1  

Decoding the Genotype of Greenway Design Thinking and Practice: A Steadmanian frame for systematic understanding, synthesis and tracking multidisciplinary discourse Archana Sharma Morgan State University 1700 E.Cold Spring Lane Baltimore MD 21251 USA E-mail: archsharma1@gmail.com

Abstract The concept of Greenway has been gaining strength in its role as an organizational strategy for the matrix of open, naturalistic, urban spaces. Multi-disciplinary approaches and methods have increasingly making their way into the Greenway design and planning. Multidisciplinary infusions and ongoing evolution of Greenway thinking, places a demand for a frame that facilitates a systematic understanding, synthesis and tracking of the changes in thinking and Practice since a clear understanding of the current is fundamental to craft the future. As a response to this need of a universal frame, the paper explores and advocates for a Steadmanian frame of Genotype and Phenotype. A targeted review of ecology-oriented Greenways is undertaken for synthesis of emergent theories, design approaches and Practice over the past decade. In conclusion, the article provides clarity to the emergent multi-disciplinary knowledge base, elucidates the genotype, or core principles, of Greenway design thinking and Practice and presents an interdisciplinary universal frame for systematic articulation, presentation and tracking of multidisciplinary Greenway approaches. The article is one in the series on experiments in integration of other, scientific frames in design thinking.

Keywords: Greenway, landscape, architecture, urban planning, sustainability, STEM, design thinking, Frontiers of Architectural Research, Fabos Landscape and Greenway Planning Conferences

1. Introduction A critical survey of emerging ecology-oriented Greenway design theories and

methods is the foundation for explicit abstraction of the “core” or genotype of the same, and is presented in this section. The works of leading landscape architecture practitioners and scholars, such as Olmsted (1978), McHarg (1992), Forman (1995), Little (1990), Fabos and Ahern (1996), Fabos (2004), have built the case for Greenway planning and raised awareness regarding Greenway concept as a significant linear landscape planning strategy. An in-depth review of nomenclature and definitions associated with Greenway sums up the popular understanding of Greenway in terms of a multipurpose, multifunctional, linear connection that addresses both social and ecological concerns (Fabos, 2004; Hellmund & Smith, 2006). A recent review of Greenway projects presents definitions emerging from real-world Practice (Sharma, 2010). For example, one definition of Greenway planning can be drawn from the descriptions of the Park Connector Network in Singapore as follows: a Greenway enhances aesthetics, provides a biodiversity corridor, serves as a noise and pollution buffer between

  2  

residential and industrial zones and creates pedestrian as well as automobile friendly connections while also linking open water systems as a means of water resource conservation and storm water management. The Green Wedges in Melbourne, Australia, are similar to a greenbelt style containment typology. The design allows the allocation of open landscapes at the urban edge of metropolitan Melbourne to inhibit urban sprawl and to conserve significant natural resources and the rural landscape. The Greenway Plan for Knoxville, Tennessee approaches the Greenway as a land planning strategy that provides a connected and cohesive system of parks and recreation facilities throughout the city and county while also facilitating resource preservation. The traditional understanding of a Greenway as “a linear, multi-purpose, multi-functional landscape” (Fabos, 2004) has been modified to suit the specific needs of a variety of places. This modification thus increases the multi-purpose, multi-functional application of Greenway theory.

Contemporary Greenway design thinking and Practice is largely constructed from sociological approaches to human behavior and the environment (Flink, Searns and Schwarz, 1993; Flink, Olka and Searns, 2001; Lindsey, Wilson, Jihui and Christopher, 2008). The ecology-based approach to designing linear landscapes was explained by Ian McHarg in Design with Nature (1992) and Richard Forman in Land Mosaics (1995). The ecological premise was that development is inevitable and should be accommodated, but with conscious attention to the local ecology. The concept of land suitability was precisely aimed at directing development decisions to consider the prevailing microclimatic conditions, as famously illustrated in the case studies of Staten Island and the Potomac River Basin [McHarg, (1992), p.105–115, 127–151]. The “Jaws” model for optimum ecological spatial transformation was proposed to ensure conservation of the original habitat, facilitate connectivity, and provide biodiversity habitat options [Forman, (1995), p. 209–252, 429]. How these original ideas developed and were applied during the last decade, using the theoretical lens of genotypes, is analyzed in the subsequent sections.

