Landscape Biodiversity Planning & Design System

Technical Report

Spring 2013
2000 Olympic Village, Newington at Homebush Bay, NSW, Australia
 AECOM  

Executive Summary
The landscape biodiversity planning system is conservation efforts, greenbelts, or other
an approach for planning, designing, and urban growth management initiatives. The
communicating the biodiversity and habitat system can be a useful tool for quantitatively
benefits of a project. This landscape-based demonstrating the benefits of smart growth
system can help guide habitat preservation, and conservation development as a means of
restoration, urban form, and landscape
enhancing biodiversity, ecosystem services,
enhancements in urban or rural settings
and achieving the conservation vision for
including urban forests, private and public
these sensitive locations.
realm landscapes, and community open space
networks. This approach is proving to be a This issue is not unique to greenfield
valuable tool for AECOM’s sustainable locations, urban areas are also the focus of
communities and conservation development
biodiversity improvement efforts. These
projects when there is a need to demonstrate
projects often have goals surrounding
measurable habitat benefits. Elements of the
providing equitable access to nature;
system have been applied in infill master
planning efforts in urban environments in balancing high density living while maintaining
Singapore and Portland, Oregon, USA; a connection with nature; maximizing benefits
greenfield conservation development projects major infrastructure upgrades; climate change
in Toronto and California; and large-scale adaptation; are associated with popular design
strategic planning efforts for municipalities and trends including biophilic design and
utilities.

Leading sustainable communities are

increasingly embracing native biodiversity
within the built environment. While traditional
regulatory drivers may focus on minimizing
impacts to protected species and sensitive
ecosystems, new approaches seek more
comprehensive strategies. As land planners,
we are often required to demonstrate how land
development projects can not only protect, but
improve local ecology. This is especially
important in sensitive exurban locations at the
urban fringe. While these sites may not be
pristine natural areas, they often include
remnant natural ecosystems, agricultural
lands, or other natural resource management
history, and are often the focus of land Coastal Dune Management, Perth, Australia

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  C

 Existing Condition Final Concept
LBI Score: 0.89/5 LBI Score: 1.93/5

LBI Scores LBI Scores

Score 1 Score 1

Score 2 Score 2

Score 3 Score 3

Score 4 Score 4

Score 5 Score 5

Landscape Biodiversity Index scoring for existing and planned landscapes in Portland, OR. A more than 100%
increase in both landscape biodiversity and residential population density was demonstrated.

biomimicry; or as a part of rating systems such us to address biodiversity in a quantitative way performance relative to local biodiversity is
as the living building challenge. Many of the along with these other indicators. Such assessed. In other words, the LBI emphasizes
recent high-profile sustainable urban quantitative measurements allow projects to how well a project protects and enhances its
development concepts, including the 2008 develop detailed, comprehensive, and local biodiversity. LBI scores are evaluated
Beijing and 2012 London Olympics, have defensible estimates of performance of design using a combination of Excel and GIS-Based
developed unique architectural identities and solutions in terms of both benefits and costs. calculations. Index scores and maps can be a
the highest performing sustainability concepts powerful tool for evaluating alternative
The LBI scoring system and measurement
by rigorously designing for ecology and scenario performance, plan refinement, and
protocol tracks performance of multiple
biodiversity in very urban contexts. external communication of project benefits.
indicators (typically up to 10 or more) of
Indicator weighting and performance
This system was originally developed in landscape biodiversity. Indicators include the
thresholds can also be adjusted based on
response to the need for a quantitative structural and pattern characteristics of
stakeholder input, making the tool useful for
measurement protocol for biodiversity as a landscapes such as priority species, habitat
project negotiations and gaining stakeholder
part of sustainable communities planning quality, connectivity, and total habitat area.
buy-in.
efforts using AECOM’s Sustainable Systems Indicator importance weighting, measurement
Integration Model (SSIMTM). SSIM efforts metrics, performance thresholds, and scoring The first step in applying the system involves
address the multiple themes of sustainability criteria are defined by the planning team and “site calibration” to determine priority areas for
(e.g. transportation, energy, water, landscape, calibrated for each project context and local preservation, to frame goals for biodiversity
social, etc), and include quantitative ecology. Scoring criteria are based on habitat enhancement, and to “calibrate” LBI scoring
measurements of a variety of sustainability requirements of target species, local criteria to local ecology and priorities. At this
performance indicators such as greenhouse ecosystem characteristics, policies, empirical point the system can be used to identify areas
gas emissions, energy and water use, data when available, or other built or natural for preservation, management priorities, or
hydrologic indicators, etc. The landscape landscape characteristics. Because the inform the development of conceptual
biodiversity planning and design system and system is calibrated for local ecology and landscape design concepts. A second step
Landscape Biodiversity Index (LBI) now allows priorities, it can be applied anywhere and can include developing alternative design and/

D  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Overarching Landscape Ecology Indicators

Indicator Categories Sample Metrics Assumption

1
The total amount of landscape area is the foundation for biodiversity. More landscape area is assumed to indicate more potential for biodiversity, whether it is
% project area
preserved preserved, restored, or provided through cultural landscapes. The amount of preservation, outside of a planned development footprint, is often an early
conservation in land use planning.
Habitat Area

2
Landscape footprint within a development is often an important consideration that is closely related to many other community sustainability indicators and
area of landscape
within development urban design considerations. Percent landscape area on parcels and within land uses is often required by codes and is also a foundation for potential
biodiversity in more urban areas.

3
% area priority Priority habitats, often guided by regulatory priorities, cultural preferences, or management practices, are often the most important biodiversity indicator
habitats avoided considered.

Habitat
Variety

4
% historic habitat The variety of native habitat types, often relative to historical site conditions or other benchmarks, provide an indication of the overall level of biodiversity that
types present may exist at the site.

% structural Whether plants are native or non-native, the presence or absence of the vegetation and ecosystem structural layers, as compared to layers present in native

5 layers present in
landscapes
ecosystems, is assumed to indicate value for native biodiversity. For example, in forests, layers could include canopy, sub-canopy, understory, and ground
cover. Hydrological, physiographic, soil or other structural layers may also be considered. Layers may be emphasized that support target species.
Habitat
Quality
# target plant The existing or planned plant species composition, often relative to the species composition of structural layer in a native ecosystem benchmark, is assumed

6 species within
structural layers
to indicate overall biodiversity. Plant species are emphasized because they can be controlled and measured in both existing and planned landscapes,
whereas presence of faunal species cannot be measured as concretely in planned landscapes. Target species may be emphasized within layers.

