | Proportion of native crops in arbor category > 80% | ||
| Rural agricultural area (T2) | T2-EG1 T2-EG2 | >50 | Concentrated ecological green patch size, try to keep inner edge ratio of the patch high | Natural native arbor vegetation, canopy density >0.7 | |
| T2-EG3 | 5-10 | Appropriate forest network density for farmland protection, and roads and river shelterbelts | Deciduous trees = evergreen trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T2-EG4 | >30 | Appropriate farmland scale, agro-forestry | Mainly for grasses, herbaceous crops | ||
| Urban fringe area (T3) | T3-EG1 T3-EG2 | 30-50 | Relatively concentrated ecological green patch size, high inner edge ratio of patch | Natural and semi-artificial vegetation, canopy density >0.6 | |
| T3-EG3 | 30-50 | Appropriate forest network density for farmland protection, and roads and river shelterbelts | Deciduous trees > evergreen trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T3-EG2 | 10-30 | Concentrated and dispersed farmland patch, agro-forestry | Mainly for grasses, herbaceous crops | ||
| General urban area (T4) | T4-G1 | >60 | Central large park is combined with the green space beside the small scattered street | Semi-artificial vegetation community, canopy density > 0.4 | |
| T4-G2 | 10-30 | Appropriate roads and river shelterbelts | Evergreen trees > deciduous trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T4-G3 | 5-15 | Large area, relatively high green coverage rate | Artificial vegetation | ||
| T4-XG | 5-15 | Meet associated land use needs | Artificial vegetation | ||
| Urban core area (T5) | T5-G1 | 20-40 | Small dispersed green space, strengthen the greening of both sides of streets, squares and sites | Artificial vegetation community, canopy density > 0.2 | |
| T5-G3 | 30-50 | Small area, relatively lower green coverage rate | Evergreen trees > deciduous trees > shrubs > grass | ||
| T5-XG | 5-15 | Meet associated land use needs | Artificial vegetation |
| [1] |
Andrea N D, Kenton L S, Christopher D B, et al. 2017. Long-term response of stream and riparian restoration at Wilson Creek, Kentucky, USA. Ecological Restoration, 35(3): 246-254.
DOI URL |
| [2] | Berg P G, Ignatieva M, Granvik M, et al. 2013. Green-blue infrastructure in urban-rural landscapes: Introducing resilient citylands. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, (2): 11-37. |
| [3] |
Duany A, Talen E. 2002. Transect planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3): 245-266.
DOI URL |
| [4] | Fang J, Wu C Z. 2015. Contents and case study of open space planning in the USA. City Planning Review, 39(5): 76-82. (in Chinese) |
| [5] |
Fryd O, Backhaus A, Birch H, et al. 2013. Water sensitive urban design retrofits in Copenhagen-40% to the sewer, 60% to the city. Water Science and Technology, 67(9): 1945-1952.
DOI PMID |
| [6] | Ghofrani Z, Faggian R, Sposito V. 2016. Designing resilient regions by applying blue-green infrastructure concepts. Sustainable City, 204: 493-505. |
| [7] | Ghofrani Z, Sposito V, Faggian R. 2017. A comprehensive review of blue-green infrastructure concepts. International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 6(1): 15-36. |
| [8] |
Gill S E, Handley J F, Ennos A R, et al. 2007. Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1): 115-133.
DOI URL |
| [9] | Helen E A, Richard J H. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “lock-in trap” of the western Australian agricultural region. Ecology and Society, 9(1): 3. |
| [10] |
Holling C S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1): 1-23.
