See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223567525

Open Space Planning Models: A Review of Approaches and Methods

Article  in  Landscape and Urban Planning · May 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.003

CITATIONS READS

165 2,147

2 authors:

Tseira Maruani Irit Amit-Cohen

Bar Ilan University Bar Ilan University
7 PUBLICATIONS   210 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   296 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Entrepreneurship in the Rural Space in Israel as a Driver for Local and Regional Development View project

4. Integrated Heritage Landscape in Rural Areas Versus to Open Space in Regional and National Planning, The Case of Commune Settlements'. Israel Ministry of
Environmental Protection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tseira Maruani on 25 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

Review

Open space planning models: A review of approaches and methods

Tseira Maruani ∗ , Irit Amit-Cohen
Department of Geography and Environment, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 32900, Israel
Received 23 June 2006; received in revised form 4 December 2006; accepted 1 January 2007
Available online 20 February 2007

Abstract
Land use planning systems, worldwide and in Israel, are now taking into account environmental, social, economic and cultural developments.
These systems are intended to solve issues related to the conflict between developmental requirements and the need to preserve cultural and natural
resources. The importance of open spaces is increasingly recognized when addressing these issues, while their special characteristics affect planning
decisions. These characteristics led over the years to the emergence of various approaches and planning methods, guided by essentially different
concepts of open space priority functions. The purpose of this article is to review commonly used models of open space planning and their guiding
principles, point out some of their merits and limitations as planning tools, and organize these in a comparative classification framework according
to their potential use as a response to the demands for open space and conservation of existing natural values.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Land use planning; Open space conservation; Open space models; Land use policy; Environmental planning

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Open spaces as land use—definitions and functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Provision of services by open spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Conservation of natural values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Market failures in open space allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Approaches to public open space planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Open space planning models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Opportunistic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Space standards—a quantitative model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. Park system model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. Garden city—a comprehensive planning model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.5. Shape-related models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.6. Landscape-related models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.7. Ecological determinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.8. Protected landscapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.9. Biosphere reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

∗ Corresponding author at: P.O. Box 1015, Ramat-Gan 52110, Israel. Tel.: +972 3 6312021; fax: +972 3 6315961.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Maruani), [email protected] (I. Amit-Cohen).

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.003
2 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

1. Introduction 2.1. Provision of services by open spaces

The importance of open spaces to our environment and qual- Increased leisure activities – an outcome of the rising standard
ity of life is increasingly recognized (De Groot, 1992; Naveh, of living and changing employment and lifestyle patterns – are
1997; Ward Thompson, 2002; Chiesura, 2004). In many coun- accompanied by an ever-growing demand for outdoor recreation.
tries, open spaces are today regarded an integral part of land use Most of this demand is met by the open spaces, particularly of the
planning decisions. However, approaches to open space plan- “natural” environment type—whether through active (sports and
ning vary, and there is no general agreement on the desirable games) or passive activities (relaxing or observing the scenery).
planning criteria as to how much open space is needed, where Providing for recreational demands requires a complex and
open spaces should be located or how they should be used. Vari- diverse open space system to suit the needs of various population
ous methods and concepts of open space planning that emerged groups (different age groups, young parents, handicapped peo-
over the years are described in literature. Yet, those have never ple, cultural differences, etc.). Planning for recreation addresses
been compared on a systematic basis. The purpose of the present questions such as how much, what sort and where the open space
article is to review and analyze some commonly used conceptual is needed; thus it relates to parameters focused on users’ needs,
models of open space planning, using a comparative framework. such as size and spatial distribution of open spaces, compatibil-
The scope of the analysis is limited to aspects of institutionally ity between potential uses and activities, accessibility, visibility
supported planning, based on a literature review and assisted by and suitability to special needs (Gold, 1973; Hill and Alterman,
examples from Israel and other countries. 1977; Churchman et al., 1990; Feitelson, 1995; Chiesura, 2004).
The underlying premise of this article is that approaches to Providing for recreation, especially in environments of
open space planning stem from their special characteristics as a nature, has many added values in several aspects, including
type of land use. Hence, the article begins with a description scenic (e.g. greening urban environments), psychological (e.g.
of the characteristics and functions of open spaces, expand- contact with nature, sense of refuge and freedom, relaxation
ing also to their inherent conflicts and market failures that call and relief from stress), social (e.g. promoting social encoun-
for public intervention. Addressed subsequently is the funda- ters, equality and social integration, richer opportunities for
mental dichotomy between demand and supply approaches to minorities), educational and scientific services (e.g. offering
open space planning and conservation. The rest of the article is a variety of environments for study and exploration by stu-
dedicated to a review of open space planning models, showing dents and researchers at all education levels), and assimilation
how they reflect these characteristics and planning approaches of values and moral attitudes (e.g. values concerning the rela-
through their guiding principles. Consequently, we suggest char- tionship between humans and nature) (Kaplan, 1984; Spirn,
acterizing the reviewed models in a classification framework, 1995; Feitelson, 1995; Ward Thompson, 2002; Chiesura, 2004;
which could facilitate open space planning and research in the Frenkel, 2004; Bryant, 2006). All these may be regarded as ser-
future. vices provided by open spaces to society. Perception of open
spaces as service providers reflects a utilitarian approach, which
2. Open spaces as land use—definitions and functions views the benefits derived from open space functions as a justi-
fication for their existence.
Land use planning, as regarded in this article, deals with allo-
cating land for a variety of uses, some in built-up and mostly 2.2. Conservation of natural values
urban environments (e.g. residential areas, industry, commerce
or infrastructure) while others occur in non-built areas namely Natural values possess special characteristics affecting their
open spaces (e.g. parks and gardens, outdoor recreational areas, planning and conservation. They exist within complex and
farmlands, forests or nature reserves). Open spaces are dom- dynamic ecosystems, undergoing continuous flow processes that
inated by a “natural” environment, composed of abiotic (soil, are influenced by external changes (Pickett and Ostfeld, 1994;
water, minerals) and biotic (plants, animals, microorganisms) Prevolutzky, 1994; Shachak, 1996). Intervention may cause irre-
elements. A built environment represents a high level of inter- versible consequences or damage irreplaceable natural assets
vention in the ecosystem, altering the landscape and interfering (Chavas, 2000). Despite the progress in research, ecological
with natural processes, sometimes irreversibly. Open spaces, knowledge is still incomplete, with uncertainty concerning pos-
on the other hand, are generally characterized by a low level sible outcomes of the intervention in ecosystems (Safriel, 1991;
of intervention that does not change their intrinsic “natural- Prevolutzky, 1994; Randall and Farmer, 1995; Shachak, 1996;
ness”, and allows continuous functioning of the ecosystems Chavas, 2000; Shkedy and Sadot, 2000). Some natural assets,
and survival of nature and landscape values. Therefore, plan- though, are resources of direct economic value (e.g. farmlands,
ning of open spaces may also be described as conservation water, minerals or species used for pharmaceuticals), and some
or protection from extreme intervention such as imposed by degree of intervention is inevitable if economic benefits are to
development. be attained. In addition, many natural resources provide soci-
While the functions of open spaces are manifold, they may ety with ecological (e.g. protection of natural processes and
be classified into two major categories: provision of recre- resources, conservation of biodiversity) and environmental (e.g.
ation and other services to society and conservation of natural maintaining air and water quality, improving the local micro-
values. climate) services, that are considered life-supporting systems
 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13 3

(Green, 1985; Helliwell, 1985; De Groot, 1992; Naveh, 1997; open spaces. These include cases of public goods, externalities
Constanza, 2000; Saaroni et al., 2000; Bryant, 2006). Such and information asymmetry.
services embody indirect economic benefits, yet these are dif- Public goods are defined by Weimer and Vining (1992) as
ficult to quantify because of our incomplete knowledge (Vatn non-excludable in use and non-rivalrous in consumption. This
and Bromley, 1995). Indirect valuation methods – such as will- means that no one person can maintain exclusive control over
ingness to pay, travel cost method or hedonic prices – do not their use, and any person can derive consumption benefits from
reflect truly the real values of natural resources because of var- them, regardless of having paid or not paid for them. Those
ious biases inherent in the different methods (Turner et al., characteristics, typical of open spaces, lead to a “free rider” prob-
1994; Bromley, 1995; Vatn and Bromley, 1995; Faushold and lem, since consumers’ motivation to finance such goods is low
Lilieholm, 1996). (Doron, 1986; Weimer and Vining, 1992; Ewing, 1997). In other
Planning for conservation is concerned with questions such words, market failure is inherent in the nature of open spaces.
as which natural values should be protected from develop- According to Alterman (1999) this attribute of open spaces is
ment and how they should be managed. Setting priorities one of the main justifications for government intervention in the
for conservation will rely on parameters like integrity, rarity, land market.
diversity, vulnerability or uniqueness of landscapes and ecosys- Externalities exist when activities of a firm or an individ-
tem components. Location decisions will be determined by ual cause benefits or costs to other firms or individuals that are
their existing spatial distribution and dynamics (McHarg, 1969; not involved in them (Baumol and Oates, 1975; Doron, 1986).
Helliwell, 1985; Selman, 1993; Amir et al., 1997; Dramstad et In a free market externalities tend to be disregarded. Conse-
al., 1996; Kaplan et al., 2000). It should be noted, however, quently, goods with external costs are over produced and sold
that conservation-oriented planning might prove unsatisfactory at low prices that do not reflect their real cost to society. On the
regarding population demands for open space uses, since the nat- other hand, production of goods with external benefits is too low,
ural environment in populated areas tends to be degraded due to and those potential benefits cannot be fully enjoyed (Weimer
the cumulative effects of human intervention and development and Vining, 1992). The difficulty to assess and quantify indirect
over time. benefits and values of open spaces – as was mentioned above –
Planning for conservation also expresses to some degree a reflects such a failure source, making it difficult for open spaces
utilitarian approach that emphasizes the need to conserve a cer- to compete for land allocations in the land market. Moreover, the
tain level of natural resources and processes because of their high values of developed land and the speculative values of land
benefits and services to society (Helliwell, 1985; Safriel, 1991). suitable for development in the future attract even more devel-
Nevertheless, many conservationists embrace an ethical–moral opment, regardless of the population’s needs for open spaces
approach, claiming that the right of natural values (especially preserved within and between the residential areas.
non-human life forms like plants and animals) to exist should be Information asymmetry exists when information regarding
considered regardless of their contribution to society (Beatley, certain goods or services is lacking or is not evenly available to
1989). Embedding such a moral approach in land use planning all players in the market. Such a situation – which contradicts
complicates even further the determination of planning criteria. one of the basic assumptions of a free market – is one of the
Despite their role in recreation and conservation open spaces main features of ecosystems and ecological processes. In cases
are also regarded as options for future development, especially of information asymmetry, the market operates under uncertain
by developers and public entrepreneurs. Consequently, an essen- conditions, which might distort decision-making regarding allo-
tial continuous conflict exists between development and open cation of land and natural resources (Weimer and Vining, 1992;
space conservation. Moreover, the market value of developed Ready, 1995).
land and its speculative value (affected by expectations of future In all cases of market failures regular market mechanisms
development) are much higher than the value of land conserved cannot ensure optimal allocation of limited resources. That is
as open space (Nelson, 1990). This leads to a market failure. why public intervention is required. Planning is considered to
Since market failures are inherent in the essence of open spaces be one of the most important and recommended tools for such
they are presented in greater detail in the next section. intervention (see also Nelson, 1990). Public planning of open
spaces is at the focus of the present article.
3. Market failures in open space allocation
4. Approaches to public open space planning
In a free market, goods and services are exchanged between
individuals and firms on a demand and supply basis, assuming Over the years public planning of open spaces reveals two
the existence of certain basic conditions, such as a large num- contradictory approaches. The first – more typical of planners
ber of sellers and buyers, symmetry of information concerning and geographers – focuses on providing a response to human
prices and values of goods and lack of external costs or benefits demands for recreation, amenities and environmental quality.
(Ewing, 1997). According to economic theory, under such con- This is expressed by the types of open space it supports—mostly
ditions the free market will behave optimally considering the gardens and parks within or close to urban and metropolitan
total benefit to society (Turner et al., 1994). Market failures are areas (French, 1973; Heckscher, 1977; Turner, 1992; Tibbets,
cases where the market is not optimal. Among common market 1998). The other approach – typical of ecologists and conser-
failures listed by Weimer and Vining (1992) some are typical of vationists – focuses on open space conservation as a means for
4 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

