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
Green-roof inventories for municipalities should be able to discriminate between confirmed roofs greening and vegetation intersecting building footprints. It is true especially for Lisbon with historical red clay roofs, flat individual roofs, trees on the borders of streets, and communal podium-type green spaces in a dense urban fabric. This paper investigates whether Lisbon’s candidate inventory reflects the condition which should be prioritized for field validation when the accuracy of image-class classification is high but the object assignment differs by morphology. The dataset consists of an eight-band WorldView-2 image obtained on 18 February 2022, twelve observations made monthly with Sentinel-2 in 2023, 54,800 municipality building footprints, 4,015 grouped-building detections, 371 final candidates, and 196 verified green roofs. The investigation follows five-stage procedure that is built into the Lisbon record: class-specific reliability of the image classification, successive elimination, beta-binomial posterior credibility, seasonal NDVI margins, and inspection burden distribution. The classification audit of the WorldView-2 image is quite successful as evidenced by the overall accuracy value of 0.950, Cohen’s κ of 0.914, vegetation F1 of 0.960, and unsuitable-roof F1 of 0.947. These numbers confirm the greenness and materials-based screening but not the roof attribution. Validation of the objects is very typologically specific: 50 out of 176 individual-roof candidates pass the test, versus 146 out of 195 shared space candidates. The verification odds for the shared space path are 7.51 higher than for the individual-building path, and the reliability-adjusted posterior intervals stay well-separated. The seasonal NDVI discriminates the two types too, since top-level roofs span 0.25-0.31 margins around the 0.30 gate, while shared space roofs are located above the gate at 0.32-0.49. In summary, Lisbon’s candidate map includes two separate streams of verification: individual roofs need specific error detection while common space roofs present the high yielding approach to completion of the city’s inventory.
Where high-albedo roofs and pavements reduce the amount of heat absorption through solar rays, the annual residential-energy implications will depend on whether the home appliances used are electric-powered cooling, gas space heating or heat pumps. The key issue here is how the 15–30% neighborhood high-albedo application should be interpreted, where air-temperature reliability is strongest under specific conditions and the same housing stock has both cooling and heating technology overlap. Seasonal Reversal–Technology Allocation Sizing (SRTAS) analysis is employed using the following numerical examples: temperatures for Los Angeles and Seattle in terms of validation quantities; Pacoima treated-area high-albedo impact; demand for cooling reduced by albedo and cool roofs; and a 89-home Los Angeles County residential-equipment inventory data set. The residential equipment data set involves 58 homes using electric cooling, 53 using gas heating, 40 using electric cooling and gas heating, and 6 using heat-pump cooling and heating. Los Angeles offers 25.7% contraction in near-surface air-temperature MAE at all hours and 32.4% in the highest built-volume cells. On the other hand, Seattle offers modest contraction in all hours, although it achieves 30.3% contraction in MAE during the hottest hour, thus creating a hot-tail concentration of 4.04. The 15–30% albedo range offers approximately 0.0107 °C cooling per treated-area percentage point while the 30% albedo plus cool-roof case results in an 11% reduction in the increase in cooling demand, hence avoiding 57.9% of the warming-induced increment. It changes the claim that technology allocation: gas-heating exposure 0.923 relative to electric-cooling exposure; non-heat-pump reversal pressure 0.815 and heat-pump exposure 0.108. The research data confirm heat adaptation and cooling demand reduction, but not any unconditional annual energy savings statement, unless cool roof envelope advantages and heat pump conversion are mentioned in the same context in one claim.
Historic centers tend to be appreciated due to symbolism and architecture; meanwhile, their regular users interact with them through effort, heat, surface, seating, signposting, landscaping maintenance, and opportunity to stop during the trip. Bursa’s historic center is studied as an open corridor combining heritage, business, arrival via transport, and urban routine of Green Tomb, Setbaşı, Heykel, Historical Hans District, Tophane, National Garden, Reşat Oyal Culture Park, and adjacent streets. The data includes 250 users and four indices: Need-Conversion Ordering, Affordance–Demand Imbalance, Neutrality Retention Screening, and Adequacy–Satisfaction Divergence. Satisfaction, adequacy, demand, reliability, demographic, access-mode, duration of stay, and activity data are used in combination to rank public realm support. The prolonged and transit-related nature of use makes the interpretation of results different from planning one. In total, 69.20% of respondents were staying for more than two hours and 44.40% arrived by bus or minibus; therefore, the corridor should be seen in terms of pedestrian connectivity after arrival. The maximum need conversion is provided by green connectivity and rest in the shade (58.28), followed by connectivity and universally available route (52.18). The biggest gap between afforded and demanded features is green connectivity (61.53), followed by accessibility (57.34), and tourism interpretation (50.32). The equipment and maintenance is the index with the highest neutrality retention weight (3.67); meanwhile, comfort and image are indices with the highest adequacy-satisfaction divergence (26.69). Therefore, the historic center of Bursa should be developed first in terms of long-term, walkable, shady, and accessible public realm corridor; meanwhile, interpretive and identity-related efforts will work once this framework is set up.
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