Spatial Mechanism for Opening the "Black Box": A Translational Pathway From Landscape Ecological Research to Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Practice

Highlights

	· Proposes a three-level research system linking up landscape ecological research and planning and design practice
	· The analysis of spatial mechanisms opens the "black box" between research and practice
	· Proposes a landscape ecological planning and design procedure through synergic analyses of spatial mechanisms

Abstract

In the field of Landscape Ecology, due to the excessive parallel development of landscape ecological science research and landscape ecological planning and design practice, the knowledge produced by landscape ecological research cannot effectively guide landscape ecological planning and design practice. This theory–practice gap has been widely concerned by landscape ecologists and landscape ecological planning designers. Although many scholars have made useful contributions to bridging the gap, a systematic translational pathway has not yet been formed. In this context, this study first reviews the development history of landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice, as well as the evolutionary characteristics of their integration. Second, based on the internal relationship between the two, a three-level research system linking up research to planning and design practice is constructed. Third, the spatial mechanism analysis framework is further proposed to open the "black box" in the transformation from research to planning and design practice, and to bridge the theory–practice gap. The landscape ecological planning and design procedure through synergic analyses of spatial interaction mechanism and spatial constraint mechanism is constructed correspondingly. Finally, taking the Sanya Mangrove Ecological Park project in China as an example, the effectiveness of the procedure is verified.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Spatial Mechanism / Landscape Ecological Research / Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Practice / Theory–practice Gap / Translational Pathway / Knowledge Production / Black Box

1 Introduction

1.1 The Disconnection and Misalignment Between Landscape Ecology Research and Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Practice

Landscape Ecology is an interdisciplinary science that studies landscape structure, function, and change, providing theoretical basis and method guidance for landscape ecological planning and design practice^[1]~[3]. Over the past few decades, great progress has been made in the research on Landscape Ecology, forming a series of concepts, principles, and models^[4][5], such as landscape pattern and process^[1], landscape scale^[2], sustainable landscape pattern^[6], and landscape ecological security pattern^[7]. These research achievements promote the development and innovation of landscape ecological planning and design practice. However, there is a lack of effective connection between scientific ecological knowledge addressing a single problem (or involving individual elements) and ecological practice addressing complicated problems (or involving multiple elements)^[8]~[11]. Applying local, time-sensitive, and generic ecological knowledge into the overall practice of specific scenarios would result in the disconnection between research and planning and design practice^[12], and problems such as ecological knowledge not recognized or generally practiced by planning designers^[10], the stereotype application of spatial models in planning and design practice^[13], and the "shallow forms" caused by passive planning and design following the current process^[14]. Zhifang Wang defined such problems as the dislocation between traditional scientific research disciplines and applied practice disciplines^[12]; Chundi Chen et al.^[15] and Weining Xiang et al.^[16] introduced the "Pasteur's quadrant" paradigm to characterize the disconnection between landscape ecological research and planning and design practice. Among the reasons, one is the essential difference between scientific research and practical application: the knowledge from scientific research is objective, verifiable, and professional, while the planning and design practice is subjective, experience-based, and of historicity and sociology. The gap between scientific research and practice is also known as the "knowing–doing gap"^[17][18], "research–implementation gap"^[18], or "theory–practice gap"^[17].

1.2 Review of Research Progress and Problem Definition

In order to bridge the gap between landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice, scholars have explored from the theory-dominated and practicedominated perspectives. Among the studies of the former, Forster Ndubisi reviewed the development of landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice by analyzing their interactions through the lenses of historical relationship, and put forward the concept of transition with the focus shifting from the principle to the practice^[19]. Wenche Dramstad put forward 55 rules and concepts about landscape ecological planning, as well as the conceptual schema of ecological design about patches, boundaries (edges), corridors (connectivity), and mosaics^[20]. Joan Nassauer and Paul Opdam viewed spatial design in planning procedure as a bridge the theory–practice gap, proposing the "pattern–process–design" paradigm that integrates research and design^[21]; Bangrui Yue put forward the "theory–pattern–case" model as a logical translation channel from research to planning and design practice^[22]. Yuncai Wang proposed the "landscape space pattern language" which provides a path for the planning and design of the organic overall landscape^[23]. Among the practice-dominated studies, Xiang proposed the concept of "ecological wisdom" as a bridge between ecological theory and ecological practice, addressing the limitation of existing scientific knowledge and the failure of current ecological practice^[24]. Zhifang Wang further suggested that "actionable ecological knowledge" is an important part for effectively linking ecological research and ecological practice^[25]. Kongjian Yu made efforts from both perspectives: on the one hand, he proposed the "ecological security pattern" approach^[7][26] to bridge Landscape Ecology theory and spatial planning, which has already been used in the systematic planning of ecological infrastructure; on the other hand, he conducted research based on the practice of Turenscape^[27] that applies spatial language patterns in planning and design and proposed the paradigms of "practice research" and "prototype study"^[13].

Both landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice are interdisciplinary fields^[19]. Although many scholars have made valuable contributions to bridging the gap between the two, most current research remains confined to single fields, focusing on the production of "intermediate knowledge" such as spatial patterns or spatial prototypes between research and practice. There is still a lack of discussion on this disconnection within a unified framework, and a systematic transformation pathway has yet to be established.

In summary, this paper attempts to answer the following questions: 1) How can landscape ecological research be truly connected to landscape ecological planning and design practice? 2) How can the variables of pattern, process, and function in Landscape Ecology be translated into operable spatial pattern language? 3) How can the spatial pattern language help generate specific planning and design schemes? The universally applicable landscape ecological planning and design procedure proposed in this paper is then further explored and verified through a case study.

2 Review of Landscape Ecological Research and Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Practice

2.1 Development of Landscape Ecological Research

Landscape Ecology focuses on the interactions between the Earth's surface materials, energy, information transmission with biotic and abiotic elements, aiming to optimize, utilize, and protect landscape patterns^[3]. It seeks to address the spatial relationship between humans and nature, achieving harmony in human– environment interactions by interpreting and understanding of landscape patterns and processes^[2]. Based on the evolution of the pattern–process paradigm and spatial planning, the development of landscape ecological research can be roughly divided into four stages^{[2][4][28]~[30]} (Fig.1).

Fig.1 Development history of landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice.

Full size|PPT slide

1) Foundation stage of Landscape Ecology (1800 ~ 1980). During this period, Ecology and Geography developed independently, laying the groundwork for the birth of Landscape Ecology through the introduction of concepts like landscape and ecosystem. After the 1930s, influenced by disciplines of Ecology and Geography and driven by the theory of geographical communities^[2], the exploration of basic landscape issues and their relationships with spatial planning began^[4].

2) Establishment and expansion stage of Landscape Ecology (1980 ~ 1990). The establishment of the International Association of Landscape Ecology marks that Landscape Ecology has become an international discipline. Landscape Ecology has gradually established and expanded to the pattern–process–scale paradigm^[31], emphasizing the importance of spatial scale and spatial heterogeneity to ecosystem functions. The patch–corridor–matrix model provides a systematic conceptual framework for the study of pattern and process, opening the integration of landscape planning and Landscape Ecology^[22][32]. Efforts at this stage discussed how to apply landscape ecological planning theories to land use and protection practices^[4].

3) Bridging science and practice stage (1990 ~ 2005). Landscape Ecology continues to expand its applied fields. Landscape Ecology principles^[20], the "aggregate-with-outliers" model^[33], and the designed experiment method^[34] in landscape planning have promoted the expansion of Landscape Ecology to the pattern–process–design paradigm, narrowing the gap between research and practice^[4][30].

4) Sustainable landscape development stage (2006 to present). Accompanied by the implementation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment^[35] and the emergence of the "Nature-based Solution" concept^[36], Landscape Ecology has gradually moved from theoretical exploration to decision-making practice, emphasizing the symbiosis of ecology, human well-being, and social mechanisms, thereby promoting sustainable landscape planning and development^[37][38]. Landscape services, linking with ecological science and sustainable development, have further developed the "pattern–process– service–sustainability" paradigm^[39] in Landscape Ecology. Incorporating design science and governance science to achieve sustainability solutions has become a current trend in Landscape Ecology^[4][38].

2.2 Development of Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Practice

Landscape ecological planning and design refers to the spatial planning and design at various scales, following broad ecological principles, with the goal of harmonizing human– nature relationships^[2][22]. The review on the development history of Ecology helps reveal the five progress stages of landscape ecological planning and design practice^{[22][40]~[44]} (Fig.1).

1) Stage of landscape planning and design practice without ecological involvement (1850 ~ 1940). In earlier years, landscape planning and design developed independently of Ecology, and were guided by the idea of nature conservation and usually defined by landscape designers' individual ecological concepts. The construction of Central Park in New York marked the emergence of ecological thoughts in Western planning and design. The application of the map-overlay method to landscape planning in the 1890s signaled the beginning of the integration of Ecology and landscape planning^[8][22].

2) Stage of landscape planning and design practice involving Biological Ecology (1940 ~ 1980). Landscape planning and design began to merge with Ecology, marking the entry into an era of Ecology-based landscape planning. The introduction of suitability evaluation methods and the LANDEP (landscape ecological planning) model based on suitability evaluation translated ecological language into spatial factors that could be practically applied, representing the emergence of landscape ecological planning methods.

3) Stage of landscape planning and design practice involving Landscape Ecology (1980 ~ 1990). Landscape Ecology was integrated with landscape planning and design, leading to the era of Landscape Ecology-based planning and design^[22]. Research on the relationship between patterns and processes and the introduction of the "patch–corridor–matrix" model contributed to the improvement of landscape ecological planning and design theories and methods^[28][32]. The comprehensive landscape ecological planning method and the multisolution ecological planning method system further broaden the territory of landscape ecological planning and design practice^[44].

