Research in Urban Ecology: Application into Landscape Design and Green Infrastructure

The recent research in urban ecology has increasingly emphasized the need to integrate ecological knowledge into landscape design and green infrastructure (GI) planning [1,2,3]. Such integration advances the development of more sustainable and resilient cities that benefit both humans and nature, address current societal challenges, and improve the health of urban ecosystems and city residents [4].

Conceptualizing the city as a complex of ecosystems or biotope types shaped by human–nature interactions, urban ecology focuses on the dynamic interplay between people and nature within these modified landscapes [5]. Its interdisciplinary approach encompasses a wide range of topics, including the urban heat island effect, pollution, hydrology, soil science, urban vegetation, and wildlife. In recent years, urban ecology has evolved beyond studying ecological patterns and processes in cities to actively promoting ecosystem services (ES), guiding nature-based solutions (NBS), and fostering urban development that supports biodiversity and human wellbeing [5,6].

The knowledge derived from urban ecology is fundamental for landscape design practice, which aims to create sustainable ecosystems and integrated GI networks. Building on this foundation, landscape design applies principles of urban ecology to create urban environments that enhance ecological functions, conserve resources, and foster socio-environmental resilience. Complementing these efforts, GI planning contributes to establishing interconnected networks of natural and semi-natural areas (e.g., parks, green roofs, urban wetlands) to enhance ES and meet societal needs [5,6,7]. Achieving these outcomes requires both inter- and transdisciplinary approaches that integrate knowledge from ecology, urban planning and design, and social sciences, while actively engaging various stakeholders through co-creation. Such collaboration ensures that scientific insights, practical considerations, and various community perspectives inform urban development strategies. This integration links urban ecological research with practical design strategies across disciplines and societal needs, enabling cities to pursue ecological and social outcomes in contemporary urban landscapes.

This Special Issue aims to introduce and discuss various research approaches focused on integrating ecological knowledge into landscape design and GI planning. It brings together diverse methodologies, conceptual frameworks, and tools alongside case studies from multiple countries to demonstrate the benefits of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. The contributions are organized around three thematic areas:

(a)

Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services for climate resilience and multifunctionality. The papers of this thematic area explore how GI can be strategically designed to enhance resilience, equity, and sustainability through promoting ES and multifunctionality. In particular, Blaschke et al. examine the role of UGS within Aotearoa New Zealand’s cities in addressing climate change and biodiversity loss and promoting human wellbeing and equity, with particular attention to UGS distribution, accessibility, and quality; Indigenous and community values; and integration with existing infrastructure. The value of UGS for climate change mitigation and urban sustainability is also addressed in the study of Rehman et al., which evaluates the carbon sequestration potential and other benefits from native trees in urban parks of Multan City, Pakistan. Russo et al. examine how native and non-native plant selection influences urban biodiversity, ES, and climate resilience in UGS, highlighting strategies such as mixed-species plantings and conservation gardening to enhance multifunctionality and support resilient UGI. Romzaykina et al. investigate the functionality of rain gardens, an important element of UGI and NBS, and the effects of salinization stress and de-icing chemicals on rain gardens’ soils, plants, and groundwater quality, using Moscow, Russia, as a case study.

(b)

Practical methods and tools for biodiversity planning and design, and restoration measures. Papers here address practical applications of ecological design by providing tools and methods for biodiversity assessment, planning, and design. Theis et al. introduce the New Zealand Biodiversity Factor–Residential (NZBF-R), a tool that rapidly evaluates and ranks urban residential developments based on their capacity to support native biodiversity, providing evidence-based recommendations for urban planners and landscape designers. Deparis et al. link herbaceous plant diversity to specific urban land uses at the city block scale in Blois, France, providing urban planners with a spatially explicit method to manage biodiversity and reduce biotic homogenization from local to city scales. Fernandes et al. evaluate commercially available seed mixes in Portugal, focusing on their taxonomic composition, origin, life cycle traits, and potential to support pollinator communities, highlighting their potential as a cost-effective tool to enhance pollinator habitats and urban biodiversity while noting limitations in taxonomic diversity and ecological transparency. Ignatieva et al. identify challenges in implementing ecological design in public green spaces in Hue City, Vietnam, illustrating how hybrid ecological approaches, prioritization of ES, and public engagement can support effective restoration and design. Menichino et al. present a phased, multi-scale decision-making framework for urban stream restoration in Utoy Creek, Atlanta, USA, providing practitioners with a structured approach (guide) that integrates ecological, social, and economic considerations in watershed-scale restoration projects.

(c)

Social dimension and stakeholder engagement in urban ecology, design, and restoration. This theme emphasizes approaches that translate ecological knowledge into urban design and restoration while actively engaging stakeholders and communities. By studying public preferences for native versus non-native plants in UGS, Russo et al. emphasize how conservation gardening and community involvement can enhance ES, biodiversity, and climate resilience while aligning with local values and perceptions. Ignatieva et al. explore stakeholder perspectives and demonstrate that inclusive engagement strategies and hybrid ecological approaches are essential for successful urban restoration and design. Menichino et al., while focusing on a technical framework for urban stream restoration, also incorporate multi-stakeholder participation in their phased, multi-scale decision-making process, illustrating how participatory approaches support both ecological and social outcomes in urban restoration.

Table 1. List of contributions, key methods used, and relevance to the thematic area.

List of Papers	Author (Year)	Case Study Area	Method(s) Used	Thematic Area	Main Output
1	Blaschke et al. (2024)	Aotearoa New Zealand cities	Narrative review, meta-analysis of existing studies, synthesis across quantitative and qualitative studies	a	Review results/synthesis
2	Rehman et al. (2025)	Multan City, Pakistan	Empirical field inventory of trees, soil sampling	a	Applied empirical carbon/valuation calculations
3	Russo et al. (2025)	worldwide/review	Targeted literature review, analysis and synthesis of findings, case examples, and comparative analysis	a, c	Review results on public preferences for native vs. non-native plant species for UGS design and management, recommendations for plant selection
4	Romzaykina et al. (2025)	Moscow, Russia	Mesocosm experiment (soil mixtures, plant species, deicer, irrigation regimes), measurement of soil and plant health, groundwater quality	a	Experimental results and rain garden design recommendations
5	Theis et al. (2025)	Aotearoa New Zealand	Literature review, analysis of existing Green Factor tools, weighting and scoring design features, case application to residential development	b	Scoring tool for urban planning and design to assess the biodiversity of residential developments
6	Deparis et al. (2025)	Blois, France	Case study, aerial photographs and in situ observations (city block scale field surveys), mapping of urban land use, statistical correlation/modeling (plant diversity and urban use)	b	Mapping/spatial correlation outputs
7	Fernandes et al. (2025)	Portugal	Systematic screening of commercially available seed mixes, synthesis of ecological literature on pollinators, case examples	b	Guidelines/template seed mix suggestions
8	Ignatieva et al. (2023)	Hue City, Vietnam	Qualitative stakeholder interviews, participatory workshops, case study analysis, thematic coding of challenges and barriers	b, c	Stakeholder framework/governance insights
9	Menichino et al. (2025)	Utoy Creek, Atlanta, USA	Project documentation and decision analysis, site screening, multicriteria decision-making, integrating hydrological modeling, stakeholder input, ecological metrics	c	Phased decision-making framework/template for prioritization and design in urban restoration

presents an overview of the papers submitted to this issue, including their study regions, applied methodologies, thematic areas, and key outputs.

Looking at the geography of the case studies presented, we can state that they span Europe (France, Portugal, and Russia), Asia (Vietnam and Pakistan), North America (USA), and Oceania (New Zealand and Australia), offering a broad diversity in both the Global North and South. Spatially, while most studies focus on the city scale, others address block-scale and national-level planning.

