Urban Design Toward More Holistic Systems: Improving Discipline Integration and Sustainability Evaluation

  • Stewart A. W. DiemontEmail author
  • Timothy R. Toland


Designing the urban ecosystem for sustainability is obviously a complex process. How stakeholders engage in this process and the role that multiple disciplines play in design can help determine project sustainability. Design charettes are a way to ensure that the needs and considerations of the community and the perspectives of professionals are fully integrated. How we define and measure sustainability can guide design requirements. A holistic metric, such as emergy evaluation, could lead to clearer articulation of site and regional relationships across spatial and temporal scales and of the role that nature plays in the urban ecosystem.


Charette Sustainability Multidisciplinary Site design Stakeholders Emergy 


  1. 1.
    Hanna K, Culpepper RB (1998) GIS in site design. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walker J, Seymour M (2008) Utilizing the design charrette for teaching sustainability. Int J Sust Higher Educ 9(2):157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Condon P (2008) Design charrettes for sustainable communities. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boecker J, Horst S, Keiter T, Lau A, Sheffer M, Toevs B, Reed B (2009) The integrative design guide to green building. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexiou K, Johnson J, Zamenopoulos T (2010) Embracing complexity in design: emerging perspectives and opportunities. In: Inns T (ed) Designing for the 21st century: interdisciplinary methods and findings. Gower Publishing, Surry, pp 87–100Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson MC, Koepke J, Hanson M (2011) From pits and piles to lakes and landscapes. Landsc J 30:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energ Buildings 35:1049–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Musacchio L, Ozdenerol E, Bryant M, Evans T (2005) Changing landscapes, changing disciplines: seeking to understand interdisciplinarity in landscape ecological change research. Landsc Urban Plan 73:326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Augsburg T (2005) Becoming interdisciplinary: an introduction to interdisciplinary studies, 2nd edn. Kendall/Hunt, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fruchter R, Clayton MJ, Krawinkler H et al (1996) Interdisciplinary communication medium for collaborative conceptual building design. Adv Eng Softw 25(2-3):89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schneekloth L, Shibley R (1995) Placemaking: the art and practice of building communities. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hester R (1990) Community design primer. Ridge Times Press, MendocinoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanoff H (2000) Community participation methods in design and planning. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murphy CB (2009) President, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, interview, September 30Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willis D (2010) Are charrettes old school? Harv Des Mag 33:25–31Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindsey G, Todd JA, Hayter S et al (2009) A handbook for planning and conducting charrettes for high-performance projects. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandercock L (1998) Towards cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nelson A (2007) The greening of US investment real-estate – market fundamentals, prospects and opportunities. RREEF, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams DE (2007) Sustainable design: ecology, architecture, and planning. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orr DW, Cohen A (2013) Promoting partnerships for integrated post-carbon development: strategies at work in the Oberlin Project at Oberlin College. Plan Higher Educ J 4(3):22–25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang IC, Sheppard E (2013) China’s eco-cities as variegated urban sustainability: Dongtan Eco-City and Chongming Eco-Island. J Urban Technol 20(1):57–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reiche D (2010) Renewable energy policies in the Gulf countries: a case study of the carbon-neutral “Masdar City” in Abu Dhabi. Energ Policy 38:378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M’Gonigle M, Starke J (2006) Planet U: sustaining the world, reinventing the university. New Society, Gabriola IslandGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall MH, Sun N, Balogh SB et al (2013) Assessing the tradeoffs for an urban green economy. In: Richardson SB (ed) Building a green economy: perspectives from ecological economics. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, pp 151–170Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    USGBC (2009) Foundations of LEED. US Green Building Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    USGBC (2009) LEED for new construction and major renovation. US Green Building Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    SSI (2009) The sustainable sites initiative: guidelines and performance benchmarks. American Society of Landscape Architects, Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at The University of Texas, United States Botanic Garden, AustinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schendler A, Udall R (2005) LEED is broken; let’s fix it. Grist Environmental News and Commentary. Available via CABA Information Seriers/. Accessed 25 Oct 2018
  29. 29.
    Newsham GR, Mancici S, Birt B (2009) Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but. Energ Buildings 41:897–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thompson JW, Sorvig K (2007) Sustainable landscape construction: a guide to green building outdoors. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services. RFF Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. US EPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ulgiati S, Brown MT (1998) Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecol Model 108:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rodriguez B (2011) Assessment of green infrastructure design strategies for stormwater management: a comparative emergy analysis. Thesis, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and ForestryGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Toland TR, Diemont SAW (2009) Is there something better than LEED? using emergy analysis as an alternative way to evaluate sustainability. Proceedings of the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture Conference, January 17, Tuscon, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Law EP, Diemont SAW, Toland TR (2017) A sustainability comparison of green infrastructure interventions using emergy evaluation. J Clean Prod 145:374–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tilley DR, Swank WT (2003) EMERGY-based environmental systems assessment of a multi-purpose temperate mixed-forest watershed of the Southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. J Environ Manag 69(3):213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Campbell DE, Ohrt A (2009) Environmental accounting using energy: evaluation of Minnesota. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology DivisionGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Diemont SA, Martin JF, Levy-Tacher SI (2006) Emergy evaluation of Lacandon Maya indigenous swidden agroforestry in Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Syst 66(1):23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Forest BiologyState University of New York, College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc.CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations