Are Ecological Design Principles Becoming the Norm in Contemporary Landscape Design? A Comparative Analysis of Realized Park Projects (2015–2025)

Abstract

This paper investigates the extent to which ecological design principles are integrated into contemporary park design and whether they represent a new landscape design paradigm. It also presents a theoretical literature review and a selection of key ecological principles that form the basis for the subsequent analysis. Based on comparative analysis of 224 realized projects (2015–225) sourced from the Landezine online platform, the research examines the frequency, typology and spatial impact of declared ecological design principles. Although relatively few principles are explicitly mentioned in individual projects, their spatial impact is constantly evident, ranging from minimal to paradigmatic. The frequently declared principles include habitat preservation, stormwater management and reuse of structures on site, with new priorities such as community involvement, innovation, and resilience are also emerging. The design composition analysis confirms that ecological design principles are embedded across both brownfield and non-brownfield contexts, reflecting their widespread application. These findings suggest that EDPs have become essential to shaping resilient and adaptive landscapes. However, further advancement of ecological design depends on deeper integration of theory and practice, interdisciplinary collaboration and context-sensitive application.

1. Introduction

From the earliest civilizations to the present day, humankind has shaped nature and the environment, with diverse and increasingly intensive impacts. This impact intensified, for the first time, during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century, when technological advancements brought profound changes to all aspects of society (economic, political, cultural etc.). Even then, figures such as R.W. Emerson, D. Thoreau, F.L. Olmsted, G.P. Marsh and others warned of the detrimental effects of human activity on the natural environment [1].

Concerns about human impacts on nature have been increasingly documented since that era [2], gradually fostering greater environmental consciousness and laying the groundwork for sustainable development [3,4]. However, it was not until the second half of the 20th century that ecological awareness gained significant momentum, largely due to the rise of the environmental movement in response to increasing pollution and environmental degradation. This shift led to the emergence of the concept of sustainable development—a defining orientation and a key objective of contemporary society.

During the same period, ecology developed as a scientific discipline and began to influence a wide range of human activities, including landscape design (LD). Ecological design (ED) emerged, positioning ecology not merely as one of many influencing factors but also as the foundational framework for LD. Ecology evolved as a scientific discipline that fundamentally reframed landscape design [5], positioning it not only as an aesthetic or functional practice but also as a cultural language shaped by ecological principles [6,7]. Ecology was even embraced as the guiding principle for determining the natural, and thus correct, approach to LD [8].

LD has never evolved in isolation. Each major stylistic or theoretical shift reflects broader political, societal and philosophical changes. Recognizing this interconnectedness is essential to understanding whether today’s ecological or sustainable approaches represent a new paradigm or a continuation of past cultural shifts.

Historically, major social revolutions have been accompanied by profound changes in how landscapes are perceived and designed. A parallel can be drawn with architecture, where stylistic developments reflect both technical and artistic values shaped by the prevailing social order and worldview [9,10,11,12]. As architectural expression embodies the consciousness of its time, it reveals the character and philosophy of the society that produced it [13,14]. Artistic value, therefore, is not timeless but a cultural projection unique to its era and context [15].

In LD, the most complete and explicit materialization of social values was achieved in the Baroque period and the English Landscape Style. Renaissance gardens expressed human control over nature through orthogonal, symmetrical design and terracing. Baroque gardens embodied absolutist power through symmetrical, axial composition representing a specific social center. The English Landscape Style marked a philosophical shift, embracing naturalistic forms and liberal ideas, which would later have a formative influence on public park design. As social values shifted, so did the language of landscape, reflecting broader cultural projections of its time [16,17].

At the beginning of the 20th century, abstraction emerged as a response to modernity. Rather than being defined by a dominant stylistic language, the discipline began to diversify, particularly in urban contexts, where functional typologies took precedence over stylistic coherence. From the mid-20th century to the present, numerous approaches incorporating “ecological” and “sustainable” design principles (DPs) have been introduced. Contemporary ecological design principles (EDPs) underpin many international efforts aimed at creating resilient and adaptive landscapes [18,19] and define the future trajectory of LD, as they provide essential strategies mitigating and adapting to the challenges of climate change [20]. However, their specific impact on the spatial and compositional characteristics of contemporary LD remains underexplored and insufficiently documented in the scholarly research [21].

This study builds upon previous research conducted in 2012 [22], which developed a theoretical framework for ecological design (ED) and identified a set of key principles derived from an extensive review of the relevant literature. These principles were initially used to analyze thirty realized park projects, based on the presumption that brownfield sites—due to their prior land use and site history—might demonstrate a stronger and more evident influence of these principles on design composition. This study provided insights into the integration of ecological values into LD practice and resulted in the identification of ecological design principles (EDPs) that were mutually evident in the theoretical literature and the analyzed project narratives.

To assess temporal developments and current trends, the present research applies the same established set of principles to evaluate a substantially expanded sample of park projects completed between 2015 and 2025. While the theoretical framework has been updated to incorporate recent advances in the ED discourse, maintaining the original principles as analytical categories ensures methodological consistency and facilitates a solid comparative analysis. This continuity allows for the identification of shifts in ED practice over time and provides a foundation for examining how EDPs have been interpreted and applied in recent projects, contributing valuable knowledge to the field of landscape architecture.

Building on this foundation, the current study investigates whether EDPs have become the prevailing norm in contemporary park design. Focusing on projects realized between 2015 and 2025, it compares parks created on brownfield sites with non-brownfield sites in order to discern recurring ecological strategies and their influence on the park design composition. This research is guided by a central question: Have EDPs evolved from aspirational discourse into standard practice, and if so, to what extent has this transformation shaped contemporary park design?

In addressing this question, the study explores several key issues to advance the understanding of ED in contemporary landscape architecture. Specifically, it investigates which EDPs are most commonly declared in current practice and how these principles have evolved since the original 2012 study. Furthermore, it examines the extent to which the compositional characteristics of park design embody the declared principles and how the site context—such as brownfield versus non-brownfield locations—influences their expression and prioritization. By analyzing a broad, international sample of realized park projects, this research aims to identify the prevailing trends and potential gaps in the integration of ecological design thinking. Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how ecological principles are translated from theory into design practice, offering insights that can inform more effective and context-sensitive approaches in contemporary LD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Theoretical Framework

This study builds upon the ED framework developed in the previous 2012 research [8], which established a set of ecological design principles (EDPs) forming the conceptual foundation for the current analysis. These principles were originally derived through a combined review of the theoretical literature and an inductive analysis of project narratives. To ensure methodological consistency and enable comparative analysis over time, the original list of EDPs was retained (Appendix A). However, the theoretical framework has been updated to reflect recent developments in ED and related concepts. It should be noted that not all the principles identified in the theoretical literature appeared in the 2012 park narratives, while some principles emerging from the narratives were not prominent in the literature—highlighting the divergence between ED theory and professional practice.

2.1.2. Empirical Project Dataset

• Case Study Selection Criteria

The dataset consists of built park projects selected from the international platform Landezine, which publishes realized landscape architecture projects submitted by designers and studios, accompanied by author-written narratives. This characteristic was essential to the study, which focuses on how EDPs are declared and explained by practitioners themselves.

Projects were selected based on the following criteria:

-

Realized between 2015 and 2025

-

Explicitly labeled as a park (excluding “residential parks”)

-

Accompanied by a written explanation

This selection ensured a broad international sample encompassing diverse geographic, climatic and cultural contexts. While relying on a single platform may limit the geographic balance of the sample, Landezine’s consistent inclusion of author-written narratives support a globally oriented analysis of how EDPs are expressed within the contemporary professional discourse.

• Site Classification

Projects were categorized according to the site type into brownfield (previously developed or industrial sites) and non-brownfield locations. This distinction enabled comparative analysis of the EDPs’ declaration and expression across different landscape contexts.

• Supporting Visual Materials

Visual materials such as plans, sections and photographs were collected for each project to support the analysis of the design compositions and spatial expressions of the EDPs.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Content Analysis of Project Narratives

Project narratives were analyzed using a deductive coding approach, based on a predefined list of 36 EDPs (see Section 2.1.1). Each narrative was systematically reviewed, and the presence or absence of each principle was recorded in a table. This process constituted a quantitative content analysis enabling identification and comparison of recuring themes in the textual data.

This method enabled the identification of dominant trends in how ecological principles are expressed within the contemporary professional discourse while highlighting site-specific variations.

2.2.2. Design Composition Analysis

While the content analysis was applied to all the selected park narratives, the design composition analysis focused exclusively on projects that declared at least one of nine EDPs identified as most likely to influence the spatial composition (Appendix A). This selection was based on the understanding that certain EDPs primarily relate to technical and biotechnical values and therefore do not visibly manifest in the physical form or spatial organization of design.

Visual and spatial materials were systematically analyzed to assess the extent to which the compositional and structural characteristics of each park design embodied the declared principles. The aim was to identify tangible spatial expressions of each of the nine EDPs.

Each principle was evaluated using a six-point impact scale, designed to measure the extent of its spatial expression within the project. The scale ranged from 0 (no impact) to 5 (paradigmatic impact), as detailed in

Table 1. Scoring scale for evaluating the impact of ecological design principles on the design composition.

Score	Impact Level	Description
0	No impact	Principle not expressed at all in the spatial composition
1	Negligible impact	Principle hardly identifiable in the spatial composition
2	Low impact	Minor design features reflect the principle in isolated or marginal ways
3	Medium impact	Principle is integrated into several aspects of the spatial design
4	Significant impact	Principle informs major compositional structural elements
5	Paradigmatic impact	Principle is fundamental to the entire design concept

. This allowed for a consistent assessment of how strongly each EDP influenced the design decisions. For each project, the highest score among the nine principles was also recorded as an overall measure of the compositional influence.

2.2.3. Descriptive Statistics

Quantitative data from both the content and composition analyses were synthesized to identify trends across the sample.

In the content analysis phase, the code frequency and distribution of the declared EDPs were analyzed for the whole sample and in relation to the site type (brownfield vs. non-brownfield) and geographic region, expressed in percentages.

In the design analysis phase, the scoring patterns of the nine EDPs were assessed to determine the overall impact, as well as the average scores by site type and geographic region. Additional measures included the total number of EDPs declared, frequency of individual principles and distribution of scores across the sample. All the results are presented through charts and tables to aid interpretation and comparison.

This two-phase methodological approach provided both a broad understanding of how EDPs are articulated in the contemporary global discourse and a focused assessment of their spatial expression in the realized park designs.

2.3. Limitations

This analysis is based exclusively on publicly available projects published on the Landezine platform that met the defined selection criteria. As a result, the sample may exclude a number of relevant but unpublished projects. Moreover, in some cases, the applied EDPs may not have been fully described in the accompanying project narratives. Furthermore, the growing use of ecological rhetoric may result in projects being described as “ecological” despite being highly artificial and filled with stimulating artefacts and artistic features [23].

Despite these inherent limitations, the selected sample provides a sufficiently broad and diverse foundation for assessing the current trends in ecological and sustainable park design.

3. Theoretical Framework

To understand how ecological considerations shape contemporary practice, it is essential to first define and examine the concepts of landscape architecture and landscape design. Clarifying the fundamental principles of the profession provides a solid foundation for assessing how emerging ecological approaches are applied and integrated into the field. This section also establishes the key terminology and explores the concept of “ecological design” alongside related terms. Accordingly, it outlines the theoretical foundations and design principles that guide the research.