Methodologically, the papers in this issue employ a diverse mix of quantitative (e.g., carbon modeling, GIS, field measurements) and qualitative (e.g., stakeholder interviews, surveys) approaches, alongside conceptual and literature-based analyses. The majority of empirical studies involved field research and environmental data collection, such as soil and vegetation sampling, water quality analysis, plant inventories, and carbon measurements. These empirical studies are often complemented by spatial analysis, including land-use mapping, GIS, and modeling, to assess relationships between plant diversity, urban land use, and climate resilience. Several studies propose new tools and planning models to support biodiversity or GI decision-making, such as the NZBF-R tool to rapidly evaluate and rank biodiversity and assess various design options in residential developments, or a phased, multi-scale decision-making framework for urban stream restoration, integrating technical requirements, GIS/hydrological modeling, and stakeholder engagement. Qualitative and participatory methods are also employed, including semi-structured interviews, participatory planning sessions, and stakeholder analysis, to examine the implementation of ecological design in UGS. Two papers rely primarily on conceptual and analytical approaches, combining literature synthesis, ES valuation, and statistical analysis of public preferences to examine implications of plant selection or conducting a literature review to develop a high-level framework linking UGS to resilience, sustainability, and equity. Overall, the studies demonstrate an interdisciplinary integration of ecological, planning, and social science methods, often combining applied, participatory, and analytical approaches to support evidence-based urban ecology and landscape design.

The papers presented in this collection advance knowledge about (a) urban ecosystems functioning under a range of stressors (e.g., salinization, urbanization, climate change), (b) implications for UGS design and management, and (c) practical tools and strategies that support practitioners in operationalizing ecological knowledge in the planning and design of urban landscapes and GI. The studies emphasize the importance of plant and wildlife diversity, public preferences and perceptions, and local conditions such as geographical and socioeconomic contexts, informing the design of more resilient and culturally relevant UGS. Importantly, they highlight the value of interdisciplinary (combining ecology, urban planning, social science, and engineering) and transdisciplinary (engaging diverse stakeholders) approaches.

Despite these advancements, several research gaps remain, representing critical opportunities to deepen our understanding and improve the effectiveness of ecological design in diverse urban contexts. Below, we emphasize the revealed research gaps and outline priority directions for future research:

(1)

Scales and temporal dimensions. Although the studies examine urban ecosystems across various scales—from plant-level interventions (e.g., seed mixes and tree selection) and household and block-scale (planting choices, plant diversity, and urban uses) to city-scale GI networks—future research should further explore linkages between micro- and macro-scale ecological dynamics. In addition, there is a need for studies that track ecological changes over time (e.g., changes in vegetation composition/succession, soil quality, and water quality) to provide deeper insights into the temporal dimension of urban ecological processes.

(2)

Comparative international studies. While the contributions cover a broad geographical scope (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, France, Portugal, Pakistan, Russia, Vietnam, and the USA), only a few directly compare strategies for GI implementation or ecological design across bioclimatic zones and socioeconomic contexts. Thus, future research could focus on comparative North–South case studies and cross-cultural aspects of designing and managing UGS and GI.

(3)

Inclusive and participatory design methods. Several studies incorporate stakeholder perspectives; still, approaches based on co-creation remain relatively uncommon. To address this gap, future research should emphasize community-led planning, design, and decision-making and investigate how different social groups experience, value, and contribute to the co-creation of urban nature.

(4)

Integration of science, policy, and practice. While studies propose innovative tools, strategies, and frameworks (e.g., NZBF-R, phased stream restoration), only a few of them track their actual uptake in policy or planning practice. Therefore, it is crucial for future research to map the implementation of ecological planning tools within municipal and regional processes and assess feedback loops between research, policy, and practice to advance evidence-based and actionable solutions.

The contributions featured in this Special Issue reflect the growing attention of researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers to integrating ecological knowledge into the planning, design, and management of different types of UGS. Across diverse geographic and cultural contexts, the articles illustrate the dedicated efforts of researchers and practitioners to develop and apply context-specific and innovative strategies for creating urban environments that are both biodiverse and responsive to community needs. The studies further emphasize the importance of multifunctionality and diversity in UGS to ensure the delivery of a wide range of ES, while also highlighting the value of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches.

We hope that the second volume of this Special Issue will advance the outlined research directions and help bridge the gaps between scientific research, planning and design practice, real-world implementation, and policy-making. In doing so, it will support the co-development and application of innovative approaches (such as NBS [8,9,10,11] and nature-positive initiatives [12,13]) that promote urban sustainability and resilience through more inclusive, collaborative, and actionable knowledge led by the principle of building with nature and people.