7
habitat patch area Larger patches have less edge relative to area, providing more interior habitat conditions for native biodiversity. Larger patches provide more area for natural
processes such as succession, disturbance, dispersal, or continuous areas of natural habitat structure and larger populations of species, all important
Habitat Patch/ indicators of higher biodiversity.
Corridor Size
and Shape
8
habitat corridor Corridors provide movement and migration of species between patches. As corridors become wider they exhibit greater interior conditions and the ecological
width
characteristics of a patch, allowing species adapted to interior habitat conditions to move and migrate.

9
distance gap Habitat patches or corridors that are closer in proximity to others are assumed to indicate higher biodiversity for both habitats. Visual continuity, species
between patch or mobility characteristics, dispersal strategies, and adjacent land use character can also impact biodiversity benefits of habitat proximity. This indicator
corridor addresses the ability of species to move between habitat patches and between corridor segments.
Habitat
Connectivity

10
The biodiversity value of habitat areas can be increased or decreased depending on the quality of habitats in its broader network. In other words, a low quality
network
habitat patch or corridor that is near a high quality patch or corridor is assumed to be more valuable than if the same patch or corridor were near a another low
consistency
quality patch or corridor. This indicator also addresses the ability of species to move along networks of habitat “stepping stones” or corridors.

Additional Potential Landscape Ecology Metrics

Structural Metrics

priority species / habitats structural quality population size rarity cultural value / mgn’t capability re-creatability endemism species richness

Pattern Metrics ecosystem

benchmark
habitat type
balance
connectivity
within habitat
connectivity
across habitat
off-site
connectivity
ecotones
preserved
natural
processess
matrix
interactions
type type accomodated priorities

Sample landscape biodiversity indicators and metrics. These and others can combined into the Landscape Biodiversity Index
Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  E
 or program scenarios and comparing LBI In design projects, the LBI can help create and An important benefit of the LBI is that it allows
performance for each. Many projects seek to implement high performance landscape many opportunities for “calibration” of metrics
create a plan that achieves improved master plans and ecological enhancement for specific contexts considering the wide
biodiversity value relative to the existing strategies. In policy projects, the LBI can be variety of conservation priorities, local
condition, a historic natural condition, or a used as a basis for decision support tools or ecosystem characteristics, and project
business as usual development “benchmark” design guidelines for individual parcels, land economics. This detailed approach can
scenario. A final step can include assessing uses, or zones to achieve a desired level of provide defensible measurements and guide
and optimizing cost/benefit relationships, biodiversity performance across an entire design strategies to improve project
selecting and documenting a preferred community, planning area, or region. The LBI performance, help communicate project
program scenarios, crafting detailed can also be used as a standard to compare benefits, and can ultimately support wider
landscape designs or design guidelines that performance between multiple projects across implementation of conservation development,
achieve LBI performance targets, and creating municipalities, regions, or globally. smart growth, large-scale landscape, and
implementation and monitoring plans. sustainable communities projects.

JVC Master Plan, Guadelajara, Mexico. Urban form creates

an ecological transition, gateway and overall focus on the
adjacent National Park.

F  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Conservation development framework assessment using the Landscape Biodiversity Index. Past applications range in scale from 10’s to 10,000’s of hectares.

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  G

H  Landscape
Civano Master Plan
Biodiversity
- projectPlanning
by Andres
and
Duany,
Design
Stefanos
System Polyzoides, and William McDonough and others
 AECOM  

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and

Design System

Introduction
Many leading sustainable communities are Ecosystems
embracing native biodiversity within the built
Prairie
environment. Traditional regulatory drivers
HIlly Scrub
may focus on minimizing impacts to protected
Savanna
species and sensitive ecosystems. This
Riparian Forest
system is designed to address these drivers,
but also expands them to achieve more Emergent Wetland

comprehensive biodiversity strategies that

demonstrate “enhancement” in addition to
minimizing negative impacts. This is
especially important in increasingly sensitive
exurban, or “greenfield”, development
locations at the urban fringe. While these
sites may not be pristine natural areas, they
typically include a combination of remnant
natural ecosystems, agricultural lands, or
other natural resource management history,
and are often the focus of land conservation
efforts, greenbelts, or other urban growth
management initiatives.

This issue is not unique to greenfield

locations, urban areas are also the focus of
biodiversity improvement efforts for a variety
of reasons including: providing equitable
access to nature; balancing high density living
while maintaining a connection with nature; or
associated with architectural trends including
biophilic design, biomimicry, or rating systems
such as the living building challenge. Many of
The landscape biodiversity planning system assesses
the recent high-profile sustainable urban the value of existing, preserved, and new landscapes
development concepts, including the 2008 for biodiversity potential.
Beijing and 2012 London Olympics, have

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  1

 developed unique architectural identities and community. At the site design scale, the LBI pattern in providing biodiversity supporting
the highest performing sustainability concepts can help prioritize specific plant species, functions including dispersal, habitat
by rigorously designing for ecology and landscape patterns or the structural design connectivity, predator/pray relationships,
biodiversity in very urban contexts. characteristics needed to achieve habitat and migration, potential habitat sinks, and natural
biodiversity objectives in landscape designs. processes like seasonal flooding and
The system was developed in response to the
succession.
need for a quantitative measurement protocol The system and index are “landscape based”,
for biodiversity as a part of sustainable focusing on the ecological and biodiversity In order to emphasize native biodiversity and
communities planning efforts using AECOM’s characteristics of historic, existing, or planned local ecology, a key characteristic of the
Sustainable Systems Integration Model landscapes as habitat for both flora and fauna. methodology is that it requires “calibration”
(SSIMTM). SSIMTM efforts address the The system emphasizes biodiversity in terms according to specific project goals and local
multiple themes of sustainability -- of native biodiversity and ecosystems, ecological characteristics. Depending on local
transportation, energy, water, landscape, although non-native biodiversity may also priorities and characteristics, in addition to
social, and so forth -- and include quantitative provide benefits in some situations. The species richness or habitat value, biodiversity
measurements of a variety of sustainability system also emphasizes the role of landscape strategies can also be calibrated to emphasize
performance indicators such as greenhouse
gas emissions, energy and water use,
hydrologic indicators, etc. The landscape
biodiversity planning and design system and
associated Landscape Biodiversity Index (LBI)
allows biodiversity to be measured in a
quantitative way along with these other
indicators. Such quantitative measurements
allow projects to develop detailed and
defensible estimates of sustainability
performance in terms of both benefits and
costs.

The system and LBI can assist in designing

and comparing performance of alternative
biodiversity strategies in landscape designs,
biodiversity policies, or landscape master
plans for neighbourhoods, communities, or
municipalities. At the community planning
level, the LBI helps determine the total
amount and appropriate design of habitat to
include on individual parcels, in the public
realm, or in conservation areas to achieve a
desired level of performance across an entire
US Census Bureau, Washington DC

2  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

major open space

other important ecosystem services “co-

benefits” such as carbon sequestration, water
Assumptions
sequestration forest passive landscape
Natural Areas
upland native forest native lowland emergent lake
forest freshwater
quality improvement, local climate control/ Some overarching assumptions of the system wetland
urban heat island mitigation, or other socio- are that landscapes increase and sustain
cultural benefits. biodiversity by providing ecosystem
characteristics for both flora and fauna that:

• provide habitat for cover, foraging, and

other life history characteristics including
key species interactions;
HABITAT STRUCTURE
• facilitate species movement, migration,
major open space
dispersal, succession, and establishment
ecosystem planning area within and through a landscape; Park Landscapes
landscape type
biodiversity score (ibp) • provide natural patterns and processes that sequestration forest passive landscape uplan

PLANNED 0 10 species
20 are
30 adapted
40 50 to including seasonal 100 150 200

+ = LANDSCAPE
BIODIVERSITY flooding, habitat structure, habitat
HABITAT PATTERN PERFORMANCE adjacencies, shading and light; or
ecosystem planning area landscape type biodiversity score (ibp)

• reduce threats
Lakeside: Elevatedto wildlife survival Landscape
Greenery includingArea: Habitat IBP Score 1

habitat sinks, invasive species,

Lakeside: Landscape IBP Score 2
inappropriate land uses adjacentLandscape
to Area: Typical Landscape

habitat, and light pollution.

Major Open Space Landscape Area: Community Agriculture IBP Score 3

The systemdeveloped space

assess these characteristics IBP Score 4
Lake Landscape Area: High Carbon Sequestration Forest
within any type of landscape from natural to
Urban Landscapes
urban, and bridges landscape design
ecosystem themes
planning area
Hardscape IBP Score 5
landscape type
including preservation, restoration
lakeof native architectural path architectural elevated bio-swale native d
biodiversity score (ibp)
native native landscape greenery fore
ecosystems, non-native landscapes, or wetland 0 10 20 30 40 50 100
contemporary architectural landscapes that
utilize native or non-native plants.
ecosystem planning area landscape type
While the system may be used to target
Lakeside: Elevated Greenery Landscape Area: Habitat
particular habitats, species, or overall
biodiversity, it emphasizes plant species and Lakeside: Landscape Landscape Area: Typical Landscape
landscape attributes as the primary units of
Major Open Space Landscape Area: Community Agricu
measurement and assumed indicators of
overall floral and faunal biodiversity. This is Lake Landscape Area: High Carbon Sequ
because landscape attributes can be
This landscape biodiversity planning and design
consistently measured
ecosystem planning areafrom existing condition, Hardscape
system considers all types of landscapes from natural
landscape type
to constructed
biodiversity score (ibp)
meters 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150
Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  3
 can be controlled during the design and
planning process, and can be most easily
measured and monitored after Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Suitability
implementation. The system assumes two
primary categories of landscape attributes as
the key indicators of overall biodiversity

+++
potential:
• Structural (vertical) attributes: habitat types,
habitat structure, and plant species
composition
• Pattern (horizontal) attributes: the total
amount of habitat and the shape, size, and
connectivity of habitat Site 1 Site 2

Additional attributes are “hybrids” and

consider a combination of pattern and
structural indicators. The attributes and

++
indicators are described in the table on the
following page. Projects may choose to
measure all or a select number of indicators
depending on project priorities.

The system is not designed to for measuring

biodiversity in terms of maximizing total
species richness, although that attribute may
be emphasised, rather, it places value on how Region 1 Region 2
close a landscape resembles local native
ecosystems; how well connected the
landscape is to other landscapes and habitats;
and/or the presence of an any culturally or
environmentally important species or habitats.
Therefore, an essential principle of the system
+
is that biodiversity of a planned or preserved
landscape is measured relative to a “local
native ecosystem biodiversity benchmark”.
By calibrating the system to the local
ecosystems, it can be a useful tool to compare The LBI is most suited for comparing alternatives for a single site. Regional calibration could allow effective
the native biodiversity value between project use at the city or regional scale to compare projects within or between regions.

4  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Overarching Landscape Ecology Indicators

Indicator Categories Sample Metrics Assumption

1
The total amount of landscape area is the foundation for biodiversity. More landscape area is assumed to indicate more potential for biodiversity, whether it is
% project area
preserved preserved, restored, or provided through cultural landscapes. The amount of preservation, outside of a planned development footprint, is often an early
conservation in land use planning.
Habitat Area

2
Landscape footprint within a development is often an important consideration that is closely related to many other community sustainability indicators and
area of landscape
within development urban design considerations. Percent landscape area on parcels and within land uses is often required by codes and is also a foundation for potential
biodiversity in more urban areas.

3
% area priority Priority habitats, often guided by regulatory priorities, cultural preferences, or management practices, are often the most important biodiversity indicator
habitats avoided considered.

Habitat
Variety

4
% historic habitat The variety of native habitat types, often relative to historical site conditions or other benchmarks, provide an indication of the overall level of biodiversity that
types present may exist at the site.