Method The research used several instruments of analysis throughout this project, including literature review, documentary analysis (newspaper articles, journal articles, project proposals, vision plans and other reports), direct observation and personal conversations with Greenway planners such as Will Skelton, Sam Rogers and Donna Young at Knoxville and other prominent planners at the Fabos Landscape and Greenway Planning Conferences in 2010 and 2013. A critical review of the seminal texts on the topic is undertaken in the sections on Theory and Practice, to gain further in-depth understanding of contemporary ecology-oriented approaches, goals and motivations behind Greenway visioning and planning. This section of the paper follows the review article format, which is emphasized in Deming and Swaffield’s (2011, p.146) through a quote by Spirn (2009, p.121). The critical review section closes with a meta-analysis or the “analysis of analyses/ analyses squared (Deming and Swaffield, 2011)”, and is presented under “Discussion” section. The review of Practice, is mostly based on case studies in the United States of America; the results are to be read with this geographical scope in mind. Key themes and goals-based tabulation is commonly used as an information-filtering system by many researchers, including those in landscape planning and sustainable design such as Leitao and Ahern (2002) and Kim (2005). Based on this classification, the descriptors of Greenway theories, approaches and Practice will be organized to reveal inherent patterns and principles. Typological classification method is

  3  

commonly used in operational research in pattern recognition among biodiversity studies and evolutionary sciences (Jackson, 1971; Wharton, 1982; Vane-Wright, 2013). Additionally, the observations of Steadman (Steadman, 2008, p.78) on human design in terms of “genotype, which is the ‘description’ of the species transmitted through biological heredity,” and “phenotype, which is the physical embodiment of what is described (‘description’) in the individual organic body,” will be employed as a classification framework to further understand and organize descriptive information on the Greenway. The Greenway as finally constructed will be regarded as the phenotype because it is the embodiment of the conceptual descriptors. Within the Discussion section, the theory and Practice are further synthesized using deduction and constructivism to derive the genotype or the core structure of the Greenway. The genotypic and phenotypic classification is explored as a framework for understanding, explaining and developing Greenway design and planning thinking. In view of a wide range of interpretations related to the Greenway, it is important to identify author’s interpretation, or the operational definition, that will be used throughout this article. The operational definitions are as follows: A Greenway is a linear connection or a network of paths (emphasizing human usability via walkability and bikeability) that is tree-lined or landscaped for green-cover to either provide shade, cooling and comfort for humans or provide an anchor for other biodiversity and storm water catchment, cleaning, collection and dispersion, all with the goal of social comfort, ecological well-being and ecology-oriented urban planning. Genotype is broadly interpreted as the “description of core concepts and principles” based on Steadman’s definition (2008, p.78).

2. THEORY Forman’s landscape ecology, or the patch corridor matrix (PCM) approach, is a key

natural ecosystem-based approach that is applied in Greenway design [Hellmund & Smith, (2006), p.43]. Ndubisi et al. employ the tenets of Forman’s research when suggesting the connection of environmentally sensitive areas into Greenway corridors to ensure their long-term maintenance as well as the health of the biological diversity, soil, water, and other natural resources on the site and in a regional context [Ndubisi et al., (1995), p.159–177]. A methodology to make these connections has been proposed by Ahern, who identifies and applies protective, offensive (to imply aggressive), defensive and opportunistic conservation-based connection criteria [Ahern, (1995), p.140]. This method appears to be based on the corridor analyses conducted by Forman in Land Mosaics (1995). The other framework inspired by biological conservation and Forman’s PCM approach is the Southeastern Ecological Framework (SEF). The SEF project was designed to create a decision support tool for the conservation and protection of ecosystems in the southeastern region (Carr, Thomas and Goodison, 2002). A systematic analysis of ecologically significant and critical landscape linkages formed the backbone of this framework. The criteria for selecting areas of ecological significance and prioritizing conservation were determined based on biological conservation and landscape ecology theories [Carr, Thomas and Goodison, (2002), p. 3–4, 18–23].

Interdisciplinary research using graph theory is also emerging. Mathematics- and graph-based research is increasingly used as a basis for making decisions about landscape connectivity for biodiversity conservation. Focal-species analysis has been used to apply a graph-theoretic approach when exploring the correlation between landscape connectivity

  4  

and biodiversity presence as well as dispersal patterns (Bunn, Urban, & Keitt, 2000). For example, using a mathematical graph, fast algorithms, and compact data structures, researchers discovered that although two specific species of weasel and bird shared the same habitat, they possessed different dispersal capabilities. The advantage of a graph-theoretic approach over other modeling techniques is that it is a heuristic framework that can be applied with very little data and still provide improved results (Bunn, Urban, & Keitt, 2000). A probability of connectivity index is offered as a more holistic approach to assist with connectivity decisions for landscape-conservation planning (Saura & Puscual-Hortal, 2007). In this approach, habitat availability and dispersal patterns are aggregated using graphs. In reference to Greenway planning, Giordano and Reidel (2008) investigated the multicriteria analysis method, which is primarily used to study various possibilities regarding multiple criteria and conflicting variables. This method aggregates Boolean logic, weight linear combination, and ordered weighted average to enable the appraisal of spatial decisions according to risks and trade-offs [Giordano & Reidel, (2008), p. 302–303]. The ecological network approach also uses landscape structure indices to facilitate decision making on landscape connectivity and conservation priority areas (Cook, 2002). A study of the gaps in the PCM, combined with the quantitative values of the tangible and intangible characteristics of PCM within the landscape matrix, forms the backbone of these analyses.

Brunckhorst, Phillip, and Reeve (2006) suggested eco-civic optimization as a solution to regional resource management. They observed that civic society might not always care for natural resources or Greenways in their own neighborhoods because of personal preferences or memories. Therefore, the ecological regions that must be preserved should be defined with a sensitive understanding of the civic and political community’s geographical area of interest. The ecological conservation of the area would then most likely receive continued civic and political interest.

The ecological land-use complementation approach builds on the idea that urban green areas and other land used in this context could synergistically support biodiversity when clustered together in different combinations of sizes and shapes (Colding, 2007). The probability that different species of birds occupy parks and urban green areas is subject to the area requirements of the individual bird species, the availability of food and nest sites, maximum nest concealment, and other aspects related to interspecies competition. These research findings agree with the ecological land-use complementation approach, which proposes various combinations of urban green patches to meet the various objectives of biodiversity conservation and social recreation at the city and neighborhood levels.

The eco-cultural analysis framework suggests an assessment of ecological and cultural resource values as an integrated whole [Pena et al., (2010), p.976]. This framework, which could be applied to Greenways in both urban and rural contexts, emphasizes nature-based tourism, cultural resource conservation, and education on the value of Greenways. The primary concerns in planning Greenways in an urban context should be the characteristics of the local landscape, the recovery of fragile natural areas, the integration of cultural elements, and historic memory; the socioeconomic and physical well-being of the local population along with access to cultural resources should be carefully addressed when planning Greenways in a rural context [Pena et al., (2010), p.982].

  5  

The independent disciplinary objectives thus inadvertently get introduced into these ecological frameworks. For instance, one of the core concerns of the Eco-civic optimization framework is urban greening and it draws from sociological and transportation: geospatial, mathematical studies. Disciplinary concerns or goals of socio-psychology and spatial geometry are thus inadvertently integrated in the otherwise biology conservation oriented methods, which traditionally focus on eco-system functions and biodiversity behavior. Or in landscape architecture and planning oriented discourse that may focus on visual aesthetics and history and cultural value based goals.

3. PRACTICE To understand the nature of emerging Greenway Practice, sixty-six articles on the topic were reviewed, and eleven articles that explicitly focused on the articulation of ecology-oriented frameworks were examined in greater detail in the section above. To examine the integration of ecological thinking and frameworks in Practice, critical essays and proposals for twenty-three Greenway projects were reviewed; ten of those were noteworthy for their references to ecology and are discussed in the following segment.

The Knoxville city-county Greenways plan draws from the Knoxville bike plan proposed in 1975, the 1992 Knoxville Greenways and Community Trails Commission Report, the 1998 Knox County Park and Recreation Facility Plan, and the 1999 Knoxville Parks, Greenways, and Open Space Resource Inventory (City of Knoxville, 2012; KRTPO, 2012; KMPC, 2009). The plan calls for promoting sustainability and green infrastructure through the inclusion of energy-saving and water-conserving technologies while maintaining the identity of the Knoxville community. For economic revitalization, the plan emphasizes the multipurpose design of sports fields, green trails and the role of natural beauty in maintaining property values [Knoxville Metropolitan Planning Commission, (2009), p.14, 19–21].

The vision for Greenways in Nashville, Tennessee, primarily concerns physically connecting the community and regards the Greenway as an alternative mode of transportation. This vision intends to connect people to parks, waterways, hillsides, biodiversity, downtown, schools, and other areas of activity; the objective is also to connect people with one another by linking the existing and proposed bike paths and green trails (Nashville Metropolitan Board of Parks and Recreation, 2012; Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 2012). Considering that providing access for all citizens to natural resources and recreational opportunities is the key motto of this plan, the planning of the Greenway route will be guided by the locations of great view sheds. The Greenway vision for the city of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, advocates for “the preservation, protection, and appropriate recreational use of floodplains in Charlotte-Mecklenburg . . . to create a more livable and sustainable community” [Haden & Stanziale, (2010), p.31]. The plan was initially proposed in 1980 as a “green necklace” along the creeks and streams of the county, and it was updated in 1998 to include floodplain management and water-quality buffer objectives (Mecklenburg County, 2012). The provision of walkable and bikeable connections for recreational opportunities close to homes and work places was a parallel agenda.

  6  

In 1974, the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, created a Greenway commission and embarked on implementing the Capital Area Greenway program. The 1970s flooding of Crabtree Valley appears to have influenced the creation of the Capital Area Greenway Trail System, one of the earliest community-wide Greenway programs in the United States. The Greenway system of Raleigh protects approximately 2,000 acres of land and includes almost 50 miles of interconnected trails spreading over approximately 3,000 acres (City of Raleigh, 2012). Morganton, a small and pretty retirement town of approximately five square miles in North Carolina, intends to use a Greenway as a means of urban renewal (City of Morganton, 2012). The idea is that a Greenway will facilitate the resource preservation in the area while simultaneously enhancing the “attraction value” of the town to new clients — retirees as well as tourists.

The Floyds Fork Greenway Master Plan establishes the design of more than 4,000 acres of new parkland at the edge of the metro region of Louisville, Kentucky (City of Louisville, 2012). This plan proposes to increase biodiversity through habitat preservation and enhancement, improve water quality through innovative storm-water management techniques, and preserve agricultural land. Balancing land conservation with development and educating people on low-impact sustainable development are other goals of this plan. The plan proposes to protect the unique landscape of both the Floyds Fork Greenway and the 100-mile Louisville Loop while leveraging and integrating regional land-use plans, transportation networks, and water and sewer infrastructure plans.

The initial goal of the Marietta County, Georgia, Greenway project was to allow “bicycling and walking fulfill important functions in the overall transportation network and in people’s everyday lives” (Cobb County Department of Transportation, 2012). The plan builds on the Cobb County Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan published in 1993. The plan also applies the 1997 Cobb County Rail Trail Master Plan that transformed an abandoned CSX railway corridor into the Silver Comet Trail, the county’s most recognizable biking and walking facility.

The Hudson River Greenway in New Jersey was built upon the Greenway Act of 1991 with aspirations to “revitalize beneficial water-dependent industries” and “foster development of tourism destination facilities” (New York State, 2012). The overarching goal of the Greenway network in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, is to protect ecologically valuable lands for present and future generations and to provide open space, recreational opportunities, and alternative transportation. The plan links with the State of Maryland’s green infrastructure initiative. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources organized this statewide effort to identify and protect large contiguous blocks of ecologically significant natural areas by connecting them with natural corridors and Anne Arundel County’s land preservation and recreational planning program. The decision of where to locate the Greenway was made through ecology-based criteria, such as habitat value, habitat size, and the ecological conditions of the land being connected. The plan details the design for hubs and corridors within the Greenway network. A hub is an area of at least 250 acres with a high ratio of interior habitat to edge habitat, and a corridor has a minimum width of 200 feet (Anne Arundel County, 2002).

Baltimore, Maryland, represents a unique scenario of a shrinking human population because of emigration. The city’s parks and Greenway system covers approximately 5,700

  7  

acres of land that includes large city parks, golf courses, community parks, neighborhood play lots, open spaces, playfields or courts-only parks, urban lots, and traffic islands (Maryland Greenways Commission, 2000). Half of the system is composed of lots smaller than one acre in size. The design and planning of new Greenways to connect neighborhoods is rooted in the idea that an aesthetically pleasing, safe, and livable system of open landscape can restrain additional population emigration. Regarding planning, the Baltimore Greenway system takes direction from the 1904 Report “Upon the Development of Public Grounds for Greater Baltimore” issued by the Olmsted Brothers Landscape Architects. The Baltimore Greenway system intends to weave together the fragmented urban fabric of the city of Baltimore.

4. Discussion: Theory, Practice and Genotypic Classification

The frameworks presented above have subtle variations depending on whether they have a predilection toward one of the broader causes behind the design and planning of an ecologically responsible, society-friendly linear landscape or Greenway. To synthesize the genotype of emergent approaches in ecology-oriented Greenway theory, the descriptors and relative variations of these theories are captured in Figure 1 according to their core concerns and core disciplinary influences.

Ecology-oriented approaches for Greenway planning Genotypic concerns Genotypic disciplines

Patch corridor matrix and Jaws model (Forman, 1995) Protective, offensive, defensive and opportunistic (Ahern, 1995) Environmentally sensitive areas (Ndubisi et al., 1995) Southeastern Ecological Framework (Carr et al., 2002)

Biological conservation Landscape ecology Landscape conservation

Geospatial science Biology conservation

Ecological network approach (Cook, 2002) Graph-theoretic approach (Bunn, Urban and Keitt, 2000) Probability of connectivity index (Saura and Puscual-Hortal, 2007) Multi-criteria analysis method (Giordano and Reidel, 2008)

Biological conservation Biodiversity oriented connectivity

Mathematics Geospatial science

Eco-civic optimization (Brunckhorst et al., 2006) Ecological land-use

Urban greening Landscape conservation

Sociology Geospatial science Transportation studies

  8  

complementation (Colding, 2007) Eco-cultural analysis (Pena et al. 2010)

Biodiversity oriented connectivity

Figure 1. Genotype of emergent approaches in Greenway theory (Italic terms indicate repetitive emphasis in aggregated frameworks) [Note: Biological conservation is specific to biological species and Landscape conservation is specific to green cover]

Figure 1 shows the core concerns of different ecology-oriented Greenway approaches in the nested hierarchy chart. Core concerns for individual approaches are overlapping and mutually influencing to varying degrees; it is thus difficult to choose one concern as the essential description or genotype. Additional discussions and development of the ecology-oriented approaches could be analyzed to identify a singular emphasis on any one of the concerns to extract one genotype. However, an understanding of the core descriptors or genotype of the aggregated ecological frameworks can be drawn from this chart. Biodiversity oriented connectivity and biological and landscape conservation appear to have equal emphasis as core concerns. All ecology-oriented approaches for Greenway planning draw from geospatial science. Studies and methods from other disciplines such as mathematics, sociology and biological conservation are incorporated based on the core concern of the ecology-oriented approach.

Greenway projects are increasingly drawing information from sociology and behavioral sciences in addition to the geospatial studies of place and the mathematics of patterns. The genotype of Greenway planning Practice is best studied through the primary function and overarching goals in Table 1.

The primary objective of a Greenway is to provide a foundation to connect people with other people, with amenities, and with nature. The overarching goal or underlying motivations of these Greenway connections are tourism revenue, land development, resource conservation, access to resources, and environmental hazard mitigation. The types of connection and primary motivations are interpreted based on the keywords in the vision statements, mission statements, and objectives in Table 1. The classification is inspired by the tabular structure followed by Leitao and Ahern (2002, p.72) in which they correlate landscape structure and functions, where functions are primarily an indicator of the underlying motivations behind landscape structures. Kim (p.2005) also employs a similar tabulation approach to explicitly abstract key themes and goals of sustainable neighborhoods. This method helps present a wide range of information, on Greenways in my case, in a systematic manner, thus facilitating further study on inherent trends, patterns and correlations between various aspects.

The tabulated variables are then attributed a value based on the recurrence and emphasis in the vision statements. A value of 3 indicates the maximum recurrence of a given aspect and, thus, maximum emphasis. A value of 1 indicates a minimal recurrence or minimal emphasis. This process provides a replicable framework for documenting the descriptive aspects of Greenways in a concise tabular format. The data in Table 1 is then converted into Figures 2 and 3 to graphically illustrate the aspects with maximum value. These aspects can be interpreted as the current genotype and the rest as the phenotype. There

  9  

must be another layer of synthesis for this information to be used as a replicable prescriptive strategy for theory building. Darwin’s (2003) and Steadman’s (2008) genotypic and phenotypic classification typologies offer this synthesis, and it is applied to the information documented in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. In this paper, the designed Greenway is regarded as the phenotype, and the genotype is the central investigation. The tables and figures therefore document the genotype rather than the phenotype. The attributes with the highest value will be considered to be indicators of the genotype.

Table 1. Genotype of Greenway Practice (maximum score indicates the core or genotype)

Greenway connections primarily aim to connect people to people, people to

amenities, and people to nature. The underlying motivations for these greenway plans are tourism revenue, land development, resource conservation, access to resources, and environmental hazard mitigation. One proposal planned a Greenway as an alternative means of transportation, which in turn is rooted in sustainability — a reduction in resource consumption and pollution. Greenway Practice also emphasizes the resolution of urban environmental issues, such as storm-water management, seasonal flooding, and the heat island effect, depending on the needs, attitudes, and preferences specific to the location. The distribution of connections and underlying primary motivations for different cities at certain

Cities Primary objective / Function Overarching goals / Underlying motivations People

to People

People to Amenities

People to Nature

Tourism revenue

Land develop-ment

Resource conserva-tion

Access to res-ources

Envtl hazard mitiga-tion

Knoxville, TN

3 3 1 1 1 3 3 1

Nashville, TN

3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1

Charlotte, NC

3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3

Raleigh, NC 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 Morganton, NC

1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1

Floyds Fork Greenway, KY

3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

Marietta County, GA

3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1

Hudson river Greenway, NJ

3 1 1 3 1 3 3 1

Ann Arundel County, MD

1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1

Baltimore, MD

3 3 1 1 3 3 3 1

26 20 18 16 14 22 22 14

  10  

points is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. The projections in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3 should be read with an understanding that a low emphasis for a specific aspect might also imply that the plans or existing city contexts are already strong in those aspects.

Figure 2. Genotype of Greenway connections (highest value indicates genotype)

Figure 3. Genotype of Greenway goals (highest value indicates genotype)

0  

0.5  

1  

1.5  

2  

2.5  

3  

3.5  people  to  people  

people  to  amenities  people  to  nature  

genotypic  connection:    people  to  people  

0  

0.5  

1  

1.5  

2  

2.5  

3  

3.5   Tourism  $  

Land  development  /  $  Resource  conservation  Access  to  resources  Environmental  hazard  mitigation  

genotypic  motivations:    resource  conservation,  access  to  resources    

  11  

As shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, most of the Greenway Practices discussed in this paper do not reflect a direct correlation with the genotype of ecology-oriented approaches but an indirect correlation with certain genotypic descriptors. The people to nature connection or underlying motivation of resource conservation in Greenway Practice does not directly appear as a core concern of biological conservation; however, the agenda is served indirectly because the people to nature connection first requires the conservation of biological resources.

Greenway Practice is best instituted through the collaboration of multiple stakeholders, such as cities, communities, land trusts and various non-profit organizations. It takes years for these stakeholders to become organized as a collaborative force and then to come to a consensus regarding ideology and agenda. Once the common agenda is set, a vision plan for the Greenway is generated. However, the location of a Greenway route is not always consistent with the vision once the plan is implemented and construction begins on segments of the Greenway. The legalities and economics of land acquisition are usually the underlying issues. The Greenway connections proposed in a vision plan shift location simply because the corresponding land parcel may not be available for acquisition due to land ownership, tenure or the governing zoning code. When land acquisition is settled, the cost of building and maintaining a Greenway is high, for example, over a hundred thousand dollars for a ten-foot-wide asphalt trail per mile (National Trails Training Partnership, 2007).

Of importance here is whether understanding the genotype of these frameworks can facilitate the manipulation of outcomes and design. To assess this concern, the genotype of one of the Greenway planning theories is reconsidered. The genotype of the eco-civic optimization framework is urban greening, landscape conservation and biodiversity-oriented connectivity. Will adding another variable, such as ecological restoration, as a core concern change the final outcome? Review of the eco-civic optimizing framework indicates that it values the conservation of fragile ecosystems. The prevalent ecological restoration approach expects restoration to be undertaken by a team of external agents or experts. In contrast, the eco-civic framework prioritizes conservation and restoration efforts to influence the engagement of local people as agents of conservation. The inclusion or exclusion of ecological restoration in the matrix also impacts the inclusion or exclusion of associated disciplines, such as “ecological engineering”. Based on the scientific understanding regarding relations between genotypes and phenotypes, it can be hypothesized that the phenotype of the Greenway or the physical embodiment of the genotypic concerns may change through the inclusion of additional core concerns of ecological restoration to the Genotype or core concerns of the Greenway. As an illustration, I will discuss a case of planning a greenway network for Herring Run Stream in Baltimore, Maryland, in an academic setting. A group of students were tasked with the challenge of designing a Greenway network. The genotype of connection was designated as people to nature, and the genotype of overarching goal was left as a variable of choice for the students. The designs of the Greenways for various overarching goals are illustrated in Figure 4: a, b.

  12  

Figure 4a Greenway phenotype influenced by a change in Genotype. Conceived and drawn by Elizabeth Carroll in a Design Studio taught by author at Morgan State University.

 

Figure 4b Greenway phenotype influenced by a change in Genotype. Conceived and drawn by James Brown in a Design Studio taught by author at Morgan State University.

The Greenway illustrations in Figure 4: a, b show that the phenotype of a Greenway, for instance the shape and material, is different for Greenway designs using different goal genotypes. If assessed within the framework of genotypic goals in Table 1, Figure 4a, conceived and drawn by Elizabeth Carroll, shows the greenway with the genotypic goal of “access to resources” and uses a green Methacrylate resin for the Greenway that doubles as a bike lane. Figure 4b, conceived and drawn by James Brown, uses compact clay for a Greenway with a genotypic goal of “resource conservation” to connect green patches of nitrogen fixing and water-quality improving food growing gardens. Baltimore City is in the process of progressing the Greenway plans for the city “to support the City’s bikeway system” and to create access to and conserve the “City’s natural resources and open space” through efforts under the City’s Sustainability Plan and Greenways Plan [City of Baltimore, (2008), p. 6, 13,14]. The framework of genotypic and phenotypic classification could be employed and tested by the Design focus groups to identify the genotypes of various greenway segments and lend them a correspondingly appropriate design skin while also testing the usefulness of the framework to Greenway Practice in the process.

5. Conclusion Pioneered by Forman’s Patch Corridor Matrix approach and Jaws model of

redevelopment, most of the ecology-oriented approaches continue to modify the scientific matrices of biological conservation theories. In addition, the frameworks are gaining strength

  13  

from new interdisciplinary perspectives drawn broadly from mathematics, sociocultural anthropology, and geography. Some of the most innovative and inclusive frameworks are Brunckhorst, Phillip, and Reeve’s eco-civic optimization, Colding’s ecological land-use complementation, and Pena et al.’s eco-cultural analysis. The emerging ecology-oriented approaches are increasingly diversified in their knowledge and disciplinary orientations through the incorporation of interdisciplinary research. This diversity indicates a shift toward the new culture of trans-disciplinary thinking in Greenway planning. The genotype of current Greenway planning theory and Practice builds on a binary footing of ecological and sociological principles, with a clear preference for a sociological agenda.

