New Issue Published: Landscape Architecture, Volume 2026, Issue 1
Landscape Architecture is pleased to announce the publication of Volume 2026, Issue 3. The new issue is now available online
Planners of road corridors are thus confronted with the problem of how to translate capacity considerations into action within the context of valued landscapes that have been recognized as such by the local population. Public Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) can be used to identify these valued places. However, a survey of preferences does not necessarily yield information about the interpretation of weakly separated preservation options. In this paper, we apply the technique of Co-Valuation Tension Graphing to the question of how aggregate PPGIS data indicate preservation-stability, ambiguity-sensitivity, negotiation, and dependency on corridor planning as conditions for road-infrastructure development. Empirically, there are 1044 participants and 3132 mapped valued landscapes of Dutch corridor planning involving 1734 points, 1120 polygons, and 278 lines. The study applies sustainability-value coupling, land use selection, co-land use, and preservation-point concentration measures. The findings demonstrate that the public preference pattern is structured even if there is no preference for a unique sacrifice hierarchy. Company settlement and development potential show the strongest value coupling (rs = 0.596). Water body and soil represent the strongest substrate for environmental preservation (rs = 0.492). Agricultural land represents the most planning sensitive use because it shows positive relationships with ecology and biodiversity, soil, water bodies, and spatial quality and negative relationships with accessibility, development potential, citizen settlement, well-being and health, and social relevance. There is only very weak value selection of roads by preference scores but the land use adjacent to road infrastructure represents business, semi-built up, agricultural, and railway terrain. Preservation-point values demonstrate the extent of choice compression with 39.5% of respondents scoring above 50, 23.8% above 60, and 13.7% above 70 points. PPGIS tables may inform corridor planning if interpreted as relational evidence of value coupling, land use sensitivity, and preservation compression.
Green-area comparisons based solely on percentage cover, patch count, and aggregated connectivity may understate the stress on green systems caused by their high population pressure, limited resident-level supply, fine-grained grain, concentration of connectivity, and water shortage in dry climates. For the current comparison, the Population adjusted Connectivity Stress and Leverage (PaCSL) is calculated for the cities of Almada, Antwerp, Lisbon, Paris, Poznan, Tartu, and Zurich. PaCSL includes five normalized stress indices: population pressure, supply of green areas per 1000 residents, UGA fine-grained morphology, dominance of large or highly connected patches, and climate-induced water constraints. A distinct leverage factor is calculated as the product of the connectivity intensity and the percentage of green area cover, thus allowing to separate stressed systems from those with high consolidation potential. As the comparison demonstrates, the green percentage measure is an insufficient criterion for evaluating green-network condition in cities. For instance, Paris and Lisbon both have 16\% green areas, yet in Paris there is a much smaller share of green area per 1000 inhabitants (0.80 ha) compared to Lisbon where this figure stands at 2.49 ha per 1000. Paris has the largest PaCS stress index (0.989) with its maximum population pressure, maximum green supply scarcity, near-maximum UGA grain stress, maximum dominance, and moderate water constraint. The second highest score belongs to Lisbon (0.522) primarily due to small amount of green space per 1000 residents and severe water constraint. The third position, with PaCSL scores of 0.377 and 0.350 respectively, is shared by Almada and Tartu; however, the two have vastly differing leverage values of 0.835 and 0.018. Zurich has the largest leverage score (1.000) corresponding to 30\% green coverage and 292.90 connectivity units per hectare.
The importance of urban green infrastructure can be stated in terms of contributions to climate adaptation, biodiversity preservation, health benefits, community revitalisation, and environmental justice. Nevertheless, the potential contribution of urban green infrastructure to resilience may be overstated because strong ecological or innovation components can offset poor performance in terms of governance, autonomy, and social cohesion. In the case of the municipal programme for urban green infrastructure in Madrid between 2015 and 2019, one may distinguish 21 districts with more than three million inhabitants, a population density of 5512 inhabitants per km2, 18.3 m2 of green space per inhabitant, 1.4 trees per three inhabitants, 27 urban green infrastructure policies, 620 geolocated actions, 30 resilience indicators, six factor scores, and district vulnerability values. From a set of six factor scores, one can discern the following picture of the profile of this municipality: learning and innovation and social-ecological justice have reached 0.98 on the 0–2 scale; diversity – 0.95; social cohesion – 0.81; self-sufficiency and autonomy – 0.76; and polycentric governance – 0.69. The highest mean score (6.97) among all sets of three policies belongs to HI_plan, MD_info, and MI_plan. Together with GIB_plan and GS_plan, this constitutes a five-policy strategic core with a mean score of 6.74 and a better municipal balance due to the link between neighbourhood participation and planning continuity. District action scores correlate rather strongly (r = 0.569) and positively with the proportion of low-education or no-education residents, i.e., a partial pro-vulnerability orientation exists.
Landscape Architecture invites submissions for Volume 2026, Issue 3, scheduled for publication in September 2026. The journal welcomes high-quality scholarly contributions that advance research, theory, criticism, and applied knowledge in landscape architecture and related fields.
Landscape Architecture is pleased to announce the publication of Volume 2026, Issue 3. The new issue is now available online