% structural Whether plants are native or non-native, the presence or absence of the vegetation and ecosystem structural layers, as compared to layers present in native

5 layers present in
landscapes
ecosystems, is assumed to indicate value for native biodiversity. For example, in forests, layers could include canopy, sub-canopy, understory, and ground
cover. Hydrological, physiographic, soil or other structural layers may also be considered. Layers may be emphasized that support target species.
Habitat
Quality
# target plant The existing or planned plant species composition, often relative to the species composition of structural layer in a native ecosystem benchmark, is assumed

6 species within
structural layers
to indicate overall biodiversity. Plant species are emphasized because they can be controlled and measured in both existing and planned landscapes,
whereas presence of faunal species cannot be measured as concretely in planned landscapes. Target species may be emphasized within layers.

7
habitat patch area Larger patches have less edge relative to area, providing more interior habitat conditions for native biodiversity. Larger patches provide more area for natural
processes such as succession, disturbance, dispersal, or continuous areas of natural habitat structure and larger populations of species, all important
Habitat Patch/ indicators of higher biodiversity.
Corridor Size
and Shape
8
habitat corridor Corridors provide movement and migration of species between patches. As corridors become wider they exhibit greater interior conditions and the ecological
width
characteristics of a patch, allowing species adapted to interior habitat conditions to move and migrate.

9
distance gap Habitat patches or corridors that are closer in proximity to others are assumed to indicate higher biodiversity for both habitats. Visual continuity, species
between patch or mobility characteristics, dispersal strategies, and adjacent land use character can also impact biodiversity benefits of habitat proximity. This indicator
corridor addresses the ability of species to move between habitat patches and between corridor segments.
Habitat
Connectivity

10
The biodiversity value of habitat areas can be increased or decreased depending on the quality of habitats in its broader network. In other words, a low quality
network
habitat patch or corridor that is near a high quality patch or corridor is assumed to be more valuable than if the same patch or corridor were near a another low
consistency
quality patch or corridor. This indicator also addresses the ability of species to move along networks of habitat “stepping stones” or corridors.

Additional Potential Landscape Ecology Metrics

Structural Metrics

priority species / habitats structural quality population size rarity cultural value / mgn’t capability re-creatability endemism species richness

Pattern Metrics ecosystem

benchmark
habitat type
balance
connectivity
within habitat
connectivity
across habitat
off-site
connectivity
ecotones
preserved
natural
processess
matrix
interactions
type type accomodated priorities

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  5

 lake architectural path architectural elevated bio-swale native dry
INDEX native native landscape greenery forest
wetland
SCORES

Habitat
Score 1
Structure
Metrics Score 2

+ = Score 3

Score 4
Habitat
Pattern Score 5

Metrics
ecosystem planning area
landscape type
biodiversity score (ibp)
meters 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150

The LBI scoring system is applied to all landscape areas, regardless of landcover type. Scoring considers pattern and
structural attributes that are calibrated for the project based on target local ecosystems or habitats.
ecosystem planning area landscape type biodiversity score
alternatives; between different projects within of baseline measurements of existing and specific, defined pattern and structural
Lakeside: Elevated Greeneryexiting Landscape Area: IBP
an ecoregion; or possibly even across regions. historic site conditions which measure attributes, and areHabitat
calibrated based on
To date, the system has been applied primarily landscape attributes. existing and target native ecosystems or
to compare project alternatives for single Lakeside: Landscape Landscape
species for a Area: Typicalarea,
the project Landscape
the approach IBP
Structural and pattern scoring criteria and
project sites. Many of the indicators are based can effectively compare biodiversity potential
performance metrics for indicators, described IBP
on the widely accepted principles of landscape Major Open Space between planArea:
Landscape scenarios.
Community Agriculture
in detail in the following pages, are defined, or
ecology and conservation biology presented in
“calibrated”, for the project area by the The following pages describe the LBI metrics
Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape IBP
planning teamLakebased on measurements of andLandscape Area: High Carbon
general performance Sequestration Forest
measurement
Architecture and Land-Use Planning
existing ecosystems either performed through protocols. While there are more nuanced
(Dramstad et al. 1996). IBP
field measurements; based on project Hardscape
details of project calibration, performance
A Landscape Biodiversity Index (LBI) has precedents; found in empirical literature; or measurement, and alternative approaches to
been developed to systematically measure based on expert opinion. LBI scores of 1 planning steps have not been included, the
performance according to the indicators. (lowest biodiversity potential) to 5 (highest following tables outline the general
Because this is a planning tool, and projects biodiversity potential) are possible for each performance metrics and scoring system.
may not built at the time of assessment, the indicator and are weighted and assessed for These aspects are more fully described in
measurement is based on potential rather than each landscape area of a project. Since LBI project documentation materials that may be
actual biodiversity present, with the exception scoring criteria and thresholds are based on available upon request. The metrics tables are

6  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Attribute Performance Measurement

Habitat
Priorities

1
These indicators are used to value existing habitats for preservation or for prioritizing target habitat characteristics of planned landscapes. Priorities are established by the project team for each of the criteria. Priority categories
are weighted and assigned to habitat types. Priorities are considered when establishing targets for habitat variety in the following attribute categories.

Indicators Metric Performance Thresholds

target species,
structural Importance
Criteria
quality, rarity, Weighting
cultural value,

SPP.
target species a%
spp. richness,
re-creatability, structural quality b%
endemism
rarity c%

cultural value d%

species richness e%

re-creatability f% target structural rarity cultural re-creatability endemism species

species quality value richness
endemism g%

Notes

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  7

 Attribute Performance Measurement
The type and area of each habitat or ecosystem, either existing or planned, is measured. Historic, e.g. “pre-settlement”, habitat types that may no longer occur on the site may also be mapped and used as a benchmark. For
Habitat scoring to be effective, all landscapes, even architectural landscapes or monocultures, must be placed into a “habitat type” category. The variety and area of habitats created or preserved relative to the benchmark occurrence
Variety is measured.