3.1. Landscape Architecture and Landscape Design

Landscape architecture, perhaps “the oldest of all physical arts” [24], involves creative and thoughtful activities [25] to shape the land to meet diverse human needs—economic, functional and aesthetic [26]. Rather than transforming a “homogeneous canvas”, it “analyzes and changes the existing rich texture of space” [27]. In fact, it is the only discipline, within the broader natural sciences and biotechnical fields, that has the necessary tools to address issues of environmental protection and especially nature protection [28] with the quality of open space being its central concern [29]. The primary goal of landscape architecture is to guide landscape character transformation while maintaining environmental quality and enhancing physical, cultural and ecological qualities [30].

LD (a discipline within landscape architecture) is, in the broadest sense, defined as the artistic shaping of space with the aim of accommodating modern activities [10] and improving its quality [30]. LD inherently implies artistic values but also emphasizes diverse values such as aesthetics [31], functionality [32], ecological responsibility [27] and cultural expression [33]. Many authors argue that successful LD must simultaneously address social needs, ecological stability and aesthetic interest [34,35,36]. For example, Spirn [8] advocates that LD should integrate ecological function with aesthetic expression to meet physical, social and spiritual needs. Steinitz [37], by contrast, views LD primarily as a social-driven practice, while Karr [38] highlights how the balance of ecology, economy and aesthetics shifts depending on the specific project goals.

It can also be argued that LD is inherently ecological, as every site encompasses natural processes and supports various species despite human activity—just as every restoration or protection of ecological values is inherently “cultural”, since it involves and affects people [34]. In this sense, LD need not be explicitly labeled “sustainable”, as it fundamentally represents a form of “creative protection” [28]. This view also reminds us that ecological thinking in design is not a new idea. Throughout history, “designers” looked to nature for inspiration and “solutions”, viewing it as an ideal model for solving everyday challenges [39].

This multidimensional nature of LD reflects its historical foundations. As early as the 19th century, pioneers like Olmsted and Eliot integrated social, environmental and artistic concerns into their designs [27,34]. Ecology offers both a scientific grounding (such as understanding plant–soil relationships) and a symbolic inspiration [8,35]. Ultimately, effective LD merges intuitive creativity with systematic analysis [40], resulting in spaces that are functional, ecologically balanced and artistically meaningful [41,42].

3.2. The Concept of Ecological Design

The ecological approach to landscape planning and design emerged prominently with Ian McHarg’s seminal 1969 work Design with Nature, initiating decades of efforts to integrate ecological knowledge into both education and practice [43]. McHarg’s approach emphasized understanding natural systems and processes as essential elements of design, inspiring subsequent decades of efforts to embed ecological principles across disciplines. While contemporary ED is often viewed as a 20th and 21st century development, it built on earlier landscape projects like the Buttes Chaumont Park in Paris (mid-19th century), which, though not explicitly ecological at the time, incorporated principles of brownfield reclamation and ecological sensitivity that resonate with modern ED ideas.

The emergence and integration of “ecological” and “sustainable” design present a major theoretical shift in landscape design [44]. By the early 21st century, ED had become an expression of a sustainability worldview encompassing sustainability’s broad scope. In recent decades, this shift has led to the development of diverse theoretical concepts and the creation of various tools and frameworks aimed at integrating ecological principles into landscape architecture, architecture and urban planning [45], including ecological design/ecological landscape design [46,47], ecological sustainable design [18], sustainable LD [48,49], green building [50], eco-design [51], regenerative LD [52], biodiversity inclusive design [53], resilient design [46], design for ecological democracy [54] and ecological engineering and eco-revelatory design [34]. Collectively, these approaches reflect the growing recognition of the need for design practices that harmonize human activity with natural systems.

Ecological design (ED) is an integrative, ecologically responsible design discipline that arises from the dynamic interplay between ecological knowledge and decision-making processes [39]. It is inherently interdisciplinary, addressing complex challenges by integrating ecological knowledge with contemporary social and political contexts [39,55,56]. It is even a transdisciplinary field generating entirely new forms of knowledge [57] through collaborative processes that cross traditional academic and professional boundaries. By connecting culture and nature, and drawing from disciplines such as ecology, environmental science, ecological planning, architecture and landscape research [57], ED holistically manages diverse resources (its key strength) [48,58].

Advocates of ED argue that the ongoing ecological crisis is partly a consequence of poor design—development that failed to incorporate ecological knowledge and was incompatible with nature [51,54,57,58]. ED aims to minimize environmental damage by aligning human activities with natural flows, cycles and patterns [47,48,51,59,60], or by protecting and restoring ecological processes [50]. The main objectives include preserving ecological integrity [47,51] or landscape integrity—which includes both ecological and cultural dimensions [61].

Although respecting ecological integrity imposes significant design constraints, these constraints must be upheld at all scales (local, regional and global) [47]. While humans are part of nature, societal activities—especially recently—disrupt natural processes, raising doubts about the full integration of human and ecological systems. ED is considered to be an “art of healing”; however, this ambition faces limitations due to the factors such as population growth and “unlimited material aspirations” that may have already exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity [59]. In this context, ED may serve primarily to delay environmental degradation, providing time to address the deeper roots of the crisis. Designing systems that respect ecological limits and strive toward zero ecological footprint remains a challenging and aspirational goal that may be achieved by a new generation of designers [59].

The intellectual and practical roots of ED can be traced to traditional societies [46,47,51,54,58,59], which, despite lacking modern knowledge, sustained themselves by harmonizing life with local ecosystems, thereby preserving both cultural and biological diversity [31,43]. Their environmental impact was minimal compared to modern civilization. However, intact natural environments are now rare and applying traditional methods at a modern scale is often difficult—if not impossible.

In urban contexts especially, the key ED strategies should integrate conservation, restoration and management approaches [47], as well as sustainability, restoration and resilience [55]. Conservation alone can slow resource depletion, but it is insufficient to achieve sustainability [47]. While sustainability focuses on maintaining current conditions, resilience prepares systems to absorb and adapt to future disturbances while preserving ecological functions [55]. A combined approach that includes conservation, restoration and resilience offers the most promising path toward sustaining ecological integrity, though urban environments often impose constraints that may limit full restoration. The goal is to create urban environments that support resilient ecological systems capable of adapting and promoting diversity and health for natural and human communities [55].

Building on these foundational principles, several key concepts underpin ED’s theoretical framework:

• Sustainability or sustainable development is commonly defined as“ development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [62].
• Conservation generally refers to the sustainable use of natural resources aimed at maintaining renewable stocks for human needs [63].
• Ecological restoration involves repairing degraded ecosystems by restoring their structure and function.
• Ecosystem management entails managing areas of all sizes to preserve ecosystem services and biological resources while maintaining human needs [64].
• Resilience refers to a system’s capacity either to recover after change (general resilience) or to maintain its functions despite external disturbances (ecological resilience) [65]. Therefore, fully functioning ecosystems are both resilient and capable of self-repair.

While these concepts share common goals, they emphasize distinct aspects of ED. The broadness of sustainability, for example, has led to varied and sometimes conflicting interpretations. Critics highlight that when sustainability is equated solely with human activity and economic growth, it risks overlooking the fundamental requirement that true sustainability must maintain the capacity of natural systems to support life [66].

Interpretations range from ecocentric (valuing nature intrinsically) to anthropocentric (focusing on human perceptions of acceptable environmental change). Despite the general and global consensus on its importance, sustainability remains an elusive goal that “no one knows how to achieve” [48] or how it can be measured [67]. Nevertheless, this does not dimmish either the importance of sustainability or the global efforts directed toward achieving it.

ED overlaps with other related concepts that have emerged in recent decades, reflecting the evolving response to environmental degradation. Unlike sustainable design, which encompasses broader societal conditions, development and ethics, ED typically focuses more specifically on product and smaller-scale design [39]. Sustainable landscape design (SLD) shares ED’s ecological focus but places a stronger emphasis on enhancing the quality and functionality of open spaces while minimizing ecological impacts through strategies such as waste reuse, application of recycled and repurposed materials and environmentally conscious construction and maintenance [49]. However, given the widespread degradation of today’s landscapes, SD must extend beyond harm reduction toward actively restoring site vitality by re-establishing key natural processes and fostering self-sustaining environments [48].

Recent emerging strategies in ED and SD reflect broader concerns such as climate change, integration of technology, expansion of socio-cultural dimensions and sustainable planning regeneration [18]. Regenerative development offers a particularly transformative approach by fully integrating landscape sustainability science with design practice, addressing the limitations of other transdisciplinary approaches [68]. Rooted in system thinking and abductive logic, regenerative development seeks to transform existing social–ecological systems into regeneratively sustainable states [68]. Common regenerative design strategies include biophilic design, permaculture and biomimicry aiming at elevating the goal of sustainability from the improving human–ecosystem relationship to promoting the well-being of all life within living systems [68]. Regenerative systems, design thinking and landscape are key elements for stewarding sustainable landscape [52].

• One of the most significant paradigms shifts since the rise of sustainability in the mid-1980s is the growing focus on ecological restoration—a new paradigm assuming that ecosystem degradation is not permanent or irreversible [69]. Closely tied to this shift is the emergence of Landscape Sustainability Science (LSS)—a place-based and use-inspired discipline aiming to understand and enhance sustainability for nature and people [70]. LSS is vital for exploring transitions and transformation toward resilience and sustainability, but it requires full integration with landscape design/planning practice through a transdisciplinary collaboration, therefore bridging disciplines, fostering communication between scientists and practitioners, and engaging stakeholders in knowledge co-creation [55].
• Taken together, these developments illustrate that ED has evolved into a broad, interdisciplinary field that is firmly rooted in sustainability, system thinking and regenerative practices. Recent developments—such as regenerative development/design, ecological restoration and LSS—highlight its growing relevance and signal a shift toward more integrative and transformative approaches.

3.3. Ecological Design Principles

Following the discussion of ED, it is essential to examine the principles that articulate its values and intentions. These principles reflect diverse theoretical perspectives, yet they converge around shared ecological, cultural and social priorities. Together, they establish a foundation for understanding how ecological thinking informs contemporary LD.

Ryn and Cowan [47] identify five principles: place-based solutions, ecological accounting, design aligned with nature, the idea that everyone is a designer and making nature visible. The application of these principles aims to create buildings, landscapes, cities and technologies with a reduced impact on the environment. Orr [58,59] advocates a “revolution of ED” that seeks to change society, framing ED as a profound shift in thinking and living. His vision is grounded in four design principles: community participation, limiting resource consumption, waste rejection and system structure connection at all levels. Shu-Yang [51] highlights six principles, including satisfying human needs, sustainable resource use, ecological integrity preservation, imitation of ecological systems, natural debt elimination, natural habitat protection and increasing ecological literacy.

Cadenasso and Pickett [71] approach ED from an urban ecology perspective, proposing five principles: cities are ecosystems, cities are heterogeneous, cities are dynamic, natural processes interact with humans in cities and ecological processes are important in cities. Their focus is on an integrated and dynamic ecological view rather than on isolated principles.

Hester [54] proposes fifteen urban design principles divided into three groups—the enabling form, the resilient form and the encouraging form—based on ecological concepts and community participation. Franklin [48] offers practical guidelines for SLD.

Unlike other authors, Lister [57] makes a critical distinction between small and large urban parks. The justification for this distinction is difficult to assess because the criteria on which it is based are not specified. This distinction is based on the argument that small parks often experience habitat fragmentation and require intensive “designer’s ecology’ management, which, while symbolically and educationally valuable, cannot support self-organizing ecosystems unless connected to larger natural areas. In contrast, large parks can support complex, resilient ecological systems through adaptive ED, which incorporates ecological, economic and cultural sustainability. Garvin [72] broadens the discussion by emphasizing the multifaceted sustainability of parks—including the social, functional, political, financial and aesthetic dimensions—with Central Park in New York serving as a prime example. Makhzoumi and Pungetti [61] offer a holistic ED paradigm focused on self-sufficiency (low construction and maintenance costs), respect for existing landscapes and continuous learning. Their framework, particularly relevant to Mediterranean contexts, serves more as a landscape characterization method than an approach directly applicable to LD.

Several authors emphasize various but complementary aspects of preserving ecological values in design. Frankin [48] and Hester [54] focus on respecting the integrity of ecological, historical and cultural patterns, although Frankin stresses interpretation rather than direct replication of natural patterns. Biodiversity conservation is widely recognized as crucial [47,54,55,58]. The use of native species and communities is emphasized due to the connection with biodiversity preservation and enhancement of biodiversity [47,48,51,54,55].

The importance of green infrastructure, green space size and connectivity is emphasized [55]. The design of ecotones and ecosystem connections is a shared concern [47,48,54,71]. Collectively, these perspectives align within the broad aim of preserving ecological values through structure, function, diversity and connectivity.

The imitation of natural systems in ED is interpreted in two ways. The first seeks to replicate natural ecosystems such that the resulting effects appear relatively “natural” through imitating plant communities by planting native species, applying succession processes [51], permeable paving, stormwater infiltration mimicking natural hydrology and biological water treatment to restore ecological function and reduce runoff [48]. The second interpretation emphasizes nature as a model of a closed system with no waste—where each output becomes a resource for another process [47,51,58]. This principle promotes recycling, reuse and reduced resource consumption. Human systems should mimic this logic to integrate more fully with natural cycles [47] and manage material and energy flows in ways to avoid reckless consumption and disposal. Local self-sufficiency and locally produced goods (materials) are supported [54]. Designers are seen as facilitators of natural processes, enabling systems to self-organize and adapt [47]. Succession and minimal intervention are essential strategies for long-term vegetation management [48].

Ecological design is viewed as a democratic, participatory process involving not only professionals but also the broader community [47,48,51,54]. Community participation fosters ecological democracy, civic responsibility and context-sensitive design [58], with all stakeholders regarded as equal partners [48]. A key goal is to enhance ecological literacy by “making nature visible” [47] and to reveal ecology through education and direct experience of the outcomes [73]. Design is considered an adaptive, ongoing process responsive to ecological and social change [48,61,71]. Elasticity in the urban form and program flexibility to support long-term sustainability are also stressed [54,57]. Multifunctionality is emphasized as a design value, favoring diverse, adaptable spaces over single-use ones [54,72]. Also, several authors advocate ecological cost and life-cycle accounting to assess environmental impacts [47,51,58].

Collectively, these perspectives reveal the complexity of EDPs and underscore the need to integrate ecological, social and cultural dimensions across scales and contexts. Although the literature presents diverse interpretations of the EDPs, many concepts overlap and address similar themes. Drawing on a comparative analysis of the key authors and prior research [8], the EDPs can be systematically organized into four thematic groups. The thematic groups and their associated principles are summarized in

Table 2. Classification of ecological design principles.

Principle Group	Design Principle
1. Preservation of ecological values	1. Ecological restoration of degraded environments
	2. Protection of ecological values on site
	3. Habitat preservation and improvement
	4. Habitat restoration
	5. Increasing biodiversity
	6. Ensuring a diversity of natural services for the city
	7. Separation and covering of heavily polluted soil and water
	8. Ecotone design *
	9. Ecosystem connectivity *
2. Imitation of natural systems	1. Habitat creation
	2. Ecological flood control
	3. Biological purification
	4. Maximum infiltration of rainwater
	5. Permeable paving
	6. Improving plant community resilience
	7. Creating a self-sustaining landscape
	8. Creating a naturalistic landscape
	9. Planting native plants
	10. Application of the succession process
3. Sustainable resource use	1. Stormwater management
	2. Preference for renewable sources and sustainable technologies
	3. Material reuse/recycling
	4. Using sustainable/sustainably produced materials
	5. Cheap/durable materials (concrete and stone)
	6. Repurposing and preserving buildings/structures on site
	7. Low maintenance requirements
4. Responsive design and management principles	1. Adaptive management approach
	2. A systemic approach to design
	3. Community involvement in the design process
	4. Make natural processes visible *
	5. Ecological cost and life-cycle accounting *
	6. Integrated open space
	7. Possibility of education

* Theoretical principles not declared in the project narratives in the 2012 study.

, presenting the multidimensional and integrative approach of ED.

4. Results/Case Study Analysis (2015–2025)

4.1. Case Study Selection

Out of a total of 691 park projects from 65 countries worldwide published on the Landezine platform [74], 224 met the established selection criteria. Of these, 58 parks were developed on brownfield sites. The selected park projects are located in 37 countries (

Table 3. Selected parks by country and region.

Europe		Asia
Country	Projects	Country	Projects
Austria	3	Israel	3
Belgium	5	Japan	2
Croatia	1	Republic of Korea	1
Czech Republic	1	Kuwait	1
Denmark	12	China	22
Finland	4	Singapore	2
France	9	Taiwan	4
Germany	35	Thailand	2
Ireland	2	United Arab Emirates	2
Italy	3
Lithuania	3	Oceania
Luxemburg	2	Australia	19
Netherlands	11	New Zealand	2
Norway	5	North America
Poland	1	Canada	4
Portugal	2	USA	20
Russia	2
Slovakia	1	South America
Spain	7	Chile	3
Sweden	16
Switzerland	4
UK	8

). No qualifying projects were found in the remaining 28 countries represented on the platform.

The majority of the selected parks are located in Europe, particularly in Germany (35), Sweden (16), Denmark (12), and the Netherlands (11). Other European countries contributed fewer than ten projects each. In Asia, China stands out with 22 projects, while other Asian countries contributed four or fewer. Twenty-one projects were identified in Australia and New Zealand. North America is represented by the United States (20) and Canada (4). South America contributed only three projects, all from Chile, while no eligible examples were found in Africa.

While not evenly distributed geographically, this globally sourced sample provides a solid foundation for analyzing how EDPs are interpreted and applied in professional practice across varying geographical, environmental and cultural contexts.

