Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Understanding Urban Ecology pp 321–345Cite as

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1632 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hanna K, Culpepper RB (1998) GIS in site design. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Walker J, Seymour M (2008) Utilizing the design charrette for teaching sustainability. Int J Sust Higher Educ 9(2):157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Condon P (2008) Design charrettes for sustainable communities. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  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 York

    Google Scholar 

  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 87–100

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carlson MC, Koepke J, Hanson M (2011) From pits and piles to lakes and landscapes. Landsc J 30:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 35:1049–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 73:326–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Augsburg T (2005) Becoming interdisciplinary: an introduction to interdisciplinary studies, 2nd edn. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fruchter R, Clayton MJ, Krawinkler H et al (1996) Interdisciplinary communication medium for collaborative conceptual building design. Adv Eng Softw 25(2-3):89–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schneekloth L, Shibley R (1995) Placemaking: the art and practice of building communities. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hester R (1990) Community design primer. Ridge Times Press, Mendocino

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sanoff H (2000) Community participation methods in design and planning. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Murphy CB (2009) President, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, interview, September 30

    Google Scholar 

  15. Willis D (2010) Are charrettes old school? Harv Des Mag 33:25–31

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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, Golden

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sandercock L (1998) Towards cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nelson A (2007) The greening of US investment real-estate – market fundamentals, prospects and opportunities. RREEF, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  19. Williams DE (2007) Sustainable design: ecology, architecture, and planning. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  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):22–25

    Google Scholar 

  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):57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 38:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. M’Gonigle M, Starke J (2006) Planet U: sustaining the world, reinventing the university. New Society, Gabriola Island

    Google Scholar 

  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 151–170

    Google Scholar 

  25. USGBC (2009) Foundations of LEED. US Green Building Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  26. USGBC (2009) LEED for new construction and major renovation. US Green Building Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  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, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schendler A, Udall R (2005) LEED is broken; let’s fix it. Grist Environmental News and Commentary. Available via CABA Information Seriers/. www.caba.org/CABA/DocumentLibrary/Public/IS-2005-45.aspx. Accessed 25 Oct 2018

  29. Newsham GR, Mancici S, Birt B (2009) Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but. Energ Buildings 41:897–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson JW, Sorvig K (2007) Sustainable landscape construction: a guide to green building outdoors. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services. RFF Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  32. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. US EPA, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  33. Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ulgiati S, Brown MT (1998) Monitoring patterns of sustainability in natural and man-made ecosystems. Ecol Model 108:23–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 Forestry

    Google Scholar 

  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, Arizona

    Google Scholar 

  37. Law EP, Diemont SAW, Toland TR (2017) A sustainability comparison of green infrastructure interventions using emergy evaluation. J Clean Prod 145:374–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):213–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 Division

    Google Scholar 

  40. Diemont SA, Martin JF, Levy-Tacher SI (2006) Emergy evaluation of Lacandon Maya indigenous swidden agroforestry in Chiapas, Mexico. Agrofor Syst 66(1):23–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental and Forest Biology, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Stewart A. W. Diemont

  2. Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA

    Timothy R. Toland

Authors
  1. Stewart A. W. Diemont
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy R. Toland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stewart A. W. Diemont .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Urban Environment, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Myrna H. P. Hall

  2. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI, USA

    Stephen B. Balogh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Diemont, S.A.W., Toland, T.R. (2019). Urban Design Toward More Holistic Systems: Improving Discipline Integration and Sustainability Evaluation. In: Hall, M., Balogh, S. (eds) Understanding Urban Ecology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11259-2_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation