An Evaluation of Open Space Quality in Suburban Residential Communities: A Comparison of Neotraditional, Cluster, and Conventional Developments

In the past 35 years, planning theory for open space in both urban and suburban developments has begun to focus not only on recreation, but on the creation of multifunctional landscapes. The flight of homeowners out of cities to relatively inexpensive land and housing in the suburban fringe during the latter part of the last century, placed tremendous pressure on ecosystems, water quality, visual quality, agricultural land and also recreation opportunities. For these reasons, the goals for open space in many suburban developments over the past three decades have expanded to provide active and passive recreational areas, to serve as stormwater quality enhancements, wildlife habitat, act as a visual buffer to the hard surfaces of urban areas, and finally to accommodate urban agriculture. This was certainly the case with neotraditional and conservation developments of the late 1980´s and 90´s which were simultaneously seen as an antidote to the placeless sprawling suburbs and the environmental degradation that ensued. Three major approaches for effective suburban development that promised a more sustainable outcome than conventional post-World War II subdivision design have emerged, each with its own solution for the provision of open space: conservation (cluster) development (Arendt 1996; Yaro, Arendt et al. 1988; Arendt, Dodson et al. 1994); transit oriented design (Calthorpe 1995); and neotraditional development (Duany 1995). While each approach has its strong advocates, with the exception of the literature on conservation development, the theory tends to treat open space and its provision of green infrastructure benefits as an afterthought in the design process. Compounding the issue for the provision of green infrastructure services in the open space system is the fact that theoretical evaluations (Davis, Nelson et al. 1994; Frank 1999; Beatley 2000; Hayden 2001; Hopkins 2001) of the impact of new development and its attendant urbanization have been much more common than empirical studies. The existing empirical studies have largely focused on specific issues such as the effects of urbanization on bird populations (Geis 1974; Beissinger and Osborne 1982; Machtans, Villard et al. 1996; Odell, Theobald et al. 2003; Hostetler and Holling 2004), water quality and quantity (Carignan and Steedman 2000; Harbor 1994; Cifaldi, Allan et al. 2004; Goff and Gentry 2006) and habitat fragmentation (McDonnell and Pickett 1990; Fahrig 1997; Ehrenfeld 2000; Eppinka, Bergha et al. 2004). Comprehensive looks at the interaction of land use and broader ecosystem function have been few (Burke, Lauenroth et al. 1994; McDonnell 1997). When case study analysis has looked at neotraditional and conservation subdivision developments, it has most often been to evaluate their overall design approach, without a comprehensive analysis of their green infrastructure systems (e.g. Francis 2003a; Francis 2003b). Alternatively, studies have focused on the other end of the spectrum, evaluating the success of one aspect of green infrastructure function (Galuzzi and Pflaum 1996), or one aspect of the impact of alternative design such as gross density (Gordon and Vipond 2005). Although there have been some post-occupancy assessments of the suburban forest and the open space system remaining after development these have focused on the social and psychological impacts of new urbanist developments (Brown and Cropper 2001; Kim and Kaplan 2004), the social importance of green spaces (Burgess, Harrison et al. 1988) and have related the existence of urban green to demographic variables (Emmanuel 1997). In addition, existing studies of specific aspects of the green infrastructure system have largely relied on remote sensing and available GIS data, focusing on area protected (and in some cases patch size) (Brabec 2001; Foresman, Pickett et al. 1997), rather than the functionality and condition of the protected area. As a result, more than 20 years after neotraditional and conservation developments were brought into common use the question remains: How effective have they been, particularly in comparison with other more conventional development styles, in protecting functioning open space systems? This paper addresses that question with a comprehensive analysis of pre-development goals and codes, and a functional analysis of the open space system 10 to 20 years after development completion. Merging GIS data and on-site assessment of 16 sites across the United States, the project compared development outcomes with original development goals to assess the overall successes and failures. Using case studies from five regions across the country, neotraditional, conservation and conventional residential developments were analyzed and compared for their habitat, recreational, visual landscape quality and water quality goals. The insights gained can result in improvements both design and legislative best practices for community development codes

KC 1.1: Cultural Heritage and Climate Change: Exploring the Impacts and Issues

As noted at the 2017 ICOMOS Assembly in Delhi, cultural heritage is both under threat from climate change, and an asset in our attempts to adapt to and mitigate its impacts. The Paris Agreement emphasizes the need for urgency about climate change; cultural heritage can play a central role in this effort. For example, iconic sites at risk from storms, coastal erosion, wildfires or permafrost thaw can alert public to the very real impacts and costs of climate change. World Heritage Sites (WHS) around the world play a key role in alerting the public to the impacts of local climate change because they are highly visible, and are acknowledged as being important to national, regional and local heritage. As such, broad publicity about impacts and continuing losses such as the news coverage of the sea-level rise at Rapa Nui and Skara Brae and the degradation of the Cedars of Lebanon illustrate the value of both the iconic sites, their resources, and the wide media coverage they can project. Loss and damage due to climate change also includes the impacts on large landscapes and their associated communities. The loss of cultural heritage in these landscapes runs the gamut from intangible heritage such as folk tales, to immoveable cultural heritage, to the lifeways of cultures that have developed over centuries and millennia. Placing those impacts into a broader context is the role, and the goal, of the CCHWG Working Group. This session will address ongoing work by the Climate Change and Heritage Working Group (CCHWG) of ICOMOS that explores the nexus between climate change and heritage. Heritage interacts with climate change through a spectrum of impacts from the physical degradation of standing structures and site ecosystems, to the role that cultural heritage plays in the resilience of communities and their ontological security. Although the focus of the session will be on the impacts of climate change on rural landscapes, the discussion will cover the broad range of the work of the committee. Attached to this abstract is the full report of the Working Group, delivered to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee (WHC) on June 3, 2019 at the 43rd Meeting of the WHC in Baku, Azerbaijan. The audience will be asked to engage with the report to identify publications and case study examples that should be incorporated into the next steps of the work of the CCHWG

Looking Back Looking Forward: ISCCL 50th Anniversary Symposium, Abstracts and Presentations

During the past 50 years, the ISCCL has experienced great shifts in an understanding of cultural landscapes, the approaches to their conservation and protection, and the foundational concept of cultural landscapes themselves. The starting point was in 1971, in a meeting of Fontainebleau, where M. René Pechère led an international group of historic garden landscape architects and other professionals in the creation of a joint ICOMOS / IFLA Committee of Historic Gardens and Sites. While the focus of the original Committee was on classical gardens and their maintenance and protection, this was an important first step in the understanding of broader landscape issues. The Florence Charter on Historic Gardens was adopted by ICOMOS in 1982. It was ground breaking for the time, defining historic gardens as “monuments,” subject to specific rules acknowledging the “growth and decay” of a living system. However, the Charter also identified the need to preserve gardens in an “unchanged condition.” By 1992, the concept and definitions of Historic Gardens had expanded to the term “Cultural Landscapes,” approved for inclusion in the World Heritage Operational Guidelines at its 16th Session in 1992. By identifying cultural landscapes as “illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time,” and “the combined works of nature and of man [sic]” the stage was set for the following period of inclusion of traditional and indigenous landscapes, and the nature culture dialogues, intended to integrate the identification, protection and management of natural and cultural heritage sites. This Symposium will explore those changes and more over the past 50 years in the world of cultural landscapes. Français: Au cours des 50 dernières années, le Comité a connu de grands changements dans la compréhension des paysages culturels, les approches de leur conservation et de leur protection, et le concept fondamental des paysages culturels eux-mêmes. Le point de départ fut en 1971, lors d’une réunion de Fontainebleau, où M. René Pechère dirigea un groupe international d’architectes paysagistes de jardins historiques et d’autres professionnels dans la création d’un Comité conjoint ICOMOS / IFLA des Jardins et Sites Historiques. Alors que le comité d’origine se concentrait sur les jardins classiques, leur entretien et leur protection, il s’agissait d’une première étape importante dans la compréhension des problèmes de paysage plus larges. La Charte de Florence sur les jardins historiques a été adoptée par l’ICOMOS en 1982. Elle était révolutionnaire pour l’époque, définissant les jardins historiques comme des « monuments », soumis à des règles spécifiques reconnaissant la « croissance et la décadence » d’un système vivant. Cependant, la Charte a également identifié la nécessité de préserver les jardins dans un « état inchangé ». En 1992, le concept et les définitions des jardins historiques s’étaient étendus au terme « paysages culturels », approuvé pour inclusion dans les Orientations du patrimoine mondial lors de sa 16e session en 1992. En identifiant les paysages culturels comme « illustrant l’évolution de la société humaine et peuplement au fil du temps » et « les oeuvres combinées de la nature et de l’homme [sic] », le décor était planté pour la période suivante d’inclusion des paysages traditionnels et indigènes, et les dialogues nature-culture, destinés à intégrer l’identification, la protection et la gestion de sites du patrimoine naturel et culturel. Ce symposium explorera ces changements et bien d’autres au cours des 50 dernières années dans le monde des paysages culturels. Espagnol: Durante los últimos 50 años, el Comité ha experimentado grandes cambios en la comprensión de los paisajes culturales, los enfoques para su conservación y protección, y el concepto fundamental de los paisajes culturales mismos. El punto de partida fue en 1971, en una reunión de Fontainebleau, donde M. René Pechère dirigió un grupo internacional de arquitectos paisajistas de jardines históricos y otros profesionales en la creación de un Comité conjunto ICOMOS / IFLA de Jardines y Sitios Históricos. Si bien el enfoque del Comité original estaba en los jardines clásicos y su mantenimiento y protección, este fue un primer paso importante en la comprensión de los problemas más amplios del paisaje. La Carta de Florencia sobre Jardines Históricos fue adoptada por ICOMOS en 1982. Fue innovadora para la época, definiendo los jardines históricos como “monumentos”, sujetos a reglas específicas que reconocen el “crecimiento y decadencia” de un sistema vivo. Sin embargo, la Carta también identificó la necesidad de preservar los jardines en una “condición inalterable”. Para 1992, el concepto y las definiciones de Jardines Históricos se habían expandido al término “Paisajes Culturales”, aprobado para su inclusión en las Directrices Operativas del Patrimonio Mundial en su 16ª Sesión en 1992. Al identificar los paisajes culturales como “ilustrativos de la evolución de la sociedad humana y asentamiento a lo largo del tiempo”, y “las obras combinadas de la naturaleza y del hombre [sic]”, se preparó el escenario para el siguiente período de inclusión de los paisajes tradicionales e indígenas, y los diálogos naturaleza-cultura, destinados a integrar la identificación, protección y gestión de los sitios del patrimonio natural y cultural. Este Simposio explorará esos cambios y más en los últimos 50 años en el mundo de los paisajes culturales