2
Indicators Metric Performance Thresholds

variety and area

of habitat types Importance
Criteria
Weighting

% target variety 1/5

% target variety 2/5

type 1 (e.g. type 2 (e.g. type 3 (e.g. type 4 (e.g. upland type 5 (e.g.
% target variety 3/5 floodpalin forest) prairie) savanna) forest) shrubland)

% target variety 4/5

% target variety 5/5

Notes

8  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Attribute Performance Measurement

Habitat Quality: The structure of landscapes, whether it be existing, planned, or historic, can be systematically measured. This attribute is primarily used to assess the structural diversity of designed or planned landscapes, but may also used assess
Structural the structural quality of existing landscapes and suitability for preservation. Structural measurements are compared to native ecosystem types that most closely resemble the landscape of interest. The percentage of structural layers
Layers present in the landscape is measured. Native ecosystem “benchmark” structural measurements may be determined by literature review or field measurements. Planned landscapes must be designed to a level of detail sufficient to

3
assess these structural attributes or they must be specified in design guidelines. The systems may also be applied to wetland or water body types.

Indicators Metrics Performance Thresholds

presence <e% e%-f% f%-g% g%-h% h%-100%

of structural
layers in Vegetation Structure : type 4 - dryland
habitat types forest example

canopy yes/no

sub-canopy yes/no

understory yes/no

shrub layer yes/no

croundcover yes/no

intact soil structure yes/no

key natural process yes/no

Notes

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  9

 Attribute Performance Measurement
Habitat Quality: The species composition of structural layers in the landscape of interest is measured for plant species composition relative to the native ecosystem benchmark for the structural layer. Plant species are the preferred indicator to measure
Plant Species as opposed to faunal species because plant species can be more easily controlled and measured in plans for future landscapes.
Composition

4
Indicators Metrics Performance Thresholds

plant species <a% a-b% b-c% c-d% d-100%

composition Plant Species Composition: Understory Layer
within - Type 4
structural
layers >a% of plant species composition

a-b% of plant species composition

b-c% of plant species composition

c-d% of plant species composition

d-100% of plant species composition

Notes

10  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Attribute Performance Measurement

Habitat Area The total area of each structural score category is measured across the parcels of the project area for the existing, planned, or historic benchmark condition. Preserved landscapes are measured separately from planned new

5
landscapes.

Indicators Metrics Performance Thresholds

% project area preserved vs developed
precent
preserved
or created preservation
landscape area / open
spacearea LBI
score

% area of landscape within developement area

development
area LBI score

% landscaped area % landscaped area % landscaped area % landscaped area % landscaped area

Notes

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  11

 Attribute Performance Measurement

Habitat Habitat Shape: Patches are assumed to be less than 2x wide as long and include a higher proportion of interior conditions. Corridors are assumed to be more than 2 times longer than they are wide and provide a higher ratio of
Shape and edge conditions compared to interior conditions. (Specifically, patch width at narrowest point is no less than the square root of ½ of the width at the widest point.)
Size
Habitat Size: Size criteria and thresholds are calibrated based on local ecological characteristics, requirements of target species, or “keystone” habitat variables such as canopy height or canopy tree diameter. The size threshold

6&7
relationships indicated below are often used, however they may be adjusted based on specific site conditions or available empirical literature.

Indicators Metrics Performance Thresholds

patch size <w² meters w²-x² meters x²-y² meters y²-z² meters >z² meters
habitat patch
size; habitat
corridor width

corridor width
< w/ 2 meters w/ 2 to x/ 2 meters x/ 2 to y/ 2 meters y/ 2 to z/ 2 meters > z/ 2 meters

Notes

12  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Attribute Performance Measurement

Habitat Spacing thresholds may be based on data from empirical literature. Spacing thresholds can also be based on assumed widths of sidewalks, roads, and other features that will likely bisect habitat areas. Visual continuity,
Connectivity species mobility characteristics, dispersal strategies, and adjacent land use character can also become the basis for habitat separation performance.

8&9
Network consistency performance scores are measured by considering the score of adjacent patches or corridors. Cumulative low scores of the nearest adjacent areas reduces the value of the area of interest in terms of it’s
“network”, “stepping stone”, or “linkage” value.

Indicators Metrics Performance Thresholds

patch or corridor spacing <s >s-t >t-u >u-v >v
spacing
between patch
or corridor;
network
consistency
(quality of
habitat along distance from adjacent patch or corridor
a network of
habitat areas)
network consistency w-4 w-3 w-2 w-1 w

decending network score trend

Notes

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  13

 Attribute Performance Measurement

Ecosystem The spatial pattern of habitat types is also considered when prioritizing habitat locations. The presence of ecotones along the boundaries between ecosystem or habitat types; the inclusion of corridors or patches that transect
Type Pattern across multiple ecosystem/habitat types; and ensuring that the layout of habitat types provides broader connectivity within the regional patch-corridor matrix is also considered. Additionally, the character of the surrounding land

10
use matrix, and its effects such as light, noise, pets, roadways, etc., are important in locating the habitat network. The level of occurrence of these indicators is measured and importance is weighted based on project priorities.

Indicators Metrics Performance Thresholds

habitat type Criteria: Type Pattern % achieved

connectivity,
habitat type diversity b%
adjacent land
ecosystem habitat type connectivity connectivity
use, ecotones, connectivity w/in type c% benchmark diversity within habitat across type
off-site type
connections connectivity cross type d%

off-site connectivity e%

ecotones preserved/ connected e%

target landscape process flows f%

off-site ecotones natural matrix
adjacent land use suitibility g% connectivity preserved processes interactions
accomodated weighed
weighted
total type-pattern achievement
average %

Notes

14  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Sample Landscape Biodiversity Index (LBI) Scoring Threshold Metrics (thresholds calibrated based on ecological context)

Indicator
Importance
LBI Indicators
Score Score Score Score Score
1 2 3 4 5
Weight?

