Sustainable innovation on urban landscape construction and ecological water environment governance process

• Autorzy: Li Ke

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/eces-2022-0021

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In recent years, various cities have continued to build urban landscapes with typical characteristics, but most of the urban landscape constructions are too similar. There is even a problem that the urban landscape is not recognised by the local people, and the same is true for the problem of ecological water governance. This article aims to study the sustainable innovation of urban landscape construction and ecological water environment governance process. To this end, this article proposes fuzzy comprehensive evaluation criteria and goals, through this evaluation system to evaluate the urban landscape construction and ecological water environment management process, and at the same time design experiments to investigate. The experimental results of this paper show that the evaluation system can help improve the urban landscape construction and ecological water environment management. At the same time, the analysis results show that under this evaluation system, urban residents’ satisfaction with the urban landscape has increased by 47 %. At the same time, the effect of water treatment has also been improved, with an improvement effect of 31 %. For the actual governance process, the effect is huge.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

urban landscape construction; fuzzy evaluation criteria; ecological water treatment; sustainable innovation

PL

architektura krajobrazu miejskiego; kryteria oceny; uzdatnianie wody ekologiczne; użytki zielone ekologiczne

• Wydawca: Towarzystwo Chemii i Inżynierii Ekologicznej
• Czasopismo: Ecological Chemistry and Engineering. S
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 29, nr 3
• Strony: 287--304
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 24 poz., rys., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Li Ke

• Architecture College, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, Shaanxi, China
• Apparel & Art Design College, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an 710048, Shaanxi, China

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1275-5844

Bibliografia

• [1] Cooper GCK, Namit K. City with a billion dollar view. New Zealand Economic Papers. 2018;55(1):1-19. DOI: 10.1080/00779954.2018.1509110.
• [2] Camay S, Zielinski E, Zaranko A. New York City’s East River Ferry: expanding passenger ferry service and stimulating economic development in the New York City Region. Transportation Res Record. 2018;2274(1):192-200. DOI: 10.3141/2274-21.
• [3] Rees CV, Canizares JR, Garcia GM, Reed JM. Ecological stakeholder analogs as intermediaries between freshwater biodiversity conservation and sustainable water management. Environ Policy Governance. 2019;29(4):303-12. DOI: 10.1002/eet.1856.
• [4] Nykvist B, Borgstrm S, Boyd E. Assessing the adaptive capacity of multi-level water governance: ecosystem services under climate change in Mlardalen region, Sweden. Regional Environ Change. 2017;17(8):2359-71. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-017-1149-x.
• [5] Schulz C, Martin-Ortega J, Ioris AAR, Glenk K. Applying a ‘Value Landscapes Approach’ to conflicts in water governance: The case of the Paraguay-Paraná Waterway. Ecol Economics. 2017;138:47-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.033.
• [6] Cookey PE, Darnsawasdi R, Ratanachai C. Text mining analysis of institutional fit of Lake Basin water governance. Ecol Indicators. 2017; 72:640-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.057.
• [7] Roth AP, De Loe RC. Incorporating outcomes from collaborative processes into government decision making: A case study from low water response planning in Ontario, Canada. Ecol Economics. 2017;132:169-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.015.
• [8] Bischoff-Mattson Z, Lynch AH. Integrative governance of environmental water in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: Evolving challenges and emerging pathways. Environ Manage. 2017;60(1):41-56. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-017-0864-x.
• [9] Makota S, Nde-Tchoupe AI, Mwakabona HT, Tepong-Tsindé R, Noubactep C, Nassi A. Metallic iron for water treatment: Leaving the valley of confusion. Appl Water Sci. 2017;7(113):4177-96. DOI: 10.1007/s13201-017-0601-x.
• [10] Jesse B. Four steps to smart city success [Viewpoint]. IEEE Electrification Magazine. 2018;6(2):110-2. DOI: 10.1109/MELE.2018.2816849.
• [11] Kumar VTM. Advances in 21st century human settlements. Smart Economy in Smart Cities. Morgenstadt - A German View of the City of the Future. 2017. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-1610-3. (Chapter 11):253-72. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-1610-3_11.
• [12] Cosens B, Gunderson L. Practical Panarchy for Adaptive Water Governance. An Introduction to Practical Panarchy: Linking Law, Resilience, and Adaptive Water Governance of Regional Scale Social-Ecological Systems. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-72472-0 (Chapter 1): 1-16. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-72472-0_1.
• [13] Lerner AM, Eakin HC, Tellman E, Bausch JC, Aguilar BH. Governing the gaps in water governance and land-use planning in a megacity: The example of hydrological risk in Mexico City. Cities. 2018;83:61-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.009.
• [14] Porras GL, Stringer LC, Quinn CH. Unravelling stakeholder perceptions to enable adaptive water governance in dryland systems. Water Resources Manage. 2018;32(10):3285-301. DOI: 10.1007/s11269-018-1991-8.
• [15] Alexandra J. The city as nature and the nature of the city-climate adaptation using living infrastructure: governance and integration challenges. Australasian J Water Resources. 2017;21(2):63-76. DOI: 10.1080/13241583.2017.1405570.
• [16] Gondek K, Mierzwa-Hersztek M, Kopeć M, Spałek I. Compost produced with addition of sewage sludge as a source of Fe and Mn for plants. Ecol Chem Eng S. 2021;28(2):259-75. DOI: 10.2478/eces-2021-0019.
• [17] Wang S, Fu B, Bodin O, Liu J, Zhang M, Li X. Alignment of social and ecological structures increased the ability of river management. Sci Bull. 2019;64(18):30-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2019.07.016.
• [18] Hamoudi SA, Hamdi B, Brendle J. Tetracycline removal from water by adsorption on geomaterial, activated carbon and clay adsorbents. Ecol Chem Eng S. 2021;28(3):303-28. DOI: 10.2478/eces-2021-0021.
• [19] Benham CF. Aligning public participation with local environmental knowledge in complex marine social-ecological systems. Marine Policy. 2017;82:16-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.003.
• [20] Aagaard K, Lyons JE, Thogmartin WE. Quantifying the relative contribution of an ecological reserve to conservation objectives. Global Ecol Conservation. 2017;9:142-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.002.
• [21] Schnegg M, Kiaka RD. Subsidized elephants: Community-based resource governance and environmental (in) justice in Namibia. Geoforum. 2018;93:105-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.05.010.
• [22] Kistenkas FH, Bouwma IM. Barriers for the ecosystem services concept in European water and nature conservation law. Ecosystem Services. 2018;29(3):251-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.013.
• [23] Ilic P, Ilic S, Markic DN, Bjelić LS, Farooqi ZUR, Sole B. Source identification and ecological risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils and groundwater. Ecol Chem Eng S. 2021;28(3):355-63. DOI: 10.2478/eces-2021-0024.
• [24] Cheng R, Li W. Evaluating environmental sustainability of an urban industrial plan under the three-line environmental governance policy in China. J Environ Manage. 2019;251:109545.1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109545.