4.2. Ecological Design Principles Analysis

This section presents an analysis of the EDPs declared in the selected park projects, examining the extent to which these principles have been explicitly declared in the project narratives. The maximum number of principles declared in a single project was 10, representing less than 30% of EDPs used in analysis. In contrast, 20% of all the parks did not proclaim any principles. The majority of projects (approximately 15% per category) included between one and five principles. Only 15 parks (7%) referenced between 7 and 10 principles, with just six projects (2.68%) reaching the maximum of 10. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of declared principles across all the analyzed projects, highlighting the relative frequency of each category.

A slightly more engaged pattern in the declaration of the EDPs was observed in the parks developed on brownfield sites (Figure 1b). Among the 58 brownfield projects, only 10.34% did not proclaim any EDPs. The majority of brownfield parks fell within the one to five principle range, with the highest proportion declaring three principles (18.97%), followed by four (15.52%), one and two (each 13.79%) and five (12.07%). Only 6.9% of the brownfield projects proclaimed six principles, with a smaller group (5.17%) of seven or more, including two projects (3.45%) that incorporated all ten principles.

In comparison, the non-brownfield parks showed a higher frequency of projects with no declared principles (23.49%) and a lower representation in the upper range (Figure 1c). Only 2.41% of these projects declared all ten principles, just 3.01% included seven, and none proclaimed nine principles. The highest concentrations were again within the one to four principle range (60.26%in total).

The most frequently declared ED principles are presented in Figure 2. Out of the 36 principles included in the analysis (Appendix A), only ten (less than 30%) were mentioned in at least 10% of the analyzed park project descriptions. These include providing diverse content, stormwater management, creating diverse content, habitat creation, biological water purification, planting native vegetation, reuse of materials, increasing biodiversity and the repurposing or preservation of existing structures.

Among these, “providing diverse content” was the most frequently declared principle across both park types (32.8% in brownfield and 31.7% non-brownfield). “Stormwater management” also ranked highly, appearing in 34.5% of brownfield and 28.3 of non-brownfield projects. Notably, certain principles were more prevalent in brownfield contexts, such as repurposing or preserving existing buildings and structures (34.5% vs. 6.6%) and reuse of materials (17.2% vs. 7.8%). Conversely, “community participation” appeared more frequently in non-brownfield parks (20.5%) than in brownfield ones (6.9%).

The analysis of the project narratives reveals a terminology that reflects both the characteristic of contemporary landscape design and the likely future directions in the field. Among the most frequently cited concepts are sustainability [75,76,77,78,79] and resilience [75,80,81,82,83,84,85], commonly associated with climate adaptation, biodiversity enhancement, flood mitigation and the overall quality of designed spaces. Climate change [81,86,87,88] emerges as an increasingly pressing concern, directly shaping strategies related to plant selection (e.g., “climate trees”) [86,89], water management and enhancement of spatial resilience.

References to the creation of interconnected, ecologically functional landscapes appear under varied terms—such as green corridors [90], ecological corridors [91,92] or green infrastructure (e.g., [93,94])—yet they consistently reflect the same underlying concept. Interestingly, the term “Ecological design” (e.g., [95,96]) is noted only twice across the reviewed descriptions.

In addition, the frequent references to innovation [75,78,80,97,98,99], both in terms of design thinking and technical solutions, indicate a forward-looking approach that embraces new tools and strategies. Taken together, the language used across these projects reveals a shared ambition: to create adaptive, ecologically responsive landscapes capable of addressing pressing environmental and societal challenges.

To illustrate the applied methodology, selected examples from the coding analysis (EDP identification) and design composition scoring are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. These examples are intended to clarify the analytical framework, while the full results are presented in the main text and figures.

4.3. Design Composition Analysis and Ecological Design Principle Impact Assessment Analysis

Out of the initial sample of 224 park projects, 119 from different continents met the criteria for the design composition analysis—their distribution by continent and site type is presented in

Table 4. Park projects qualifying for the design analysis by continent and type.

Continent	Total Projects	Brownfield Projects	Non-Brownfield Projects
Asia	26	9	17
Europe	67	22	45
North America	14	6	8
Oceania	12	5	7
Total	119	42	77

.

4.3.1. Design Composition Analysis

The design composition analysis scores across all the parks ranged from one to five, with no zero scores recorded. Over 90% of projects scored between three and five, with brownfield parks showing a higher frequency of mid-range scores (three to four), while non-brownfield parks had a slightly greater share of top scores (five). Figure 3 illustrates this pattern, presenting the subtle differences between brownfield and non-brownfield parks.

Regional differences are notable also in the average scores (

Table 5. Distribution of the design composition scores across park categories.

Continent	All Parks (avg)	Brownfield Projects (avg)	Non-Brownfield Projects (avg)
Asia	4.4	4.4	4.4
Europe	3.8	3.9	3.5
North America	3.3	3.5	3.1
Oceania	3.3	3.8	3.0
Total	119	42	77

). Asia achieved the highest average scores (4.4), consistent across the site types, with a majority of projects scoring 5 and none below 3. Europe displayed a broad score range, mostly between three and four. North America and Oceania had lower average scores and more variation, including a higher occurrence of lower scores (one to two). Overall, the average scores were similar across site types (3.7 overall; 3.8 for brownfield; 3.6 for non-brownfield).

4.3.2. The Frequency of Ecological Design Principles

An evaluation of the frequency of the EDPs that can impact the design composition revealed considerable variation (Figure 4). The principles that most commonly appeared across the entire sample were stormwater management (54.6%), biological purification (33.6%), habitat creation (31.9%) and repurposing of existing structures (26.1%). In contrast, principles such as habitat preservation and improvement (8.4%) and creating naturalistic landscapes (10.9%) appeared less frequently.

Brownfield parks were more associated with repurposing of existing structures (47.6%), followed by stormwater management (52.4%), biological purification (35.7) and habitat creation (26.2%). In non-brownfield parks, stormwater management (55.8) and habitat creation (33.8) were the most prevalent, while repurposing of structures (14.3) and application of the succession process (9.1) were notably less common.