weight 1&2: Habitat type >a% of target variety/priority a%-b% of target variety/ b%-c% of target variety/ c%-d% of target variety/ d%-100% of target variety/
variety/priority priority priority priority priority
score

weight 3: Habitat struc- >e% of structural layers e%-f% of structural layers f%-g% of structural layers g%-h% of structural layers h%-100% of structural layers
tural layers present present present present present

weight 4: Plant species >i% of target species i%-j% of target species j%-k% of target species k%-l% of target species l%-100% of target species
composition

weight 6: Patch size <w² meters w²-x² meters x²-y² meters y²-z² meters >z² meters

weight 7: Corridor width < w/ 2 meters w/ 2 to x/ 2 meters x/ 2 to y/ 2 meters y/ 2 to z/ 2 meters > z/ 2 meters

weight 8: Patch/corridor <s meters s-t meters t-u meters u-v meters >v meters
spacing

weight 9: Network con- adjacent habitat area score adjacent habitat area score adjacent habitat area score is adjacent habitat area score is adjacent habitat area score
sistency is 1 and weighted average of is 2 & weighted average 3 & above cumulative is 3 or 4 & above cumulative is 4 or is 5 & weighted average of
structure and pattern indica- of structure and pattern adjacent habitat area score adjacent habitat area score structure and pattern indica-
tor scores is 1 indicator scores 2 or adjacent is 1 and above cumulative is 3 and weighted average of tor scores is 5
habitat area score is 1 and is 4 or adjacent habitat area structure and pattern indica-
weighted average of structure score is 2 and weighted aver- tor scores is 5
and pattern indicator scores age of structure and pattern
is 3 indicator scores is 5

weight 10: Ecosystem weighted average % of met- weighted average % of met- weighted average % of met- weighted average % of met- weighted average % of met-
pattern achieve- rics <m% rics = m%-n% rics = n%-o% rics = o%-p% rics = q%-100%
ment

summary 5: Total area indicator weighted average indicator weighted average indicator weighted average indicator weighted average indicator weighted average
score of scored areas/total project of scored areas/total project of scored areas/total project of scored areas/total project of scored areas/total project
area area area area area

This is a sample of the scoring rules used in the LBI. Scenario measurement and scoring is assessed using a combination of GIS and Excel-based tools. Other scoring rule categories used in
the LBI include rules for larger community and regional open space.

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  15

 followed by general description of the system that performance is maximized and the most Considering climate change, it may also be
application process for projects. efficient and appropriate strategy is appropriate to consider future change to local
implemented. ecosystems and species range shifts. These
Application ecosystem and habitat “benchmarks” provide
Step 1) Site Assessment a framework for preservation, restoration,
Applying the landscape biodiversity planning
The process begins by building an landscape design strategies, and performance
system includes the following analysis and
understanding and inventory of local measurement. Local landscape ecosystem
planning steps. While this discussion focuses
biodiversity and ecosystems. Both existing maps, structural profiles, and species richness
on performance measurement, it ideally
and historic ecosystems, sometimes know as levels as show on the adjacent page are
includes a parallel design process to ensure
“pre-settlement” ecosystems, are evaluated. valuable tools for project benchmarking and

1) Site Assessment of site conditions 2) Calibrate LBI scoring system based 3) Measure existing, historic or other 4) Measure alternative master plan
and local ecosystem attributes on local ecosystem attributes and relevant benchmark LBI scores scenarios for how well they preserve
project goals existing biodiversity and establish new
developed space habitats.

lake architectural path architectural elevated bio-swale native dryland elevated

native native landscape greenery forest greenery
wetland

ecosystem planning area

landscape type
biodiversity score (ibp)
meters 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150 200

5) If multi parcel planning project, measure 6) If specific site design is created, measure ecosystem
actualplanning
scoresarea of landscape design
landscape type and preservation biodiversity score (ibp)

LBI score of design guideline strategies for solutions. Lakeside: Elevated Greenery Landscape Area: Habitat IBP Score 1
development parcels and public realm.
Lakeside: Landscape Landscape Area: Typical Landscape IBP Score 2

Major Open Space Landscape Area: Community Agriculture IBP Score 3

16  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System
Lake Landscape Area: High Carbon Sequestration Forest IBP Score 4
 AECOM  

species richness scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 scenario 4 scenario 5

species richness
low

medium-low

medium

medium-high

landscape ecosystems
high

landform

floodplain

LBI preservation score

alluvial plain

gently sloped desert plain

transitional uplands

rugged highlands

Baseline ecosystem attributes such as species richness, landforms or landscape ecosystems are benchmarks for applying the system. The above sub-regional scale diagrams and conceptual LBI scores for open
space scenarios were adapted from analysis done for Superstition Vistas Regional Growth Scenarios, AZ, USA. Gray areas indicate development footprints of growth scenarios. (source: http://www.superstition-vistas.
org/wp-content/uploads/Environment_EDAW_2009.pdf).

Ecosystem map and structural profiles for the Yongsan Park Ideas Competition, Seoul, Korea

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  17

 LBI “calibration”. More basic levels of target species; a natural process such flood
inventory and mapping may also be regimes and natural floodplain terracing
appropriate depending on the level of structure; or even typical widths of habitat
information available and project priorities. connectivity “barriers” including roads or
Ecosystem mapping is performed at multiple sidewalks. Using the “keystone habitat
spatial scales, from regional to local, in order attribute” of forest canopy tree crown radius of
to understand the nested hierarchy of 6 meters, as was done at Jurong Lake,
processes and patterns occurring across the pattern indicators thresholds based on
site and influencing biodiversity. Priority multiples of 6 were used to indicate the
species, habitats, or ecosystems including number of “trees wide” habitat patches or
culturally significant features are also corridors were and the amount of interior vs.
identified. These maps and profiles become edge conditions for biodiversity.
the basis for design strategies and model
Different sets of thresholds for each indicator
calibration.
may also be developed for major land use
Step 2) LBI Model Calibration categories. For example, different design
constraints, ecological functions,
Based on the structural and pattern attributes
implementation practices, or property rights
of the local ecosystems, habitats and target
may occur in conservation areas, pubic realm
species, the LBI scoring system is “calibrated”
and parks, or on private parcels and score
for the project by determining scoring
thresholds may be adjusted accordingly. For
“thresholds” (scores 1 through 5) for the
example, major open space areas tend to
metrics listed on the previous pages. All or a
provide larger more contiguous habitats and
select number of indicators may be assessed
higher functioning ecosystems, providing a
for projects depending on the level of effort
more significant contribution to regional
that the project desires to support.
biodiversity. On private parcels, habitats may
Performance thresholds can be based on
be smaller, more fragmented, and more
empirical research, local best practices, or
architectural in character, and scoring may be
may be developed specifically for a site based
adjusted accordingly. Some value may also be
on expert opinion. Because empirical
added for smaller habitats in developed areas
research is often rare for many target habitats Calibrating the LBI for a project area requires assessment
that may be of higher socio-cultural value
and regions, thresholds can be based on of the ecological role that the area plays within the broader
because of improved interaction with nature region, especially considering habitat connectivity, regional
assumed “keystone” structural, pattern, or
may result in increased conservation rarity of ecosystems, and community access to nature.
process attributes of local ecosystems or land
behaviour.
use forms. For example, corridor width
thresholds could be based on a native forest The diagrams on the following pages describe
tree crown width and height (as was done for some of the LBI scoring thresholds that were
the Jurong Lake and Portland applications); used for the Jurong Lake application.
edge effect distances may be known for some