DOI URL |
| [11] | Hung Y Y, Aquino G, Waldheim C. 2012. Landscape infrastructure: Case studies by SWA. Basel, Switzerland: De Gruyter. |
| [12] | Jin Y F, Song M Y, Wu Y B, et al. 2018. Ecological restoration of the Riparian Zone in Changsha Baxizhou Central Park. Journal of Chinese Urban Forestry, 16(6): 40-43, 57. (in Chinese) |
| [13] | Lawson E, Thorne C, Ahilan S, et al. 2014. Delivering and evaluating the multiple flood risk benefits in blue-green cities: An interdisciplinary approach. Flood Recovery, Innovation & Response, 184(4): 113-124. |
| [14] | Li L, Jiang Y F. 2014. Progress on urban river greenway's theory and practice of overseas and domestic research. China Population, Resources and Environment, 24(S1): 309-312. (in Chinese) |
| [15] | Li J. 2018. Exploration on urban waterway planning methodology from the perspective of sponge city. City Planning Review, 42(6): 100-104. (in Chinese) |
| [16] |
Li T Y. 2017. New progress in study on resilient cities. Urban Planning International, 32(5): 15-25. (in Chinese)
DOI URL |
| [17] | Ratko R, Boris R, Velisa Miljanovic, et al. 2013. Blue-green corridors as a tool for mitigation of natural hazards and restoration of urbanized areas: A case study of Belgrade City. Spatium, (30): 18-22. |
| [18] |
Sara M, Joshua P N, Melissa S, et al. 2016. Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147: 38-49.
DOI URL |
| [19] | Schueler T. 1995. Site planning for urban stream protection. Washington DC, USA: Center for Watershed Protection(CWP). |
| [20] |
Scott T. 2006. Ecology and management of riparian ecosystems. Ecology, 87(2): 529. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[529:EAMORE]2.0.CO.2.
DOI URL |
| [21] |
Susan B. 2007. Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: Declaratory politics and the seductive appeal of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 16(2): 297-317.
DOI URL |
| [22] | Thomas K, Littlewood S. 2010. From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Planning, Practice & Research, 25(2): 203-222. |
| [23] | Turkelboom F, Thoonen M, Jacobs S, et al. 2015. Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies. In: Potschin M, Jax K (eds.). Ecosystem services reference book. Helsinki, Finland: Openness Reference Book. |
| [24] | Wu Y, He X S, Yang L. 2020. Compilation conception of city and county level blue-green space system specialized planning under national territory spatial planning system. Landscape Architecture, 27(1): 30-34. (in Chinese) |
| [25] | Xing Z, Yu Q, Gu Y Y, et al. 2019. Research on green space planning methods based on urban-rural transect zoning. City Planning Review, 43(4): 24-40. (in Chinese) |
| [26] | Xing Z, Yu Q, Zhou Q, et al. 2017. E type land corridor planning. Planners, 33 (4): 18-25. (in Chinese) |
| [27] | Xing Z, Yu Q, Jin Q. 2015. Low environmental impact planning and design. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 31 (6): 51-56. (in Chinese) |
| [28] | Xu Y Q, Sun Y, Shao Y W. 2015. Urban ecological corridor planning based on the rainwater footprint of hilly terrain: A case study of the master plan of Jianshi County. City Planning Review, 39(9): 82-86. (in Chinese) |
| [29] | Yu Q, Xing Z, Zhou Q F, et al. 2020. Mapping supply-demand of riparian ecosystem service for riparian greenspace planning on multiple spatial scales. China City Planning Review, 29(4): 6-17. |
| [30] | Zhang Y L, Li X, Tian Y. 2018. Study on ecological function zoning in the Municipal Administrative Area based on the landscape ecology source-sink theory: A case study of Tongliao, Inner Mongolia. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(1): 65-72. (in Chinese) |
| [31] | Zhu L Q, Peng F, Gao C. 2018. Climate change adaption and urban resilience: A case study of landscape design research about South Bay Park in Hudson, USA. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 34(4): 41-46. (in Chinese) |
| [1] | Sonja BERWECK, Parviz KOOHAFKAN, Mary Jane Ramos dela CRUZ, MIN Qingwen, JIAO Wenjun, SUN Yehong, LIU Moucheng. Conceptual Framework for Economic Evaluation of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems(GIAHS)：Case of Rice-Fish Co-Culture in China [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2013, 4(3): 202-211. |
| [2] | ZHEN Lin, LIU Xuelin, WEI Yunjie, YANG Li, LONG Xin, DU Bingzhen, LI Fen, CAO Xiaochang. Consumption of Ecosystem Services: A Conceptual Framework and Case Study in Jinghe Watershed [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2011, 2(4): 298-306. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