4) Stage of landscape planning and design practice involving integrative humanistic thoughts (1990 ~ 2005). Landscape Ecology began to incorporate holistic and humanistic thinking, transforming landscape ecological planning and design into a composite ecosystem paradigm^[22][42]. Theoretical approaches such as ecological security patterns, green infrastructure, and concepts like functionalism, resilience, and "negative-planning approach" integrated landscape with society and ecology, enabling the coevolution of the geosphere, biosphere, and technosphere^[22].

5) Stage of landscape planning and design practice involving Regional and Urban Ecology (2006 to present). With the proposal of the "Nature-based Solutions" concept and the rise of landscape services, sustainability has gradually been underscored in landscape ecological planning and design^[37][38]. This stage has seen a transition from focusing solely on natural spaces and biological habitats to multi-objective optimization that comprehensively considers human–nature relationships. The introduction of methods such as "learning by doing" experimental design^[45] has refined planning and design procedures, making landscape planning decisions more scientific. The concurrent development of ecological planning and design practices guided by ecological wisdom, as well as Regional and Urban Ecology, has become a prevailing trend^[46].

2.3 Evolutionary Characteristics of the Integration Between Landscape Ecological Research and Landscape Ecological Planning and Design

As shown in Fig.1, the landscape ecological research has gone through four paradigm stages, namely "pattern–process, ""pattern–process–scale, " "pattern–process–design, " and "pattern– process–service–sustainability." Simultaneously, the landscape ecological planning and design practice has also witnessed a fivestage development from natural conservation paradigm to green space system paradigm, ecological landscape paradigm, composite ecosystem paradigm, and Nature-based Solution paradigm^[43]. In the integration process of the two fields, the theoretical framework of Landscape Ecology informs landscape planning and design, while the design principles and processes provide feedback and enrich the theoretical framework of Landscape Ecology. Landscape ecological planning and design practice has changed from experience-based planning and design to evidence-based planning and design.

3 Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Research System

Based on the review of the development history of landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice, and the authors' previous research results^[47][48], this paper proposes a three-level research system to link up research and planning and design practice (Fig.2).

Fig.2 Three-level research system linking up landscape ecological research and planning and design practice.

Full size|PPT slide

1) Research on the scientific basis of Landscape Ecology. It is composed of basic theories, core theories, and other theories of Landscape Ecology, providing a scientific basis for the basic research and application research of landscape ecological planning and design.

2) Research on the application basis of landscape ecological planning and design. It is composed of applied Landscape Ecology knowledge, spatial interpretation models, spatial application prototypes, and planning and design methods. The theoretical knowledge in research needs to be combined with specific ecological classification, ecological evaluation, and ecological analysis, so as to transform into planning and design practice. Related theories, technologies, models, methods, and strategies in this combination process can be called the application basis of landscape ecological planning and design.

3) Research on landscape ecological planning and design practice. It refers to the specific planning and design practice for multiple functional types, regional types, and other types (e.g., global climate change).

4 Spatial Mechanism: A Link Between Landscape Ecological Research and Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Practice

According to the above research, this paper argues that bridging the theory–practice gap requires the research on the application basis of landscape ecological planning and design. However, how to transform the variables of pattern, process, and functions in Landscape Ecology into drawable pattern language^① for planning and design practice, and how to transform the drawable pattern language into specific spatial schemes in planning and design practice still remain "black boxes."

^① The authors believe that the essence of planning and design scheme generation is drawing, so this paper emphasizes the attribute of spatial mapping and drawing of the planning and design discipline.

In the field of Philosophy, "mechanism" is a tool to open the "black box" inside the system and explain the interconnections and interactions within the system^[49]. Therefore, this paper introduces the concept of "spatial mechanism"^[50][51] and proposes two types of spatial mechanism—spatial interaction mechanism and spatial constraint mechanism (Fig.3). These two mechanism types link up the three-level research system discussed above, which aims to open the "black box" from Landscape Ecology theories to spatial application prototypes (spatial pattern language), and the "black box" from spatial application prototypes to specific planning and design schemes. The analyses of these two spatial mechanisms can effectively help transform Landscape Ecology theories and knowledge into specific design and planning strategies.

Fig.3 Spatial mechanisms that link up the three-level research system.

Full size|PPT slide

4.1 From Landscape Ecology Theories to Spatial Application Prototypes: Spatial Interaction Mechanism

4.1.1 Analysis of Spatial Interaction Mechanism

In landscape ecological planning and design practice, the relationship between spatial form and function has always been a controversial issue for planning designers, which has led to discussions such as "ecological–aesthetic disjuncture"^[52], "deep forms, " and "shallow forms"^[14]. Although the exploration of the relationship is indispensable, planners'/designers' efforts most stay at the collision of different ideas, lacking the research on knowledge rationality and reductionism based on natural science, which makes the scientific nature of planning and design practice questioned^[53]. The spatial interaction mechanism proposed in this paper refers to the causal relationship between a specific spatial pattern and a specific ecological function in a given site. The planning and design process is the realization process of obtaining a specific function (result) by shaping the spatial pattern (cause). The analysis of spatial interaction mechanism is to figure out the causal relationship between the pattern and the function, through two analysis paths—causal mapping and causal chain^[50].

Causal mapping is a simplified path for causal relationship analysis. Previous studies have revealed the process of how Landscape Ecology theories are transformed into spatial application prototypes. The most representative one is "Diamond Principe"^[54]: Based on the "species–area" theory and the "equilibrium" theory, Jared Diamond further revealed the causal mapping mechanism (spatial interpretation model) between patch structure (spatial form) and species abundance (function). Finally, through the combination of the six principles, spatial application prototypes, such as the circle model and network model for nature reserve planning and design, was formed^[22].

In the real world of landscape ecological planning and design practice, the essence of the relationship between spatial form and function cannot be simply represented through causal mapping. Fortunately, the research on landscape process in Landscape Ecology has successfully opened the "black box" between spatial form and function via the analysis path of "pattern–process– function" causal chain. The most representative one is the "patch– corridor–matrix" model proposed by Richard T. T. Forman^[28][33], which provides a popular, concise, and simple spatial language for distinguishing landscape structure and analyzing the causal chain mechanism (spatial interpretation model) between spatial form and function. Then the spatial application prototypes, such as ecological security pattern model, ecological network model, and green infrastructure model, are deduced^[22][43].

In summary, landscape planning and design practice only focused on the form–function relationship at the beginning, until the research on landscape process in Landscape Ecology opened the pattern–function "black box." Therefore, the following paragraphs focus on interpreting the spatial mechanism of "pattern– process–function" causal chain.

4.1.2 Actionable Knowledge of Spatial Interaction Mechanism

Via the analysis path of "pattern–process–function" causal chain, this paper translates the variables of pattern, process, and function in Landscape Ecology into actionable knowledge for planners/ designers (Fig.4), demonstrating with a case of river corridor (green infrastructure) ecological planning and design (Fig.5). Firstly, the ideal landscape function (flood regulation) of river corridors is clarified; secondly, the affecting landscape process (river runoff process) is analyzed, and the affecting key structural characteristics (curvature and width) are analyzed; finally, it evolves the longitudinal, horizontal, and vertical landscape structure of river corridors that can be actionable knowledge. That is, obtaining the ideal pattern through the analysis of spatial interaction mechanism. Here, only the causal chain analysis of the ideal process and function is carried out. The analysis of the existing "pattern– process–function" and the ideal "pattern–process–function" is detailed in the following case study.

Fig.4 Actionable knowledge framework of spatial interaction mechanism.

Full size|PPT slide

Fig.5 Analysis of the "pattern–process–function" causal chain mechanism for river corridors planning and design.

Full size|PPT slide

4.2 From Spatial Application Prototype to Landscape Planning and Design Practice: Spatial Constraint Mechanism

4.2.1 Analysis of Spatial Constraint Mechanism

Landscape ecological research provides a set of efficient and systematic methods to define the ideal pattern with the help of computer and GIS^[14]. Many planners/designers also realize that landscape ecological planning and design is to connect landscape spatial patterns and functions by following ecological processes^[7][55]. However, most of the previous studies are often limited to simply adhering to scientific research thinking of Landscape Ecology^[56], dogmatic use of landscape prototypes^[13], and passive planning and design using the existing landscape processes as design constraints^[55]. This makes the final solution become the "dystopia" of research^[57], and what is obtained is only the "ideal forms" in the context of scientific research, rather than the "deep forms."

Thus, how to transform the abstract spatial application prototypes into specific schemes in planning and design practice? The spatial constraint mechanism proposed in this paper refers to the causal relationship between the goals and schemes of landscape ecological planning and design for a given site (Fig.3). Different from the knowledge rationality and reductionism emphasized in the analysis of spatial interaction mechanism, the spatial constraint mechanism pays more attention to the site-oriented practice-dominated and holism^[13][56]. Based on the research on landscape ecological planning and design practice^[58][59], and the considerations of specific site conditions, this paper proposes to take the approach of "from functional type to regional type" as the key to open the "black box" between spatial application prototypes and schemes. The analysis of various spatial constraints^[9][25] covers the identification and response of functional constraints (e.g., planners'/designers' knowledge structure and creative ability, and functional requirements of stakeholders), geographical constraints (e.g., climatic conditions, geological and geomorphological conditions), and site constraints (e.g., site terrain and site hydrological conditions)^[25]. From the spatial application prototype with universality and versatility (e.g., green infrastructure that emphasizes versatility), to a specific functional type (e.g., "sponge city" green infrastructure that emphasizes stormwater management), and then to a regional type with complex design constraints (e.g., "sponge city" green infrastructure in arid and semi-arid areas of Northwest China^[60] that emphasizes regional climate characteristics), a planning/design scheme tailored to the site is concretized step-by-step.

Constraints would not hinder designers' creativity, but can stimulate their potential and promote the active planning and design instead of the passive planning and design prevalent nowadays.

4.2.2 Actionable Knowledge of Spatial Constraint Mechanism

Via the analysis path of the "goal–constraint–scheme" causal chain, this paper translates the approach of "from functional type to regional type" into actionable knowledge (Fig.6), demonstrating with ecological planning and design of green infrastructure in sponge cities in the arid and semi-arid regions of Northwest China^[60] (Fig.7). First, clarify landscape goals (e.g., stormwater regulation) were clarified; second, analyze spatial constraints to the landscape goals (e.g., strong permeability and poor water holding capacity of soil); at last, propose specific landscape approach (e.g., increasing water source and reducing water loss) and landscape strategies (e.g., optimization of water condition distribution, micro topography, sunken green space, etc.).

Fig.6 Actionable knowledge framework of spatial constraint mechanism.

Full size|PPT slide

Fig.7 Analysis of the "goal–constraint–scheme" causal chain mechanism for sponge city planning and design in an arid region.

Full size|PPT slide

5 Landscape Ecological Planning and Design Procedure Through Synergic Analyses of Spatial Interaction Mechanism and Spatial Constraint Mechanism

In order to make the spatial mechanism analysis practical and operable, this paper proposes a landscape ecological planning and design procedure based on the synergic analyses of spatial mechanisms (Fig.8).

Fig.8 Landscape ecological planning and design procedure through synergic analyses of spatial mechanisms.

Full size|PPT slide

5.1 Analysis of Spatial Interaction Mechanism of the Existing Landscape

The spatial mechanism analysis based on the pattern–process– function causal chain is mainly divided into three steps: landscape pattern expression, landscape process analysis, and landscape function evaluation.

1) Landscape pattern expression: based on the spatial interpretation model (mainly the "patch–corridor–matrix" model), establish the expression system of the existing landscape, including meteorology, topography, hydrology, and land use status.

2) Landscape process analysis: analyze the existing landscape from three aspects, namely biological process, non-biological process, and humanistic process.

3) Landscape function evaluation: evaluate the health and safety of the ecosystem and the status of ecosystem services, analyze the interests of the existing landscape pattern on the landscape process (i.e., to promote or hinder the occurrence of the process), so as to assess whether the existing landscape is functioning well.

5.2 Synergic Analyses of Spatial Interaction Mechanism and Spatial Constraint Mechanism of Ideal Landscape

The synergic analyses of spatial interaction mechanism based on goal–constraint–scheme causal chain and the spatial constraint mechanism based on "goal–constraint–scheme" causal chain are mainly divided into three steps: landscape goal determination, landscape process analysis, and landscape pattern optimization.

1) Landscape goal determination: based on the existing landscape function, combined with spatial constraints to determine the landscape goal (i.e., the ideal landscape function).

2) Landscape process analysis: the corresponding ideal landscape process is derived based on the landscape goal.

3) Landscape pattern optimization: improve the landscape pattern that affects a specific landscape process, and propose a planning/design scheme.

6 From Ideal Forms to Deep Forms: Case Study of Sanya Mangrove Ecological Park

This paper here takes the Sanya Mangrove Ecological Park in China as an example to verify the effectiveness of the landscape ecological planning and design procedure based on the synergic analyses of spatial mechanisms in landscape planning and design practice.

Sanya Mangrove Ecological Park is located on the east bank of the Sanya River, where seawater and freshwater meet. Seasonal uneven water flow volume leads to water shortage in the dry season. A large amount of urban development has encroached on the original pit and pond system. The concrete flood control wall constructed has seriously damaged the mangrove and floodplain ecosystem, blocked the connection between seawater and upstream urban rainwater, and caused serious urban flooding.

The process of developing the landscape optimization scheme in a branch shape through the synergic analyses of spatial mechanisms was displayed as Tab.1 and Fig.9 and Fig.10. The specific strategies include:

Tab.1 Analysis of spatial constraint mechanism

Spatial constraint		Content
Functional constraint	Planners'/designers' knowledge structure	Professional knowledge about mangrove ecosystems, environmental engineering, and sustainable design to scientifically assess and respond to pollution problems
	Planners'/designers' creative ability	Innovatively apply ecological design principles and put forward solutions with both functional and aesthetic values
	Functional requirements of stakeholders	Balance and maximize the benefits of various stakeholders, including local governments, environmental organizations, and communities
	Functional requirements of upper plans	Guided by relevant national and local environmental regulations and planning documents to ensure the schemes meeting environmental protection standards
	Specifications, guidelines, and standards	Follow relevant landscape design specifications, guidelines, and industry standards
Regional constraints	Climatic conditions	Consider climate adaptability factors such as climate change and seasonal precipitation that impact the growth and water quality management of mangroves
	Geological conditions	Consider geological conditions that impact the flow and deposition of pollutants, and improve the geological stability to prevent the diffusion of pollutants (Continued)
	Distribution of vegetation zone	Mangroves, as a unique evergreen shrub (or small tree) community in tropical and subtropical bays and estuarine mudflats, are often distributed in the intertidal zone between the high tide line and the low tide line
	Local custom and culture	Consider the traditions and culture of local residents that will affect the acceptance and implementation effect of the design
Site constraints	Topographical conditions	Arrange appropriate drainage and filtration systems based on the slope and undulation of the site that define the distribution of water flow and pollutants
	Hydrological conditions	Consider water level changes caused by tide that mangroves rely on, and the purification and management of water bodies to prevent pollutants from entering rivers and wetlands
	Soil conditions	Consider soil type and fertility that determine the growth of mangroves, and the soil improvement and pollutant filtration
	Salinity conditions of mangrove habitats	Mangroves, as halophilous plants, require the salt content of seawater in the outer edge usually of 3.2% ~ 3.4%, and 2.0% ~ 2.2% for the inner edge
	Wind direction conditions of mangrove habitats	Protect mangroves from long-term wind and wave erosion that impact the survival rate and growth rate of mangroves
	Temperature conditions of mangrove habitats	Mangroves require the air temperature no lower than 9.3 ℃ and the water temperature no lower than 10.6 ℃
	Tidal flat conditions of mangrove habitats	Tidal flats provide an ideal habitat for mangroves, where the wading depth not only impacts the species selection of mangroves, but also is an important factor for their growth height
	Species niche conditions of mangrove habitats	Protect and restore niche and protect biodiversity due to the species relationship in mangrove ecosystem is complex

Fig.9 Analysis of spatial interaction mechanism.

Full size|PPT slide

Fig.10 Analysis of the landscape optimization strategies for Sanya Mangrove Ecological Park.

Full size|PPT slide

1) Water quality improvement strategy. The design follows the site's existing hydrological process. By changing the horizontal structure of the river course, the water purification pattern of the cascaded wetland purification ring was formed by introducing terraces, ponds, and wetlands, so that rain runoff in the city can be purified and discharged into the river course.

2) Habitat restoration strategy. According to the characteristics of mangroves (halophilous, easy to lodge), by analyzing the impact of the landscape process on the growth of mangroves, a branched wetland pattern was proposed, and by changing the horizontal and vertical landscape structure of river corridors and revetments, a suitable living environment for mangrove growth was created.

3) Leisure and recreation strategy. Build a multi-dimensional transportation system, link external slow lanes with local slow traffic, extend landscape trails into the edge of the wetland, set landscape boardwalks within mangrove wetlands, forming various recreational experiences.

7 Conclusions

Based on the review of landscape ecological research and landscape ecological planning and design practice, this paper constructs a three-level research system for landscape ecological planning and design, and further points out that the analysis of spatial mechanism can open the "black boxes" in the transformation from research to practice, which provides methodological support for ecological research and evidence-based planning and design, and enhances the interpretability of landscape ecological planning and design.

From Landscape Ecology theories to spatial application prototypes and to landscape ecological planning and design practice, it is a process from de-contextualization (context of research) to re-contextualization (context of practice). As the intermediate knowledge between theory and practice, spatial application prototype plays a role between prototype generality and regional particularity, between scientific abstraction and practical specificity, and between existing landscape (now) and ideal landscape (future). Landscape ecological planning and design practice is a holistic and integrated decision-making process. Future research needs to further integrate research and practice. It is necessary to pay attention to both ecological knowledge and form design to create deep forms.

It is necessary to point out that this paper only discusses the disconnection and dislocation between theory and practice simply upon the transformation from research to practice, without exploring ecological wisdom and computer technology methods. The ecological knowledge (experience) summarized from landscape ecological planning and design practice can also be further extracted and refined into spatial application prototypes (for practice)^[55][61]. Computer technology, landscape mapping^[17], and other methods for large-scale site preview analysis, scenario simulation, and parametric design and design simulation for small-and mediumscale sites are also important media for connecting ecologists and planners/designers^[17][62]. In the future, researchers can continue to deepen the studies on spatial mechanisms from the above two aspects and to demonstrate the effectiveness of this landscape planning and design procedure.

References

[1] Wu, J. (2000) Landscape ecology: Concepts and theories. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 19 ( 1), 42– 52.

[2] Fu, B., Chen, L., Ma, K., & Wang, Y. (2011). Principles and Application of Landscape Ecology. Science Press.

[3] Pearson, D. (2024) Landscape ecology 40 years since Allerton Park: Looking back and to the future!. Landscape Ecology, 39 ( 3), 46.

[4] Milovanović, A. , Milovanović Rodić, D. , & Maruna, M. (2020) Eighty-year review of the evolution of landscape ecology: From a spatial planning perspective. Landscape Ecology, ( 35), 2141– 2161.

[5] Hersperger, A. M. , Grădinaru, S. R. , Pierri Daunt, A. B. , Imhof, C. S. , & Fan, P. (2021) Landscape ecological concepts in planning: Review of recent developments. Landscape Ecology, ( 36), 2329– 2345.

[6] Dong, J. , Jiang, H. , Gu, T. , Liu, Y. , & Peng, J. (2022) Sustainable landscape pattern: A landscape approach to serving spatial planning. Landscape Ecology, ( 37), 31– 42.

[7] Yu, K. (1999) Landscape ecological security patterns in biological conservation. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 19 ( 1), 8– 15.

[8] Yue, B. , & Kang, S. (2020) Review of the types and paradigms of landscape planning theories. Landscape Architecture, 27 ( 3), 63– 68.

[9] Wang, Z. , & Li, M. (2016) How to frame design research paradigm of landscape architecture?. Chinese Landscape Architecture, ( 4), 10– 15.

[10] Grose, M. J. (2014) Gaps and futures in working between ecology and design for constructed ecologies. Landscape and Urban Planning, ( 132), 69– 78.

[11] Albert, C. H. , Yoccoz, N. G. , Edwards Jr, T. C. , Graham, C. H. , Zimmermann, N. E. , & Thuiller, W. (2010) Sampling in ecology and evolution—Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Ecography, 33 ( 6), 1028– 1037.

[12] Wang, Z. (2018) Bridging the gaps between landscape design practice and scientific research: A graphical interpretation. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 6 ( 5), 66– 71.

[13] Yu, K. (2020) Practice research: A paradigm for the innovation of knowledge and methodology. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 8 ( 4), 4– 9.

[14] Yu, K. (2017) Deep forms for beautiful China. Urban Environment Design, ( 6), 324– 326.

[15] Chen, C. , Wang, Y. , Jia, J. , Mao, L. , & Meurk, C. D. (2019) Ecosystem services mapping in practice: A Pasteur's quadrant perspective. Ecosystem Services, ( 40), 101042.

[16] Xiang, W. (2017) Pasteur's quadrant: An appealing ecophronetic alternative to the prevalent Bohr's quadrant in ecosystem services research. Landscape Ecology, 32 ( 12), 2241– 2247.

[17] Cooke, S. J. , Jeanson, A. L. , Bishop, I. , Bryan, B. A. , Chen, C. , Cvitanovic, C. , Fen, Y. , Forseter, J. , Fürst, C. , Hu, J. , La Rosa, D. , Meurk, C. , Nguyen, V. M. , Paolisso, M. , Qi, Y. , Chun, F. K. S. , Szetey, K. , Wang, X. , Wang, Y. , Archibald, C. L. , & Young, N. (2021) On the theory-practice gap in the environmental realm: Perspectives from and for diverse environmental professionals. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 3 ( 3), 243– 255.

[18] Knight, A. T. , Cowling, R. M. , Rouget, M. , Balmford, A. , Lombard, A. T. , & Campbell, B. M. (2008) Knowing but not doing: Selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology, 22 ( 3), 610– 617.

[19] Ndubisi, F. (2013). Ecological Planning: A Historical and Comparative Synthesis. China Architecture & Building Press.

[20] Dramstad, W. E., Olson, J. D., & Forman, R. T. (2010). Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land-use Planning. China Architecture & Building Press.

[21] Nassauer, J. I. , & Opdam, P. (2008) Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, ( 23), 633– 644.

[22] Yue, B. (2017). Illustrated Principles of Landscape Ecological Planning and Design. China Architecture & Building Press.

[23] Wang, Y. (2017) The logical thinking and framework of landscape space pattern language. Landscape Architecture, ( 4), 89– 98.

[24] Xiang, W. (2014) Doing real and permanent good in landscape and urban planning: Ecological wisdom for urban sustainability. Landscape & Urban Planning, ( 121), 65– 69.

[25] Wang, Z. (2017) Ecophronesis and actionable ecological knowledge. Urban Planning International, 32 ( 4), 16– 21.

[26] Yu, K. , Li, D. , & Han, X. (2005) On the "negative planning". City Planning Review, 29 ( 9), 64– 69.

[27] Si, Y. , Fang, J. , & Xu, L. (2021) Review of ecological infrastructure planning practices based on the ecological security pattern theory in China (1997 ~ 2019). Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 9 ( 3), 28– 47.

[28] Forman, R. T., & Godron, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons.

[29] Forman, R. T. (2015). Launching Landscape Ecology in America and Learning from Europe. In: G. W. Barrett, T. L. Barrett & J. Wu (Eds. ), History of Landscape Ecology in the United States (pp. 13–30). Springer.

[30] Farina, A. (2022). Theories and Models Incorporated in Landscape Ecology. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology: An Agenda for the Second Millennium (pp. 111–156). Springer.

[31] Peters, D. P. , Bestelmeyer, B. T. , & Turner, M. G. (2007) Cross-scale interactions and changing pattern-process relationships: Consequences for system dynamics. Ecosystems, ( 10), 790– 796.

[32] Forman, R. T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press.

[33] Forman, R. T. (1995) Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology, 10 ( 3), 133– 142.

[34] Felson, A. J. , & Pickett, S. T. (2005) Designed experiments: New approaches to studying urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3 ( 10), 549– 556.

[35] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Island Press.

[36] MacKinnon, K., Sobrevila, C., & Hickey, V. (2008). Biodiversity, climate change, and adaptation: Nature-based Solutions from the World Bank portfolio. World Bank.