4.3.3. Average Scores of Ecological Design Principles

The average scores of the EDPs’ influence on design across all 119 parks showed the highest values for habitat restoration (4.8) and protection of ecological values on site (4.1), excluding Oceania. Other notable scores included habitat creation and biological purification (both 3.7), while stormwater management scored 3.2 overall, but with regional variation—higher in Europe and Asia (≈3.9) and lower in Oceania and North America. The lowest average was for repurposing buildings or structures (3.0), with North America scoring higher. Figure 5 illustrates this pattern, presenting the subtle differences between brownfield and non-brownfield parks.

Brownfield parks exhibited particularly high scores for habitat restoration (5.0) and habitat preservation and improvement (4.3), alongside strong protection of ecological values (4.2). The scores for stormwater management and biological purification (both 3.3) were moderate, while repurposing structures scored relatively low (2.8), except for the higher North American score (3.7).

In non-brownfield parks, habitat restoration (4.8) and protection of ecological values (4.1) also led the scores, with habitat preservation slightly lower (4.1). Biological purification and succession process were marginally higher (3.8) compared to brownfields, while repurposing structures remained low (2.8).

Overall, the habitat-related principles consistently scored highest across all the parks, with brownfield sites showing a stronger emphasis on preservation and restoration, while non-brownfield parks scored somewhat higher in terms of biological processes and succession. Stormwater management exhibited notable regional variation but was generally moderate in impact.

5. Discussion

ED has matured into a multifaceted, transdisciplinary field increasingly shaped by contemporary trends such as environmental regeneration, climate resilience, technological integration and the expansion of socio-cultural dimensions. Recent developments—particularly regenerative design, ecological restoration and landscape sustainability science—signal a paradigmatic shift toward transformative approaches that aim not only to minimize harm but also to actively restore and sustain the vitality of living systems. As these frameworks converge, the role of ED is expanding—from merely mitigating environmental impacts to catalyzing systemic change. Moving forward, integrating scientific insight, design innovation and collaborative practice will be essential to realizing sustainable, adaptable and life-supporting landscapes for future generations.

5.1. Ecological Design Principles

The theoretical literature on ED reviewed in this study draws on a limited selection of concepts from ecology. One possible reason is the vast number of ecological concepts and the lack of consensus among ecologists regarding their terminology, interpretation and relevance. Antrop [75], for instance, identified 3571 distinct concepts in ecology alone. Moreover, the principles of ED discussed are not exclusively grounded in ecological science.

The comparative analysis identified four main principle groups: only two—preservation of ecological values and imitation of natural systems—are clearly related to ecological processes. Even within these, some principles (e.g., the use of permeable paving) describe technical solutions that may support ecological functions but are not ecological per se. A third group, sustainable resource use, encompasses technical guidelines aligned with SD. For example, principles such as material reuse and recycling contribute to resource conservation and waste reduction. The fourth group focuses on design and management approaches—project methodology and goals—which, while often presented as ED-specific (e.g., public participation), are widely accepted in contemporary design practice and thus do not constitute a paradigm shift.

Taken together, these findings reveal internal inconsistencies and a lack of conceptual clarity in the theoretical foundation of ecological landscape design, especially regarding principles directly derived from ecological science. This challenge arises from the inherent complexity of ecological systems and the limitations of the current scientific understanding, Divergent interpretations among ecologists regarding terminology and framing further complicate development of a coherent theoretical basis.

Understanding the practical challenges of ED requires an understanding of principles rooted in ecological science. Acknowledging ecosystem complexity is essential, as it underscores the fundamental difficulties associated with restoration and habitat creation. Complexity is inherently subjective, depending on both the observer’s perspective and the structure and behavior of the system itself [76]. Given that ecosystems consist of 10¹⁵ and 10²⁰ components with unique characteristics and interaction potentials, it is impossible to identify all the system components or predict all the possible interactions, making exact replication of ecological conditions unattainable [77]. This level of complexity challenges the establishment of transferable EDPs based on ecological models.

Moreover, the “restoration into what?” question posed by Simmenstad et al. [78] highlights the ambiguity of defining restoration goals. The lack of historical baseline certainty and the dynamic nature of ecosystems mean that restoration efforts rely on educated assumptions rather than definitive targets [79]. The complexity and incomplete understanding of ecological systems inevitably introduce uncertainty into both restoration processes and outcomes [80]. Additionally, assessing realistic expectations and potential to approximate restoration goals remains a significant challenge [78].

The role of native plants in promoting biodiversity also remains debatable among ecological scientists. While native species are often preferred, studies show that urban habitats with non-native species can support equal or even greater biodiversity [81,82]. In some cases, non-native species may even offer better habitat value than native ones [79]. Others argue that native plants perform better ecologically and aesthetically [83], but this may not be the case in highly altered urban environments where non-native plants can be more adaptable [84]. Importantly, planting decisions must also account for social acceptance, which is critical to the long-term success of designed landscapes.

Ecological succession is another ecological concept often invoked in ED. It is “one of the oldest and most controversial concepts in ecology”, and the factors influencing succession have been increasingly questioned—it is more a result of temporal change than a distinct ecological mechanism, and even if it does exist, it may have limited relevance to maintaining species diversity [85].

Given these ambiguities, examining the actual adoption of EDPs in practice is important/relevant. The 2012 analysis [8] showed a higher overall number of declared EDPs per project, with a small subset of parks implementing fourteen principles, though most included between six and twelve, and the majority declaring fewer than five. In contrast, the 2025 data show a decline in the number of declared principles per project. This may reflect a narrowing of scope, a shift in ecological goal forming within project narratives, a tendency toward more selective or implicit integration strategies, or EDPs becoming a common practice and not being emphasized in project descriptions.