The current genotype of Greenway Practice is still Formanesque in nature; it does not digress

too far from the originally conceptualized connectivity and conservation oriented core values despite the infusion of multidisciplinary views, and does not reflect the integration of the emergent approaches of eco-civic optimization, ecological land-use complementation, and eco-cultural analysis. This absence of recent approaches into current Practice, can very well be attributed to the time gap between the conceptualization and construction of the Greenway, which sometimes spans across decades. For example, the Knoxville Greenway plan continues to build beyond three decades, starting with the 1975 bike plan and 1992 trails report; plans have continued over two decades for Nashville, Georgia and the Hudson River and over ten years for the Anne Arundel and Baltimore Greenway systems. It should be noted that while the survey of Theory included literature emerging from America and Europe, examples from Practice studied in this paper are concentrated in Geographic region of United States of America. Investigation of examples from Europe and other regions in the world may reveal core concerns of greenways as completely different to the American examples or only slight variations, thus projecting a different genotype of greenway Practice. This offers a venue for further research.

The integration of Steadmanian genotype and phenotype classification model as a universal frame to track the evolution of Greenway design thinking and Practice, has the potential to serve as a useful tool in innovating the design thinking as well. The experimental frame is shared in its current format, to invite expert inputs on further refinement and to open up critical discussion on the need of universal frames for synthesis of Greenway design and planning theories and Practices.

References Ahern J (1995) Greenways as a planning strategy Landscape and Urban Planning 33, Issues

1-3, (1995): 131-155 Anne Arundel County Greenways

http://wwwaacountyorg/PlanZone/LongRange/Greenwayscfm last accessed March 2012 Brunckhorst D, Coop P, Reeve I (2006) ‘Eco-civic’ optimisation: A nested framework for

planning and managing landscapes Landscape and Urban Planning (75): 265–281

Bunn AG Urban DL and Keitt TH (2000) Landscape connectivity: A conservation application of graph theory Journal of Environmental Management 59 (2000): 265–278

  14  

Carr MH Thomas DH Goodison C et al (2002) Final Report: Southeastern Ecological Framework University of Florida: http://wwwgeoplanufledu/epa/ last accessed in Feb 2012

City of Baltimore (2008) Live Earn Play Learn: Comprehensive Master Plan 2008 Evaluation Report http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Government/AgenciesDepartments/Planning/ComprehensiveMasterPlan.aspx last accessed in June 2014

City of Knoxville (2012) Greenways and Trails http://wwwcityofknoxvilleorg/Greenways/ last accessed March 2012

City of Louisville (2012) Floyds Fork Area Study http://wwwlouisvillekygov/PlanningDesign/floydsforkstudyhtm last accessed June 2012

City of Morganton (2012) Morganton Greenway System http://wwwcimorgantonncus/indexphp/residents-menu/catawba-river-Greenway last accessed Apr 2012

City of Raleigh (2012) Capital Area Greenway Trail System http://wwwraleighncgov/arts/content/PRecDesignDevelop/Articles/CapitalAreaGreenwayTrailSystemhtml last accessed Mar 2012

Cobb County Department of Transportation (2012) Cobb County Trail System Directory http://dotcobbcountygagov/trail-systemhtm last accessed Apr 2012

Colding J (2007) Ecological land-use complementation’ for building resilience in urban ecosystems Landscape and Urban Planning (81): 46–55

Cook EA (2002) Landscape structure indices for assessing urban ecological networks Landscape and Urban Planning (58): 269–280

Darwin C (2003) The Origin of Species. With a special introduction by Sir Julian Huxley. First Signet Classics printing: New York

Deming, EM and Swaffield, S, Editors (2011) Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry, strategy, design John Wiley and Sons, Inc: USA

Fabos JG (2004) Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies Landscape and Urban Planning (68): 321–342

Fabos JG and Ahern J Editors (1996) Greenways: the beginning of an international movement Amsterdam: Elsevier

Flink CA Searns RA SchwarzLL (1993) Greenways: a guide to design and planning Washington DC: Island Press

Flink C Olka K and Searns RM (2001) Trails for Twenty-first Century Second edition Island Press

Forman RTT (1995) Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscape and regions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  15  

Giordano LDC and Riedel PS (2008) Multi-criteria spatial decision analysis for demarcation of Greenway: A case study of the city of Rio Claro Sa ̃o Paulo Brazil Landscape and Urban Planning (84):301–311

Haden J and Stanziale G (2010) Mecklenburg County Greenway Master Plan: 1999 – 2009. Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners May 18, 1999 , Prepared by Haden Stanziale Greenways Incorporated, Prepared for:Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department, Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Commission, Mecklenburg County Greenway and Trails Advisory Council, Mecklenburg County Greenway Steering Committee, Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners http://charmeck.org/mecklenburg/county/ParkandRec/Greenways/Documents/FinalReport.pdf