18  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

LBI Case Study:

Step 3) Existing Condition LBI broader biodiversity network within Singapore,
Baseline Measurement Jurong Lake District, Singapore
with Jurong Lake acting as a key urban
The Jurong Lake District in Singapore was the
A goal of many projects is to create a plan that biodiversity hotspot.
initial project where the LBI was developed
achieves improved biodiversity and ecosystem The recommendations included guidelines for
and applied (at the time the LBI was called the
function from the baseline existing condition. habitat area allocations on parcels, target
Index of Biodiversity Potential - IBP). The LBI
This baseline LBI score, or other benchmarks habitat types, plant lists, and contemporary
was part of an AECOM led comprehensive
including the historic native ecosystem landscape architectural habitat enhancements
sustainability planning effort for the District.
condition, or a business as usual scenario are at ground level and on green roofs. Providing
The 300+ ha site included a small amount of
typically used as benchmarks by which habitat on the project’s green roofs and
existing wetland and secondary forest habitats
achievement of performance goals are through an elevated “eco-grid”, similar to New
and was envisioned by the client to be a global
measured. Therefore, one “key performance York’s “high line”, was also considered, but
exemplar for sustainable development. The
indicator” of projects tends to be: these measures were found to be logistically
LBI process supported development of the
Key Performance Indicator: overall master plan and park scenarios, a unfeasible and more costly compared to
biodiversity target of a 25% improvement from ground-level habitat investments. The project
• Percent change in the overall LBI for onsite also includes a major urban park with very
the existing condition, and parcel-level LBI
habitats compared to the historic natural high levels of biodiversity and multiple
design guidelines for landscapes to be
(pre-settlement), existing site, or business ecosystem services.
designed by future developers. The
as usual master plan condition.
recommendations also supported the idea of a
The first step in calibrating the LBI and
establishing biodiversity performance targets
includes a relative biodiversity valuation
process for the existing condition (i.e.
measurement of the baseline LBI score) to
determine priority areas for preservation, to
frame goals for biodiversity enhancement, and
to measure project improvement.

The existing condition benchmark analysis

involves performing an inventory of all areas of
the site and scoring each area based on the
scoring criteria included on the previous
pages. The baseline LBI score for a site
provides an indication of its existing relative
value to biodiversity. Generally, urban sites
with little or no valuable habitat will have LBI
scores of between 0 and 1, whereas a natural
site in a wilderness location could achieve a

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  19

 score of 5. While the assessment of the area in this early stage of master planning landscape coverage and target LBI scores
existing condition is dependent on how the (e.g. at a basic level, the overall land area were determined, and the LBI metrics were
planning team defines scoring criteria, it is planned for coverage of each type of used as design guidlines that future
useful as a baseline for plan alternatives; landscape, or at a more detailed level, the developers can follow during detailed design.
however, if the protocol and criteria were spatial layout of landscape types across Such guidelines could play a similar role in
standardized across a municipality or region, parcels may be performed at this stage). municipal biodiversity policies or codes.
the LBI process can effectively compare the
performance among different projects.
Step 5) Parcel/Land Use Category Step 6) Detailed measurement of
LBI Score Targets and Guidelines landscape design solutions
In this and the following steps, LBI scores for (if applicable)
areas of the plan may be mapped through a If detailed landscape design is performed, LBI
combination of on-site measurements, GIS, Detailed landscape planning for individual measurement of the design can be performed
aerial photo analysis, and Excel-based parcels or land use categories may be as is show in the Portland Integrating Habitats
calculations. performed, or guidelines for landscapes may project on the following pages. Measurements
be created. At Jurong Lake, rather than are made using a combination of GIS and
Step 4) LBI Scoring of Plan performing detailed parcel landscape design, hand measurements.
Alternatives parcel guidelines requireing total amounts of
Once the LBI score is measured for the
existing site condition, plan alternatives are
created and impacts or preservation of
existing condition LBI score areas are
measured. Design typologies for new
landscapes, that may include architectural
strategies or ecological restoration, are
developed, their spatial extent is planned, and
LBI performance is measured for one or
several scenarios. Often, a “business as
usual” scenario is developed as a benchmark
to demonstrate the improvement in
performance of other more ecological robust
scenarios. Areas of landscape typologies
may be planned at a general level across land
use types, parcels, or districts of a planning

Native plant landscape at Millenium Park, Chicago IL

20  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

In 2008, Portland Metro (Portland, OR,

USA) held the “Integrating Habitats”
design competition. Participants created
habitat design strategies for a number
of typical land uses across the City. The
AECOM team examined a typical city
block and developed the strategy on
the following page. LBI measurements
were performed to evaluate performance
between the existing condition (below)
and final concept (next page).

Existing Site Condition

Score Landscape Types LBI Scores

Existing Condition Hardscape Score 1

LBI Score: 0.89/5 General Landscape Score 2

Primary Habitat Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Landscape Types LBI Scores

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  21

 The AECOM entry, “Growing Together,”
took the People’s Choice award
and second place overall. The LBI
assessment indicated more than a 100%
improvement in biodiversity potential
from the existing condition. Despite more
than doubling the human population
density. A key lesson of this case study
is that biodiversity enhancement and
density increases can be accomplished
simultaneously. Integrating habitats into
urban areas may become more important
as the world’s population becomes more
urban and overall cultural connections
with nature widen.