Moreover, in 2012 [8], brownfield projects demonstrated significantly higher engagement with the EDPs than those in 2025. In that year, 12.5% of parks incorporated 11 and 14 principles each, more than 24% included 6 to 12 principles and 18.75% declared 10 principles. Only 31% implemented five or fewer. This suggests earlier brownfield projects more frequently declared EDPs in the project narratives and a broader range of EDPs than those proclaimed in the project descriptions over the past decade.

Comparing the frequency of specific principles between 2012 and 2025 reveals further trends. In 2012 [8], new habitat design and stormwater management dominated, each present in 60% of projects, alongside ecological restoration (53%), native planting (50%) and biological water purification (37%). By 2025, the prevalence of these ecological practices declined—stormwater management appeared in 30% of projects, habitat creation and biological water purification in 17% each and native planting in 14%,

This decline may indicate that these practices have become standardized and integrated within broader design strategies. Concurrently, new priorities emerged, such as community involvement (17%), material reuse (10%), public access to water edges (12%) and a notable rise in projects featuring diverse content (30%). Cranz and Boland [86] and Hermann [87] similarly highlighted key principles, while Calkins [50] reported frequent use of site protection (78%) and native planting (57%), while on-site water management remained infrequently applied (15%).

In the project narratives, new EDPs emerged that were not included in this study’s analysis, emphasizing resilience, climate adaptation, green infrastructure, and ecological connectivity. There is also a strong focus on innovation—both in design thinking and in technical solutions. All the themes align with the growing interest across observed across various recent studies in recent years, as noted by Heymans et al. [45] in a comprehensive analysis of published articles.

These shifts demonstrate an expansion of ED beyond environmental functions to encompass social engagement, material sustainability and multifunctional spatial programming. Overall, the results point to a transition from primarily ecological restoration-focused practices toward a holistic, integrated approach balancing ecological, social and cultural values—a role that has always been central to LD.

5.2. Design Composition Analysis

Given that artistic value is an inherent component of LD, it is important to note that the identified EDPs represent a set of technical and biotechnical processes and measures that fall outside the domain of artistic composition. Therefore, the design composition analysis focused exclusively on nine EDPs, which, despite their non-artistic origin, have characteristics that may, to a lesser or greater extent, influence the spatial and visual aspects of park design.

In 2012 [8], the paradigmatic influence of the EPDs on the overall park composition was minimal, observable in only 4% of projects, with a few others demonstrating significant yet not paradigmatic effects. The majority of projects exhibited moderate or limited integration of EDPs, indicating that at the time, these principles were largely peripheral or supplementary rather than essential to spatial and formal organization. By 2025, a substantial shift occurred and the integration of EDPs into the spatial composition is much more visible. Over 90% of parks received mid-to-high composition scores (three to five), suggesting that ecological values had become more embedded in the landscape composition (even though a smaller number of EDPs are declared in the project narratives).

At the regional level, Asia demonstrated the highest average score (4.4) across all the site types, while in other regions, the average score of brownfield sites is slightly higher, which suggests that brownfield contexts, due to their inherent ecological and structural challenges, often prompt deliberate and spatially impactful integration of EDPs. Overall, the comparison between 2012 and 2025 underscores a broader evolution: from the marginal ecological influence on the park design form to the widespread, often paradigmatic, incorporation of EDPs as fundamental drivers of landscape composition.

The EDPs manifested spatially across a wide range of design expressions—from close-to-nature forms to rigid geometric compositions—without indicating the emergence of a new stylistic language or a set of recognizable formal characteristics. These findings are consistent with the literature. There is no clear consensus among scholars regarding a characteristic style associated with ED. Some authors [86] argued that ED is stylistically open and adaptable to local conditions, while others associated it with naturalistic visual expressions [87]. Cranz and Boland [86] further contended that truly ecological parks must adopt an “evolutionary aesthetic”, one that evolves over time rather than conforming to a fixed or uniform appearance.

Although this does not suggest the development of a distinct new style (typically associated with every major social shift in history), it may indicate the emergence of a new model of the urban park: a park that “focuses on addressing ecological problems” and, in doing so, reflects changing cultural ideas about nature [86], but is not necessarily characterized by a specific or consistent formal expression.

6. Conclusions

Over the past decade, EDPs have evolved from an aspirational discourse to an increasingly embedded component of contemporary practice. While current projects declare fewer EDPs than in 2012, their influence on the spatial composition has become significantly more pronounced—indicating a shift from peripheral application to guiding design integration.

This study identified the most commonly declared principles—such as habitat preservation, stormwater management and reuse of existing structures—while also noting the emergence of new priorities like community involvement and diverse programmatic content. Although some originally dominant ecological practices appear less frequently today, this likely reflects their standardization within a broader design framework rather than a decline in ecological ambition.

The design composition analysis further confirmed this trend. Compared to 2012, when the EDPs had minimal influence on the formal and spatial organization, the 2025 projects demonstrate a widespread and deliberate integration of ecological principles across both brownfield and non-brownfield contexts.

Ultimately, this research affirms that EDPs are no longer peripheral ideas. They have become essential to shaping resilient, adaptive and socially attuned urban landscapes. However, advancing ED requires further integration of ecological theory with design practice, especially through interdisciplinary collaboration, long-term performance evaluation and even deeper engagement with local ecological and cultural conditions.

The mixed-method approach applied here—combining content analysis and design composition scoring—offers a replicable framework for assessing how ecological principles are articulated and spatially manifested in realized projects. However, some limitations should be acknowledged. The focus on park projects limits the generalizability of the findings to other types of designed landscapes, where ED may manifest differently. Additionally, the interpretation of the narrative project descriptions introduces subjectivity, as the EDPs can be described variably across authors. The uneven geographic distribution and exclusion of park size as a variable also limit the drawing of broader conclusions.

Future research should broaden the scope to include diverse urban typologies in order to better understand how EDPs are applied across contexts. Engaging with designers directly to identify which principles are intentionally applied would further strengthen the link between declared goals and implemented outcomes.