Hellmund PC and Smith DS (2006) Designing Greenways. London: Island Press Jackson DM (1971) Classification Relevance and Information Retrieval. Advances in

Computers (11) 59-125 Kim, Kyung-Bae (2005) Towards Sustainable Neighborhood Design: A Sustainability

Evaluation Framework and A Case Study Of The Greenwich MillenniumVillage Project. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (22:3) 181-203

KMPC- Knoxville Metropolitan Planning Commission “The Knoxville-Knox County park recreation and Greenways plan draft Knoxville and Knox County Parks and Recreation Department” Knoxville, TN: 2009

KRTPO- The Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization (2002) Knoxville Regional Bicycle Plan http://wwwknoxtransorg/plans/bikeplan/backgrndhtm Accessed on 9th March 2012

Lindsey G, Wilson J, Jihui AY and Christopher A (2008) Urban Greenways Trail Characteristics And Trail Use: Implications For Design. Journal of Urban Design (13:1): 53–79

Little CE (1990) Greenways for America. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press Leitao Andre B. and Ahern Jack (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics

in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning (59): 65-93 Maryland Greenways Commission (2000) Maryland Atlas of Greenways Water Trails and

Green Infrastructure 2000 Edition http://wwwdnrstatemdus/Greenways/counties/baltimorecityhtml last accessed Apr 2012

Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation North Carolina Greenways (first accessed in 2012) http://charmeckorg/mecklenburg/county/ParkandRec/Greenways/Pages/defaultaspx, webpage copyrighted by 2014  Mecklenburg  County  Government, last accessed 24th Dec 2014

McHarg I (1992) Design with nature. New York Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Inc Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County TN, (first accesses on in April

2012), Nashville Greenways wwwnashvillegov/Greenways/ last accessed Dec 2014 Nashville Metropolitan Board of Parks and Recreation, (first accessed on 2012), Greenways

for Nashville http://www.nashville.gov/Parks-­‐and-­‐Recreation/Greenways-­‐and-­‐Trails.aspx,  Webpage  copyright  by  © 2014 Metropolitan Government of Nashville and

Davidson County, Tennessee, last accessed 24th Dec 2014

  16  

National Trails Training Partnership (2007) Construction and maintenance costs for trails: From Draft Milwaukee County Trails Network Plan, 2007 Milwaukee County Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Culture, American Trails Organization: http://www.americantrails.org/resources/ManageMaintain/MilwMaintcost.html, last accessed on 24th Dec 2014

Ndubisi F, DeMeoT and Ditto ND (1995) Environmentally sensitive areas: a template for developing Greenway corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning (33) 159-177

New York State Hudson River Valley Greenway, (first accessed Apr 2012) http://wwwhudsonGreenwaynygov/homeaspx last accessed Dec 2014

Olmsted FL (1978) Notes on Franklin Park Edited by Boston Parks Department Boston: Boston Parks Department

Pena SB, Abreu MM Teles RE and Santo MD (2010) A methodology for creating Greenways through multidisciplinary sustainable landscape planning. Journal of Environmental Management (91): 970–983

Saura S and Pascual-Hortal L (2007) A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape and Urban Planning (83): 91-103

Sharma, A (2010) Rethinking greenways design in context of sustainable development: towards landscape synergism. Fabos,J.G., Ryan, R., Lindhult, M., et al (ed). Book Proceedings of Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenways Planning, Budapest, Hungary, 2010 July 8-11 pp 347-356

Sharma, A., 2013. Greenways patterns for city planning, Fabos,J.G., Lindhult, M., Ryan, R.,Jacknin,M.(ed). Proceedings of 2013 Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning:Pathways to Sustainability, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2013 April 12-13, pp 527-535

Sharma, A. (forthcoming in 2015), Urban greenways: Operationalizing Design syntax and integrating mathematics and science in design, International Journal- Frontiers of Architectural Research

Spirn A, (2009), In retrospect and forecast: Remarks on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Landscape Journal ed.M.E.Deming. Landscape Journal 28 (1):111-23, as quoted in Deming, EM and Swaffield, S, Editors (2011, 146) Landscape Architecture Research: Inquiry, strategy, design John Wiley and Sons, Inc: USA

Steadman, Philip (2008). The Evolution of Designs- Biological analogy in architecture and the applied arts. A revised edition. Routledge: New York. (Original edition printed in 1979 by the Syndics of Cambridge University Press)

Vane-Wright RI (2013) Methods of Taxonomy. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (Second Edition): 97–111

Wharton SW (1982) A contextual classification method for recognizing land use patterns in high resolution remotely sensed data. Pattern Recognition (15: 4) 317–324