[37] Wu, J. (2013) Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, ( 28), 999– 1023.

[38] Opdam, P. , Luque, S. , Nassauer, J. , Verburg, P. H. , & Wu, J. (2018) How can landscape ecology contribute to sustainability science?. Landscape Ecology, ( 33), 1– 7.

[39] Termorshuizen, J. W. , & Opdam, P. (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, ( 24), 1037– 1052.

[40] Wang, Y. (2013) Development history and trends of ecological planning method in Landscape Architecture. Chinese Landscape Architecture, ( 11), 46– 51.

[41] Yu, B. , Tian, S. , & Che, S. (2013) From McHarg to Steinitz: Transmutation of theories and methods in the field of Landscape Architecture based on Landscape Ecology. Chinese Landscape Architecture, ( 4), 67– 72.

[42] Yu, K. (1998) Challenges and opportunities faced by the Chinese Landscape Architecture profession from the perspective of the three stages of global Landscape Architecture development. Chinese Landscape Architecture, ( 1), 15– 19.

[43] Yan, S. , Ren, T. , & Yang, H. (2013) A preliminary study on ecological paradigm in urban planning. Journal of Human Settlements in West China, ( 3), 37– 42.

[44] Yu, B. (2012). Traces of ecologism in Western modern landscape planning and design [Doctoral dissertation]. Beijing Forestry University.

[45] Kato, S. , & Ahern, J. (2008) 'Learning by doing': Adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51 ( 4), 543– 559.

[46] Forman, R. T. (2008). Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning Beyond the City. Cambridge University Press.

[47] Yue, B. , & Fei, F. (2018) The transformation path from ecology language to landscape ecological planning and design language. Landscape Architecture, ( 1), 21– 27.

[48] Yue, B. , & Fei, F. (2018) Illustrated principles of landscape ecological planning and design: Teaching explorations on bridging theories with practice of landscape ecological planning and design. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 6 ( 5), 86– 91.

[49] Liu, J. , Zhang, L. , & Chen, Z. (2011) Why social science needs to pursue causal mechanisms. Journal of Public Administration, ( 4), 50– 84.

[50] Lan, Z. , Yue, B. , & Wang, J. (2022) Analysis method and application of spatial mechanism in landscape ecological planning. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology (Natural Science Edition), 54 ( 1), 120– 126.

[51] Yue, B. , Qian, Z. , & Yao, L. (2024) A spatial mechanism analysis framework for applying hydrological knowledge to landscape architecture design. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 40 ( 1), 66– 71.

[52] Fei, F. , Yue, B. , & Nie, J. (2023) Research progress and enlightenment of landscape perception from the perspective of ecological-aesthetic disjuncture. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 39 ( 9), 120– 125.

[53] Chen, Z. , & Miller, P. A. (2013) Landscape Architecture towards evidence-based design: A lesson from research progress in United States. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 29 ( 12), 48– 51.

[54] Diamond, J. M. (1974) Colonization of exploded volcanic islands by birds: The supertramp strategy. Science, 184 ( 4138), 803– 806.

[55] Zou, J. , & Du, C. (2018) Process-orientated active intervention design pattern: An exploration of the method inspired by ecological wisdom. Chinese Landscape Architecture, ( 7), 59– 63.

[56] Wang, Z. (2023) A call for holism research in the realm of territorial spatial planning and landscape design. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 11 ( 6), 4– 7.

[57] Yu, K. (2023) Antidote to tech dystopia: The Chinese model of Nature-based Solutions. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 11 ( 2), 4– 9.

[58] Fu, B. , Liu, G. , Chen, L. , Ma, K. , & Li, J. (2001) Scheme of ecological regionalization in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 21 ( 1), 1– 6.

[59] Wang, F. , Li, B. , Tian, S. , Zheng, D. , & Ge, Q. (2024) Updated scheme for eco-geographical regionalization in China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 79 ( 1), 3– 16.

[60] Liu, H. , Xu, B. , Zou, Z. , & Zuo, X. (2021) Greening design with water: The ecological design method of urban green space in Northwest China. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 37 ( 7), 25– 30.

[61] Yu, K. (2019) Large scale ecological restoration: Empowering the Nature-based Solutions inspired by ancient wisdom of farming. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 39 ( 23), 8733– 8745.

[62] Zheng, Q. , Yun, H. , & Lin, H. (2024) Ecological designed experiment method based on pragmatism: A case study of Haizhu Wetland Restoration Project in Guangzhou, China. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 12 ( 1), 66– 87.

Acknowledgements

·Project of "Research on Land Use Conflict Mechanism and Fine Governance Method in the Northern Foot of Qinling Mountains, " The Ministry of Education Foundation on Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 24YJAZH209) ·Project of "Research on the Evaluation Method and Spatial Optimization Strategy of Green Space in Xi'an Urban Blocks From the Perspective of Children's Friendly City, " Youth Project of Shaanxi Provincial Science and Technology Department (No. 2024JC-YBQN-0602)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

© Higher Education Press 2025