protecting existing landscape and natural values (Safriel, 1991). 5. Open space planning models
These two approaches may be seen as representing a “demand
approach” and a “supply approach” correspondingly. The history of open space planning is relatively young. Until
According to the demand approach open spaces are meant the 18th century open spaces were easily accessible to most city
to fulfill the population’s needs. Therefore, they should relate dwellers, since cities’ growth was limited by the surrounding
mainly to attributes of the target population—its size and agricultural areas (preserved as a source of food for the local pop-
demographic variables, values and preferences, residential dis- ulation) and technological barriers limiting transportation and
tribution and density (though some attributes of the natural infrastructure facilities. This situation began to change follow-
environment may be considered too, such as topography that ing the industrial revolution. Emergence of new income sources
affects accessibility). On the other hand, a supply approach, – independent of land – along with technological innovations
which aims at conservation of high-quality natural and land- and decreasing dependency on agriculture resulted in acceler-
scape values, relies on visual, ecological and spatial attributes of ated migration from rural areas to urban settlements (Aalen,
the existing natural environment. In fact, the differences between 1992). Cities expanded and peripheral open spaces were left
demand and supply approaches are the conceptual expression of detached from inner-city residents, who lived in crowded con-
the distinction between recreation and conservation functions ditions under poverty and distress (Pregill and Volkman, 1993).
of open spaces and their relevant planning principles, as was Public parks were established in the 18th and 19th centuries as
described above. Fig. 1 demonstrates the differences between a response to an increasing public demand for amenities and
the two approaches through examples of some of those guiding recreational areas, and to reduce social stress which was threat-
planning principles. ening the existing social order and political systems (French,
The distinction between the two approaches is revealed also 1973; Heckscher, 1977; Pregill and Volkman, 1993; Schenker,
by their relevance to various types of open space. The range 1995). The term “open space” was probably used for the first
of open space types includes paved squares and plazas – rep- time in the year 1833, by the select committee on public trails
resenting a maximum level of interference with the natural in London (Turner, 1992).
environment – on one end of the scale, and wilderness areas Since the mid 20th century urbanization and metropolitan
without interference on the other. These types may be divided growth were accelerated, leading to suburbanization and urban
into several groups, distinguished from each other by their spa- sprawl. These processes were a consequence of rapid techno-
tial location, level of intervention in the natural ecosystem and logical evolution followed by economic growth, rising living
their use, as described in Fig. 2. standards, increased motorization as well as general well being.
In many cases the presented types imply difference of scale, This threatened landscapes and heritage values (Antrop, 2004),
from local (urban), through metropolitan (agricultural and rural) while highlighting the necessity for conservation of open spaces
and regional (countryside), and up to a national scale (wilder- as an integral part of land use planning. In the same period, con-
ness). Those distinctions between types of open spaces are solidation of the ecological paradigm led to better understanding
reflected also in the relevant planning models discussed in the of complex ecological processes and correlations. An outcome
next section. of these trends was a growing awareness of the need to protect

Fig. 1. Approaches to open space planning—a comparison of guiding planning principles.

 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13 5

Fig. 2. Types of open space.

vital ecosystems and natural processes, as expressed by ecolo- Space left over after planning (SLOPE) represents another
gists and conservationists (Prevolutzky, 1994; Shachak, 1996; variant of the opportunistic model, where residual parcels of
Nave, 2001). land that were left after allocating land for all other uses are
As experience in open space planning accumulates, various designated for open space purposes. Such residual parcels tend to
types of planning models may be identified, expressing different be small, irregular or inaccessible for other uses, and are usually
approaches to the functions of open spaces within and outside poorly suited for open space uses as well.
developed areas. The rest of this article is dedicated to a review Opportunistically created open spaces are usually part of
and examination of some of these models. urban environments, with some of them becoming renowned
parks, as shown in the examples above. However, an oppor-
5.1. Opportunistic model tunistic model is in essence casual, depending on realizing and
seizing opportunities as they present themselves. It is not a sys-
The term “opportunistic” is used here to describe a pattern tematic outcome of any specific guiding principle. It therefore
where open spaces are the result of opportunities that pop-up does not ensure a sufficient response to the population’s needs,
rather than of a systematic planning process. Among the best- or provides for appropriate protection of natural resources.
known examples are the first major parks opened to the public
in London during the 19th century, which were established on 5.2. Space standards—a quantitative model
lands donated by the king to the citizens. The same occurred in
Paris and in other European capitals (Pregill and Volkman, 1993; Sir Raymond Unwin was apparently the first to suggest using
Schenker, 1995). Many parks in the United States exist on lands space standards for allocating open spaces in London, at the end
donated to the public by wealthy families (Heckscher, 1977). In of the 19th century (Turner, 1992). The leading guiding principle
Israel, the Rothschild family donated the land of Park Hanadiv for this model is quantitative matching between open space and
in Zichron Yaakov to the public to serve as an educational and the respective user population, claiming that adequate response
ecological site. to needs requires a certain minimal area size of open space for
Opportunities may arise in additional ways. For example, a given population. Space standards are a popular and com-
demolition of slums in Paris by Haussmann in the 1860s offered mon planning tool for all kinds of public services in the urban
an opportunity to create the famous boulevards of the city environment, and are usually expressed in terms of land units
(Schenker, 1995). Another example is Central Park in New York per person. Planning by space standards is easy to implement,
that was the result of an opportunity to get rid of environmental since it is based on quantitative data only, and does not require
nuisances (Runte, 1987). The Al-Azhar Park project in Cairo acquaintance with the characteristics of complex social or eco-
is an example of recycling an old accumulation of construction logical systems. That explains why the use of space standards as
fill and debris, transforming it into a leisure and recreational a measure for allocating open spaces quickly expanded around
space. the world (Gold, 1973; Hill and Alterman, 1977). However,
6 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

quantitative measures alone cannot provide sufficient answers to by Ebenezer Howard at the end of the 19th century (Alexander,
existing demands. More elaborate versions of this model address 1992). This was an era of accelerated uncontrolled urban growth,
that problem by also incorporating criteria relating to additional accompanied by crowding and unsanitary living conditions that
aspects of users’ needs and open space type, such as service produced social stress, high housing prices and land speculation
range, minimal size, spatial distribution, residential densities and which exacerbated socioeconomic gaps, increasing air and water
types of activities (Hill and Alterman, 1977). pollution, abandonment of agricultural fields and lack of open
Application of a quantitative model should be monitored to space (Aalen, 1992; Ward, 1992b; Girling and Helphand, 1994).
ensure actual realization of the desired standards. In Israel, for Howard aspired to achieve social reform through comprehen-
example, large gaps were discovered between the actual open sive urban planning, based on socioeconomic (e.g. land reform,
space compared to the size and amount allocated according to cooperativism and self-containment), environmental (e.g. cre-
standards in plans initiated by the Ministry of Building and ating buffers between residential zones and pollution sources)
Housing (Pinksfeld-Firstenberg, 2002). Even when fully real- and structural (a radial structure with open spaces as central
ized, the quantitative model lacks reference to site features, parks, as green fingers between neighborhoods and as periph-
including nature and heritage values of the plan site. In other eral greenbelts) principles (Ward, 1992a; Girling and Helphand,
words, it does not ensure conservation of high-quality land- 1994).
scapes and disregards potential ecological and environmental Howard outlined his proposal in a book entitled “Tomorrow:
uses and benefits. a Peaceful Path to Real Reform” (1898), a title that expresses his
emphasis on the goal of social reform and socioeconomic princi-
5.3. Park system model ples. However, the book was soon republished as Garden Cities
of To-Morrow (1902; 1965), supposedly because of the imme-
A park system is a set of functionally interrelated open spaces diate popularity the term “garden city” acquired. At least some
– sometimes interconnected physically – in a given geographical part of that popularity might be attributed to the detailed graphic
area. It is employed mostly in urban areas, guided by a motive of schemes that Howard included in his book, which illustrated
offering the population an expanded variety of experiences and the structural principles of the proposed garden city. Moreover,
opportunities. A park system approach may already be detected while Letchworth, the first garden city (founded in 1903), was
at the end of the 19th century. Examples of this approach are developing slowly, it was the garden suburb Hampstead (planned
Prospect Park in New York and the Emerald Necklace in Boston, by Raymond Unwin and started in 1907) – employing mainly
both planned by Olmsted and Vaux, and Cleveland’s plan for structural principles – that proved to be an immediate success.
the park systems of Minneapolis and Saint Paul (Little, 1990; This success contributed to a fast expansion of the garden city
Walmsley, 1995; Zube, 1995; Ndubisi, 1997). A later example model in other European countries as well as in America and
is Abercromby’s 1943/1944 plan for London, which aspired to Asia (Ward, 1992b; Girling and Helphand, 1994; Tibbets, 1998).
create a system of open spaces interconnected by green trails, to The garden city model is considered to be a cornerstone of
enable continuous movement through open spaces in the city modern urban planning in general, and open space planning in
(Turner, 1992). A park system may also be arranged hierar- particular (Alexander, 1992). Though it was never fully real-
chically, with an array of gardens and parks of different sizes ized, some of its principles – especially the structural – have
according to their range of service – starting with local pocket inspired planners around the world (Alexander, 1992; Girling
gardens – of limited use—up to major urban and metropoli- and Helphand, 1994; Tibbets, 1998). Among others, it is also the
tan parks which serve a large population and offer a variety origin of shape-related models, such as greenbelts and green fin-
of uses (French, 1973; Gold, 1973; Heckscher, 1977; Hill and gers (Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1962), which
Alterman, 1977). The hierarchical concept relates open space are discussed below.
plans to the spatial distribution of neighborhood units, their size
and structure—data that are readily available, and therefore this 5.5. Shape-related models
model is widely used.
A system of interrelated parks and gardens – whether hier- Shape-related models refer to cases where the open space
archical or not – is easy created in new developing areas, but is defined by its shape, which in turn relates to the shape and
less so in existing urban areas due to constraints imposed by spatial arrangement of the adjacent built-up zone or of elements
the spatial distribution of existing development. Moreover, this within it. The best-known of these are “greenbelt”, “green heart”,
model – in similar to the quantitative model – emphasizes pop- “green fingers” and “greenways”.
ulation needs, but does not protect natural landscapes or ensure The greenbelt model was a response to uncontrolled growth
ecological and environmental functions. of cities at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries,
characterized, inter alia, by the expansion of urban development
5.4. Garden city—a comprehensive planning model into peripheral rural areas. Conserving a “greenbelt” of agricul-
tural and natural areas around the city was supposed to prevent
The well-known garden city model represents a comprehen- its expansion and merging with small nearby settlements. The
sive approach to urban planning, which regards open spaces as use of this belt as an amenity and recreation zone for the urban
an integral part of development, relating their spatial array to population was a secondary goal (Ministry of Housing and Local
the configuration of developed zones. The model was conceived Government, 1962). The greenbelt concept was developed and
 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13 7

applied mostly in England, although it was also adopted in other 1995; Jim and Chen, 2003; Bryant, 2006) to regional (Taylor et
countries in Europe, America and Asia (see for instance Girling al., 1995; Ndubisi et al., 1995; Yahner et al., 1995). An exam-
and Helphand, 1994; Taylor et al., 1995; Walmsley, 1995; Kuhn, ple on a national scale is the recently approved National Outline
2003; Li et al., 2005). In London, it was found that the greenbelt Plan (NOP 35) in Israel that addresses the disappearance of open
did not prevent urban growth. Yet, most of the belt zone itself spaces and habitat fragmentation by preserving a North–South
was conserved as open space (Elson et al., 1993), proving that “Green Avenue” and East–West green corridors.
the greenbelt is a useful tool for conserving nearby open space Shape-related models may be used alone or in combination
accessible to city dwellers. with other models, as exemplified by Feitelson’s (1995) pro-
The green heart model is the opposite of greenbelt, describing posal for the core metropolitan regions of Israel. On the whole,
an open space encircled by built-up urban areas (similar to the they are easy to apply, based on maps or aerial photos. Since
central park principle in the garden city model). A well-known understanding of social or ecological processes is not necessar-
example of a green heart implemented on a metropolitan scale ily required, it is no wonder that models of this type were so
is the Randstadt in the Netherlands, where four cities (Ams- extensively used by planners around the world.
terdam, Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht) form an urban ring
encircling a large rural and agricultural area. A similar concept 5.6. Landscape-related models
was proposed for the Haifa metropolitan region in Israel (Mazor
and Tsamir, 1999). Conserving the central open space was sup- The term “landscape” is used here in the visual sense, as “that
posed to prevent urban growth and merging, similar to the role stretch of country as seen from a single point” (Meinig, 1979,
intended for greenbelts (Kuhn, 2003). However, it was found p. 33). Planning based on visual landscape values in urban envi-
that urban development was sprawling into the open green heart ronments was already exercised in cities and metropolitan areas
area despite the preventive measures (Tjallingii, 2000; Kuhn, at the 19th century (Zube, 1995). Its purpose was to conserve
2003). highly valued landscapes, especially topographical (mountains
Green fingers – also known as green wedges – are radial strips and ridges) and hydrological (rivers and streams) elements. An
of open space that penetrate the built-up area. Roberts (1970) example of this model is the Genius Loci concept used in Wash-
cites some early examples in the US, such as Charles Eliot’s 1901 ington, DC in the 1960s to mark prominent landscape features
Boston plan, which proposed radial wedges based on waterways that gave the city its uniqueness (McHarg, 1969). However, land-
and forested land. A latter well-known example is Copenhagen’s scapes valued as scenery – such as mountainous terrain and
five-finger plan, initiated in 1947. Green fingers also exist or stormy waterways, for instance – tend to be a deterrent to human
are proposed in other countries throughout the world (see for settlement. Therefore, an approach based on unique or promi-
instance Feitelson, 1995; Jim and Chen, 2003). An important nent landscape features is of limited value as a universal planning
advantage of this model is improved accessibility to open space model for urban areas.
from the inner core of the city. It does not, however, ensure a However, since the last decade of the 20th century a new
satisfactory response to population needs, except if combined landscape-related concept may be identified, especially in fast-
with a quantitative model. growing metropolitan areas, undergoing sprawling development
The greenway model, according to Zube (1995), may already resulting in extensive loss of open spaces—mainly farm-
be traced – as a greenline concept – in the Adirondack Park, in lands (see for instance Frenkel, 2004; Robinson et al., 2005).
New York State, founded in 1892. However, it became espe- Rural–agricultural landscapes are now perceived as cultural
cially popular since the last decade of the 20th century (Little, landscapes worthy of conservation for their heritage and visual
1990; Flink and Searns, 1993; Ahern, 1995; Fábos, 1995, 2004; values (Yahner et al., 1995). Such an approach is exemplified
Walmsley, 1995, 2006; Fábos and Ryan, 2006). Greenways were by the Connecticut River Valley Plan (Yaro et al., 1990). Egoz
given a variety of definitions and typologies (Ahern, 1995), all (1996) expresses a similar approach in her suggestion for con-
referring to open space of a linear nature, based mostly on exist- servation of the orchard landscapes in the coastal plain of Israel.
ing linear surface elements, whether natural (streams or ridges) Treating agricultural lands as landscape assets might prove use-
or man-made (rights-of-way of roads and railways). Greenways ful as a basis for conservation, especially in metropolitan areas.
coinciding with natural elements offer a better response than the
previously described models to natural resource conservation 5.7. Ecological determinism
possibilities in metropolitan areas—albeit still limited because
of their linear nature. For example, they may be used as eco- Ecological determinism means that planning is determined
logical corridors (Ndubisi et al., 1995; Shkedy and Sadot, 2000; by the natural characteristics of the land. The ecologically ori-
Bryant, 2006). ented planning process starts with collecting and analyzing data
Though the linear structure of a greenway might restrict cer- on the natural features of the plan area; sites identified as highly
tain types of recreational use, this concept remains more flexible valued for conservation (or hazardous for development) are set
than other shape-related models, as it is not bound to the shape aside for open space uses. The rest of the land is then allocated
of the urban area but rather to linear elements within it, that may for built-up uses according to development needs. Ecological
be diversified by nature, length, direction and spatial location considerations may already be traced in works of landscape
in respect to the built-up areas. Greenways may also be imple- architects and planners in the 19th and early 20th century, among
mented on various scales, mostly local (Turner, 1995; Walmsley, them Olmsted, Eliot, Cleveland and Geddes (Ndubisi, 1997;
8 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

Spirn, 1995). However, it was only in the 1960s – with the (Pregill and Volkman, 1993). With time the objectives of pro-
accumulation of ecological knowledge and understanding – that tection expanded from a focus on outstanding visual landscape
ecological planning was consolidated into a systematic planning values—mostly wilderness lands far from developed areas to
method. also include natural values of high ecological and cultural sig-
One of the first projects that considered ecological values nificance, regardless of their visual quality. Nowadays, more
on a systematic basis was the plan for the twin valleys in the than a thousand of protected landscapes exist around the world
metropolitan area of Baltimore, prepared in 1963 by a group of (Lucas, 1992).
planners led by McHarg, a landscape architect and a leading fig- The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and
ure in the field of ecological planning (McHarg, 1969). The plan Natural Resources (IUCN) defined eight categories of protected
offered a spatial distribution of open spaces and built-up areas landscapes differing from each other in their level of conser-
based on a suitability analysis of physiographic and hydrological vation, from strict nature conservation to multifunctional areas
features such as water bodies, drainage basins and floodplains where some human-related land use and intervention are allowed
(McHarg, 1969; Wallace, 1970). At about the same time Lewis by law (Lucas, 1992). The relevant law in Israel, for exam-
(1964) presented a similar approach in his plan for quality corri- ple, distinguishes between nature reserves, national parks and
dors in Wisconsin. With time the ecological approach evolved, landscape reserves. This distinction is expressed by the aims of
embracing emerging paradigms and terms such as landscape conservation, level of intervention, management and the institu-
ecology, biodiversity and sustainability (see also Lyle, 1994; tional structure created for each landscape type.
Ndubisi et al., 1995; Dramstad et al., 1996; Ndubisi, 1997; The strength of a protected landscapes system lies in its
Steiner, 2000; Bryant, 2006; Walmsley, 2006). reliance on a statutory declaration. Changing the legal status of a
The ecological approach in planning has many versions, dif- given protected area requires a procedure that is rarely quick and
fering by types of data used, methods of analysis and scale of simple, making it difficult for decision makers or stakeholders
the plan, thus the product of the planning process may vary to use the land for other purposes. In many cases a designated
accordingly. For example, the plan for the Jerusalem hills and public agency – such as the National Park Service in the US, for
the Judea plain in Israel – which constitute part of the Jerusalem example – is involved in managing protected landscapes, help-
metropolitan region – was based on an analysis of surface mor- ing ensure their status over time. Thus, the protected landscape
phology, bedrock, flora and fauna, hydrology, agriculture and system is essentially different from the other models described
cultural heritage, which were evaluated qualitatively accord- above, which lack the means to secure the landscape from future
ing to their integrity, rarity, diversity and visual quality. The development.
aggregate outcome of this analysis was a sensitivity map, where However, the legal status is relatively inflexible and is also
landscape units of highest sensitivity were designated for con- generally accompanied by restrictions on potential uses, lead-
servation (Kaplan et al., 2000). A similar work on a national ing to conflicts between conservationists and stakeholders (land
scale was prepared as part of a master plan for Israel towards owners or investors), which might hamper the implementation
2020 (Kaplan and Dayan, 1996). An example on a regional scale of conservational objectives. Nevertheless, protected landscapes
is the outline plan for the northern region of Israel (Amir et al., are widely accepted around the world as a means for conserv-
1997). In other cases, a quantitative evaluation was used to rank ing natural resources and habitats, especially in undeveloped
natural features (see for instance Frankenberg et al., 1991). areas, where natural resources are relatively undamaged. It is,
However, the few examples described above also illustrate however, of limited use in urban and metropolitan areas, where
some of the limitations of the ecological model. Its imple- natural environments tend to be few and already degraded due
mentation may be more expensive and complicated than other to accumulated effects of development.
methods, since it requires collecting and processing a large
amount of data (some of which is often not readily available). 5.9. Biosphere reserves
The planning process is complex, and requires profound eco-
logical skills and understanding (see for instance the process The origin of the biosphere reserve model is the Man and
described by Ndubisi et al., 1995). Another problem is the sub- Biosphere (MAB) project introduced by UNESCO at the 1970s
jectivity inherent in evaluating ecological data (Frankenberg et (Ashkenazi, 1996; Safriel, 1991; Stern, 2000). A biosphere
al., 1991). Such limitations form barriers to broader application reserve is composed of three concentric zones: (a) the core area
of the ecological planning approach. that is essentially a protected space designated for maximum
conservation; (b) a buffer zone around the core that includes nat-
5.8. Protected landscapes ural and agricultural areas; and (c) a peripheral transition zone
with various uses, including small settlements whose inhabitants
Protecting landscapes by legal measures is practiced mainly cultivate the agricultural lands in the buffer zone. This struc-
for conservation of outstanding, unique or endangered values ture was intended to enable research on structures and functions
of landscape, nature or heritage on a national scale. It began of natural ecosystems in the buffer zone, thus keeping unnec-
with Yellowstone National Park in the US, proclaimed at 1872 essary intervention out of the protected biological and genetic
(Runte, 1987). This was soon followed by proclamation of addi- resources in the core area. Other objectives of the biosphere
tional protected landscapes, mostly national parks and nature reserve were: conservation of cultures, heritage and traditional
reserves, during the 19th century in the United States and Europe cultivation methods, and efficient use of existing resources for
T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13 9

Fig. 3. A comparison of models by plan attributes.

10 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

the improvement of local population’s economic conditions space plans. These include: the main guiding planning principle
without damaging local natural ecosystems (Ashkenazi, 1996). expressed through the plan, scale of the plan, size of the planned
Another objective was to eliminate negative effects of human open space and the degree of its proximity to potential users, the
activities on the protected resources in the core, by establishing variety of uses and activities it offers and its potential interrela-
a spatial separation through a buffer zone of restricted uses (such tions (physical or hierarchical) with other open spaces. Presented
as agriculture and ecotourism). also are the level of intervention in the natural environment and
Experience with implementation of the biosphere reserve main functional focus implied by the plan.
model is as yet limited. In Israel, for instance, a biosphere reserve An important insight that stems out of Fig. 3 is that though
was declared at the Carmel National Park in 1996 (Ashkenazi, each model is characterized by a different set of attributes,
1996). Another reserve is being planned for the Judea region the models may be classified by their main focus into three
(Stern, 2000). Nevertheless, some conclusions may already be categories: (a) focus on recreation (representing a demand
drawn from this brief and limited experience. The implementa- approach); (b) focus on conservation (representing a supply
tion of a biosphere reserve in the Carmel park was only partial approach); and (c) focus is variable, emphasizing either recre-
and encountered diverse problems due to the lack of a structured ation or conservation according to circumstances (such as site
management system, absence of a legal status for the buffer and attributes or planners’ inclination). The latter category includes
transition zones, and vagueness concerning permitted and pro- shape-related models that are usually relatively close to poten-
hibited uses. Attaining the collaboration of local inhabitants also tial users, and yet they often encompass agricultural and rural
proved to be difficult due to their apprehension of the potential areas of value for conservation.
restrictions that may follow the biosphere reserve declaration. Fig. 4 presents a comparison based on attributes of the rel-
Other experience around the world also encountered similar evant planning process, including its relative embedded costs,
and other difficulties, such as lack of clear management guide- expected duration, complexity level and the scope of profes-
lines, difficulty in preserving traditional agriculture, lacking sional skills required of the planner. All these affect the relative
collaboration of local populations and absence of efficient eco- ease with which a model may be applied. On the whole,
nomic planning (Ashkenazi, 1996). Nonetheless, the biosphere recreation-oriented models are easier to employ. Yet, using a
reserve model may be more relevant than protected landscapes combination of models (like incorporating ecological princi-
for conservation of open spaces in metropolitan areas, because ples into greenways or greenbelts) is expected to prolong and
it combines conservation with some development, and may be complicate the planning process.
flexible in response to spatial, social and economic changes. Based on their qualities as presented and compared above, the
However, its success is dependent on appropriate adjustment of planning models that were reviewed can be classified according
the existing legal and institutional structures. to the planning approach they represent and their applicability
to different types of open space. This is demonstrated visually
6. Discussion in the classification framework, which is presented in Fig. 5.
The illustration in Fig. 5 clearly shows that no single model
The main characteristics of the models reviewed in this article is universally applicable to all open space functions and needs.
are summed up in Figs. 3 and 4. Fig. 3 presents a compari- The variance in the extent of use of the different models indicates
son based on attributes of the models’ products, namely open their varied effectiveness in response to expectations of planners

Fig. 4. A comparison of models by attributes of the planning process.

 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13 11

Fig. 5. Models of open space planning—a classification framework.

and decision makers. This is to a large extent a reflection of the comparative classification framework illustrates the differences
dichotomy between the demand and supply approaches to open between those models, and shows that none is universally
space planning. Some of the models represent a typical demand applicable to all functions and needs. Nevertheless, as society
approach, guided by population characteristics and needs. This is becoming increasingly urbanized, environmental quality is
is particularly true of the opportunistic, quantitative and sys- degrading and natural values – among them, values that are
tems models. Others – such as ecological determinism, protected irreplaceable – are endangered more than ever. The results of
landscapes and to some degree the landscape-related models – such processes may be practically irreversible, unless preven-
are expressions of a supply approach, which emphasizes con- tive measures are embedded in planning and development. Of
servation of natural values as the basis for open space planning. all the models reviewed above only the ecological model is ori-
Shape-related models (mainly greenways) comprise a unique ented mainly at conservation, while being also flexible enough to
type, because they are affected more than other demand-type fit almost any site and scale. Therefore, it is advisable to employ
models by the existence of natural elements. However, none of ecological principles – at least to some degree – in every planning
the models combines a balanced approach—both to the demands project, including the urban scale. Ecological principles may be
of the population and the availability of natural resources. All applied also to form regenerative measures. Thus, even severely
are therefore limited in achieving an optimal allocation of open degraded environments may become regenerated, nature may be
spaces. restored and rehabilitated and environmental quality improved,
Models are also distinguished by their applicability to dif- with adequate planning efforts, as might be demonstrated by
ferent zones. Demand-approach models are suited mostly for the Emscher Park project in the Ruhr region (Ingerid, 1999;
developed urban areas, while a supply approach is much more Tjallingii, 2000).
useful in natural undeveloped areas. It might be observed, The article focused on planning models employed or sup-
though, that supply approach models may be better fit for grow- ported by public institutional planning systems. In this context
ing metropolitan regions, where there still exist relatively broad it should be noted that – in addition to the inner qualities
swaths of natural land—between and around settlements and of the described models – their effectiveness is also affected
agricultural fields. In such cases the supply approach models by external factors, such as institutional structure, cooperation
may achieve a better response to the quest for near-by nature between organizations and institutions or prevailing normative
by the local residents and offer a wider range of ecological and values. For instance, a comparative examination of protected
environmental services than the urban demand-based models. landscapes’ implementation in different countries showed no
correlation between the level of protection and the conservation
7. Conclusions potential (Lowry, 1998). Lowry claims that the actual conser-
vation level – as expressed by the total amount of protected
This article reviewed and compared some of the most landscapes in a given country – is affected by two main factors:
commonly used open space planning models. The suggested (a) existence of a designated public agency (i.e. institutional
12 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13

structure) and (b) public demand for resource protection (i.e. Elson, M., Walker, S., Macdonald, R., 1993. The Effectiveness of Green Belts.
normative values). Alterman (1997) shows similarly that farm- HMSO, London.
Ewing, R., 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? J. Am. Plan. Assoss.
land preservation is affected by type of the planning system
63 (1), 107–126.
and policy tools used. In other words, securing a satisfactory Fábos, J.G., 1995. Introduction and overview: the greenway movement, uses
and effective set of open spaces cannot rely on planning alone; and potentials of greenways. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33, 1–13.
it requires a thorough understanding and control of institu- Fábos, J.G., 2004. Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent
tional systems and regulations that are involved in open space case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68 (2/3), 321–342.
Fábos, J.G., Ryan, R.L., 2006. An introduction to greenway planning around
planning.
the world. Landsc. Urban Plan. 76 (1–4), 1–6.
Finally, the comparative framework presented in this article Faushold, C.J., Lilieholm, R.J., 1996. The Economic Value of Open Space:
clarifies the properties and potential of prevailing commonly a Review and Synthesis. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge,
used models and methods of open space planning. This may be MA.
a useful tool for planners and decision makers and facilitate open Feitelson, E., 1995. Open Space Policy for Israel’s Core Region: Principles and
Implementation. The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem
space planning and research in the future.
(in Hebrew).
Flink, C.A., Searns, R.M., 1993. Greenways: a Guide to Planning, Design and
References Development. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Frankenberg, E., Sadot, E., Ortal, R., Safriel, U., 1991. Guidelines for Ranking
Aalen, F.H.A., 1992. English origins. In: Ward, S.V. (Ed.), The Garden City: the Nature Value of Open Spaces. Nature Reserves Authority, Israel (in
Past, Present and Future. E&FN Spon, London, pp. 28–51. Hebrew).
Ahern, J., 1995. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33, French, J.S., 1973. Urban Green: City Parks of the Western World. Kendall/Hunt
131–155. Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Alexander, E.R., 1992. Approaches to Planning: Introducing Current Planning Frenkel, A., 2004. The potential effect of national growth-management policy
Theories, Concepts and Issues, second ed. Gordon and Breach Science Pub- on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland. Land Use
lishers, Switzerland. Policy 21 (4), 357–369.
Alterman, R., 1997. The challenge of farmland preservation: lessons from a Girling, C.L., Helphand, K.I., 1994. Yard Street Park: the Design of Suburban
six-nation comparison. J. Am. Plan. Assoss. 63 (2), 220–243. Open Space. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Alterman, R., 1999. Between Privatization and Continued National Ownership: Gold, S.M., 1973. Urban Recreation Planning. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.
a Future Land Policy for Israel. The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Green, B., 1985. Countryside Conservation. E&FN Spon, London.
Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Heckscher, A., 1977. Open Spaces: the Life of American Cities. Harper & Row,
Amir, S., Frenkel, A., Law-Yone, H., Shefer, D., Trop, T., 1997. Integration of Publishers, New York.
environmental assessment into the regional development planning process Helliwell, D.R., 1985. Planning for Nature Conservation. Packard Publishing
of the Galilee. Environ. Manage. 21 (1), 59–68. Limited, Chichester.
Antrop, M., 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Hill, M., Alterman, R., 1977. Standards for Allocating Land to Public Services.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 67 (1–4), 9–26. Phase A. Open Spaces. Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Center for
Ashkenazi, S., 1996. Biosphere reserves—their significance, conservational Urban and Regional Research, Haifa (in Hebrew).
value and function. Ecol. Environ. 3 (4), 207–217 (in Hebrew). Ingerid, H.A., 1999. Regenerating the ruhr. Arch. Rev. 205 (1224), 13–14.
Baumol, W.J., Oates, W.E., 1975. The Theory of Environmental Policy: Jim, C.Y., Chen, S.S., 2003. Comprehensive greenspace planning based on land-
Externalities, Public Outlays and the Quality of Life. Prentice-Hall, Inc., scape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China. Landsc. Urban
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Plan. 65 (3), 95–116.
Beatley, T., 1989. Environmental ethics and planning theory. J. Plan. Lit. 4 (1), Kaplan, M., Dayan, U., 1996. Israel 2020—Sectorial Planning Policy: the Open
1–32. Space System. The Technion Institute for Research and Development, Haifa
Bromley, D.W. (Ed.), 1995. Handbook of Environmental Economics. Blackwell, (in Hebrew).
Oxford, UK. Kaplan, M., Kimhi, I., Choshen, M., 2000. The Jerusalem Hills and the Judea
Bryant, M.M., 2006. Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological Coastal Plain: Policy for Land Conservation and Sustainable Development.
greenways at local and metropolitan scales. Landsc. Urban Plan. 76 (1–4), The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
23–44. Kaplan, R., 1984. Impact of urban nature: a theoretical analysis. Urban Ecol. 8
Chavas, J.P., 2000. Ecosystem valuation under uncertainty and irreversibility. (3), 189–197.
Ecosystems 3 (1), 11–15. Kuhn, M., 2003. Greenbelt and green heart: separating and integrating land-
Chiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. scapes in European city regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 64 (1/2), 19–27.
Urban Plan. 68 (1), 129–138. Lewis, P., 1964. Quality corridors for Wisconsin. Landsc. Architect. 54 (2),
Churchman, A., Amir, S., Frenkel, A., 1990. Culturally specific demand for 100–107.
open space in public housing neighborhoods in Israel. In: Proceedings of the Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J., Liu, X., 2005. Comprehensive concept planning
11th Conference of the International Association for People–Environment of urban greening based on ecological principles: a case study in Beijing,
Studies, Ankara, Turkey. China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 72 (4), 325–336.
Constanza, R., 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Little, C.E., 1990. Greenways for America. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Ecosystems 3 (1), 4–10. Baltimore.
De Groot, R.S., 1992. Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environ- Lowry, W.R., 1998. Preserving Public Lands for the Future: the Politics of
mental Planning Management and Decision-Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Intergenerational Goods. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
Amsterdam. Lucas, P.H.C., 1992. Protected Landscapes: a Guide for Policy-Makers and
Doron, G., 1986. Decide and Carry Out: Chapters in Public Policy. Kivunim Planners. Chapman & Hall, London.
Publishing, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew). Lyle, J.T., 1994. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. John Wiley
Dramstad, W.E., Olson, J.D., Forman, R.T.T., 1996. Landscape Ecology Prin- & Sons, New York.
ciples in Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Island Press, Mazor, A., Tsamir, Y., 1999. Haifa Metropolis and Haifa District: Master
Washington, DC. Plan—a Policy Document. State of Israel, Ministry of the Interior (in
Egoz, S., 1996. Israel’s citrus grove landscape—an opportunity to balance urban- Hebrew).
ization with cultural values. Landsc. Urban Plan. 36, 183–196. McHarg, I.L., 1969. Design with Nature. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
 T. Maruani, I. Amit-Cohen / Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (2007) 1–13 13