“Growing Together”: Portland Metro Integrating Habitats Competition Entry

Score Landscape Types LBI Scores

Final Concept LBI Hardscape Score 1

Score: 1.93/5 General Landscape Score 2

Primary Habitat Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Landscape Types LBI Scores

22  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

developed space

lake architectural path architectural elevated bio-swale native dryland elevated

native native landscape greenery forest greenery
wetland

ecosystem planning area

landscape type
biodiversity score (ibp)
meters 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150 200

ecosystem planning area landscape type biodiversity score (ibp)

Lakeside: Elevated Greenery Landscape Area: Habitat IBP Score 1

Lakeside: Landscape Landscape Area: Typical Landscape IBP Score 2

Major Open Space Landscape Area: Community Agriculture IBP Score 3

Lake Landscape Area: High Carbon Sequestration Forest IBP Score 4

Hardscape IBP Score 5

Conceptual section diagrams of landscape types and LBI scores for developed
landscape and open space (next page) planning areas

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  23

 major open space

sequestration forest passive landscape upland native forest native lowland emergent lake
forest freshwater
wetland

ecosystem planning area

landscape type
biodiversity score (ibp)
0 10 20 30 40 50 100 150 200

ecosystem planning area landscape type biodiversity score (ibp)

Step 7) Implementation and metrics, thresholds, and assumed that many communities and biodiversity will
Lakeside: Elevated Greenery IBP Score 1
Verification performance benefitsLandscape Area:
are not yet Habitat by
supported face. Smarter community and regional land
focused scientific studies, but instead are use design strategies that maintain and
Following construction, landscapesLakeside:
can beLandscapebased on sound landscape
Landscape Area: Typical IBP Score 2
Landscaperestore more robust habitat diversity
ecology principles; and
measured to ensure that performance metrics relevant supporting science when possible; connectivity can help sustain biodiversity and
have been achieved. Overall biodiversity
Major Open Space our experience on projects
Landscape Area: Community Agriculture IBP Score 3
and project ecosystem services as they are increasingly
measurements could then be performed and analogs done by others; and measurements of impacted by climate and land use change.
achievement verified. Lake Landscape Area: High Carbon Sequestration Forest IBP Score 4
local native ecosystems. This system and other new strategies for
ecological infrastructure are helping to “future
Discussion Rapidly accelerating Hardscape
habitat loss, habitat IBP Score 5
proof” communities for emerging
fragmentation, and climate change are
We are excited to promote wider application of environmental challenges and create more
combining to drive a paradigm shift in
the system and LBI for planning and vibrant built and natural environments.
biodiversity conservation strategies across the
measuring project biodiversity performance.
globe. Changes to ecosystems, especially
To our knowledge, no other projects have
changes to biota, hydrology, temperature, and
attempted to quantitatively assess biodiversity
storm patterns, are some of the direct impacts
strategies at this level. Currently, many of the

24  Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System

 AECOM  

Precedent Biodiversity Planning Approaches

Tools to measure and evaluate biodiversity ASLA Sustainable Sites Initiative
within planning and design projects are critical Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity
for targeting and evaluating landscape options Living Building Challenge The Singapore Index on Cities
that may optimize biodiversity performance. Biodiversity (Singapore Index) is a
AECOM’s research into the current availability Convention on Biological Diversity tremendous example of a municipal to
of biodiversity planning tools within national-scale biodiversity planning and
International Association for
development contexts yielded few precedents. performance assessment framework. The
Landscape Ecology
The majority of research conducted has been Singapore Index focuses on evaluating
within the realm of landscape ecology and California Natural Communities existing ecological conditions as the basis
conservation biology, and has focused largely Conservation Planning for biodiversity performance targets, and
on conservation in areas void of development policy level activities within cities and
or on specific protected species, rather than Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape towns. The approach can also be used as
for comprehensive biodiversity or ecosystem Architecture and Land Use Planning a high-level design and planning
preservation. Urban biodiversity tools tend to framework for targeting broad-scale
provide qualitative, policy guidance rather than Portland Metro Nature in Neighbourhoods landscape structural guidelines and
specific guidelines or metrics for assessing habitat connectivity.
design performance.
The Singapore Index was an important
For valuable examples of how comprehensive consideration in developing the LBI.
biodiversity performance may be considered However, we found that the Index was not
and measured see: suitable to quantify and compare
biodiversity more specific design
Natural Capital Project scenarios on smaller project sites.
Therefore, one of our goals in developing
Matrix Matters: Biodiversity Research for Rural the LBI was to create an approach for
Landscape Mosaics biodiversity design oriented projects that
may fit within a broader regional or
UK Forestry Commission municipal framework, such as the
Singapore Index.
Biodiversity in Fragmented Landscapes
For additional information see:
Evaluating Biodiversity in Fragmented
http://www.cbd.int/authorities/
Landscapes: Applications of
gettinginvolved/cbi.shtml
Landscape Ecology Tools

Landscape Biodiversity Planning and Design System  25

This document was prepared by Isaac Brown at AECOM in San Francisco, CA with contributions from For more information contact:
Shaun O’Rourke (Boston Architectural College - Urban Landscape Lab); David Gallacher and The Soe Isaac Brown
(AECOM Singapore); Claire Bonham-Carter and Chiaki Nakajima (AECOM San Francisco). Special [email protected]
thanks to Gary Grant from Green Roof Consultancy Limited (2012 London Olympics), Michael Boland San Francisco
(The Presidio Trust), Mike Sands (Prairie Crossing), and the Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority 415.955.2800
and the National Parks Board for their generous contributions to this document.
Cover Images: (Front) Echinacea pallida; Stapleton Central Park + Greenways, Denver, CO; US Census Bureau, Washington DC; National Museum of
the American Indian, Washington, DC — (Back) Back Cover Images: ; US Census Bureau, Washington DC; Kunshan Ma An Shan Road Landscape
Design, Kunshan, China; Jinji Lake Waterfront Redevelopment + Landscape Master Plan, Suzhou, China; The Children’s Hospital at Fitzsimons, Aurora,
CO