Meinig, D.W., 1979. The beholding eye. In: Meinig, D.W. (Ed.), The Interpre- Shkedy, Y., Sadot, E., 2000. Ecological Corridors in Open Spaces—a Tool for
tation of Ordinary Landscapes. Oxford University Press, New York. Nature Conservation. Nature Reserves and National Parks Authority, Israel
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1962. The Green Belts. HMSO, (in Hebrew).
London. Spirn, A.W., 1995. Urban nature and human design: renewing the great tradition.
Nave, Z., 2001. Ten major premises for holistic conception of multifunctional In: Stein, J.M. (Ed.), Classic Readings in Urban Planning: an Introduction.
landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan 57 (3–7), 269–284. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, pp. 475–497.
Naveh, Z., 1997. The value of open landscapes as life supporting systems. Israel Stern, E., 2000. The biosphere vision comes to Israel. Panim 13, 12–19 (in
Environ. Bull. 20 (4), 21–24. Hebrew).
Ndubisi, F., 1997. Landscape ecological planning. In: Thompson, G.F., Steiner, Steiner, F.R., 2000. The Living Landscape: an Ecological Approach to Land-
F.R. (Eds.), Ecological Design, Planning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New scape Planning. McGraw Hill, New York.
York. Taylor, J., Paine, C., FitzGibbon, J., 1995. From greenbelts to greenways: four
Ndubisi, F., DeMeo, T., Ditto, N.D., 1995. Environmentally sensitive areas: Canadian case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33, 47–64.
a template for developing greenway corridors. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33, Tibbets, J., 1998. Open Space Conservation: Investing in your Community’s
159–177. Economic Health. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge.
Nelson, A.C., 1990. Economic critique of US prime farmland preservation Tjallingii, S.P., 2000. Ecology on the edge: landscape and ecology between town
policies. J. Rural Stud. 6 (2), 119–142. and country. Landsc. Urban Plan. 48 (3/4), 103–119.
Pickett, S.T.A., Ostfeld, R.S., 1994. The shifting paradigm in ecology. Ecol. Turner, R.K., Pearce, D., Bateman, I., 1994. Environmental Economics: an
Environ. 3 (1), 151–159 (in Hebrew). Elementary Introduction. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
Pinksfeld-Firstenberg, Y. (2002). Functioning of neighborhood parks. Thesis Turner, T., 1992. Open space planning in London: from standards per 1000 to
for the Degree of Masters in Urban and Regional Planning. Technion Israel green strategy. Town Plan. Rev. 63 (4), 365–386.
Institute of Technology, Haifa (in Hebrew). Turner, T., 1995. Greenways, blueways, skyways and other ways to a better
Pregill, P., Volkman, N., 1993. Landscapes in History: Design and Planning in London. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33, 269–282.
the Western Tradition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Vatn, A., Bromley, D.W., 1995. Choices without prices without apologies. In:
Prevolutzky, A., 1994. Nature conservation or landscape conservation. Ecol. Bromley, D.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics. Blackwell,
Environ. 3 (1), 161–169 (in Hebrew). Oxford, UK, pp. 3–25.
Randall, A., Farmer, M.C., 1995. Benefits, costs, and the safe minimum stan- Wallace, D.A. (Ed.), 1970. Metropolitan Open Space and Natural Process. Uni-
dard of conservation. In: Bromley, D.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Economics. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Walmsley, A., 1995. Greenways and the making of urban form. Landsc. Urban
Ready, C.R., 1995. Environmental valuation under uncertainty. In: Bromley, Plan. 33, 81–127.
D.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics. Blackwell, Oxford, Walmsley, A., 2006. Greenways: multiplying and diversifying in the 21st cen-
UK, pp. 569–593. tury. Landsc. Urban Plan. 76 (1–4), 252–290.
Roberts, W.H., 1970. Design of metropolitan open space based on natural pro- Ward, S.V. (Ed.), 1992a. The Garden City: Past, Present and Future. E&FN
cess. In: Wallace, D.A. (Ed.), Metropolitan Open Space and Natural Process. Spon, London.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 148–189. Ward, S.V., 1992b. The garden city introduced. In: Ward, S.V. (Ed.), The Garden
Robinson, L., Newell, J.P., Marzluff, J.M., 2005. Twenty-five years of sprawl City: Past, Present and Future. E&FN Spon, London, pp. 1–27.
in the Seattle region: growth management responses and implications for Ward Thompson, C., 2002. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban
conservation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 71 (1), 51–72. Plan. 60 (2), 59–72.
Runte, A., 1987. National Parks: the American Experience. University of Weimer, D.L., Vining, A.R., 1992. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Saaroni, H., Ben-Dor, E., Bitan, A., Potchter, O., 2000. Spatial distribution and Yahner, T.G., Korostoff, N., Johnson, T.P., Battaglia, A.M., Jones, D.R., 1995.
microscale characteristics of the urban heat island in Tel-Aviv, Israel. Landsc. Cultural landscapes and landscape ecology in contemporary greenway plan-
Urban Plan. 48 (1/2), 1–18. ning, design and management: a case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33,
Safriel, U., 1991. Management of Israel’s open spaces. Nat. Reserves Authority 295–316.
Newslett. 39, 32–43 (in Hebrew). Yaro, D.R., Arendt, R.G., Dodson, H.L., Brabee, E.A., 1990. Dealing with
Schenker, H.M., 1995. Parks and politics during the second empire in Paris. Change in the Connecticut River Valley: a Design Manual for Conservation
Landsc. J. 14 (2), 201–219. and Development. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Environmental
Selman, P., 1993. Landscape ecology and countryside planning: vision, theory Law Foundation, Cambridge, MA.
and practice. J. Rural Stud. 9 (1), 1–21. Zube, E.H., 1995. Greenways and the US national park system. Landsc. Urban
Shachak, M., 1996. Connecting between ecological understanding and ecologi- Plan. 33, 17–25.
cal applications as a basis for conservation and rehabilitation of open spaces.
Ecol. Environ. 4 (3), 219–226 (in Hebrew).

View publication stats