When you can\u27t see the trees for the forest: An analysis of heritage tree protection and the implications for nature culture integration

Heritage trees provide a sense of permanency and sense of place, spiritual connections, and also a critical repository of a gene pool, climate adaptation history and future human resources. Characterized as the oldest and/or largest tree of a species, heritage or champion trees as they are often termed, contain a library of climate changes that have taken place over hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. But in the designation and protection of heritage trees, the criteria of ecosystem services and economic values are mentioned much more frequently in the legislation and research, than cultural or heritage values. This is particularly apparent when looking at the national registries of heritage trees (e.g. American Forests 2017; National Trusts of Australia 2013). During the past few decades, in an effort to support their protection and maintenance, research has been conducted in many countries into the use, importance, and value of heritage trees. With the rare inclusion of the analysis of heritage trees and their importance in tourism (Hall, James and Baird 2011), research has focused primarily on ecological system services, human food and lumber value, and overall economic value. In addition, there are various registries that focus on the status of heritage trees as endangered, as icons in the landscape, or as the largest of their species as a proxy for age (Ritchie, Szuster and Kaufman 2021). Most are merely honorary designations, with legal protection delegated to local laws or as a part of other heritage legislation. In the drive towards nature culture integration in World Heritage and cultural landscapes more broadly, there is a need to place the cultural value of trees on equal footing with their ecological values. This paper will explore changes to policy, and approaches to documentation and protection that must occur for nature-culture parity to be realized. Français : Les arbres patrimoniaux procurent un sentiment de permanence et d\u27appartenance, des liens spirituels, ainsi qu\u27un dépôt essentiel d\u27un pool génétique, d\u27une histoire d\u27adaptation au climat et de ressources humaines futures. Caractérisés comme l\u27arbre le plus ancien et/ou le plus grand d\u27une espèce, les arbres du patrimoine ou « champions » comme on les appelle souvent, contiennent une « bibliothèque » des changements climatiques qui se sont produits sur des centaines et dans certains cas des milliers d\u27années. Mais dans la désignation et la protection des arbres patrimoniaux, les critères de services écosystémiques et de valeurs économiques sont évoqués beaucoup plus fréquemment dans la législation et la recherche, que les valeurs culturelles ou patrimoniales. Cela est particulièrement évident lorsque l\u27on examine les registres nationaux des arbres patrimoniaux (par exemple, American Forests 2017 ; National Trusts of Australia 2013). Au cours des dernières décennies, dans un effort pour soutenir leur protection et leur entretien, des recherches ont été menées dans de nombreux pays sur l\u27utilisation, l\u27importance et la valeur des arbres patrimoniaux. Avec l\u27inclusion rare de l\u27analyse des arbres patrimoniaux et de leur importance dans le tourisme (Hall, James et Baird 2011), la recherche s\u27est principalement concentrée sur les services du système écologique, la valeur de l\u27alimentation humaine et du bois, et la valeur économique globale. En outre, il existe divers registres qui se concentrent sur le statut des arbres du patrimoine en tant qu\u27espèce en voie de disparition, en tant qu\u27icônes du paysage ou en tant que plus grand de leurs espèces en tant qu\u27indicateur d\u27âge (Ritchie, Szuster et Kaufman 2021). La plupart sont simplement des désignations honorifiques, avec une protection juridique déléguée aux lois locales ou dans le cadre d\u27autres législations patrimoniales. Dans le mouvement vers l\u27intégration de la culture de la nature dans le patrimoine mondial et les paysages culturels plus largement, il est nécessaire de placer la valeur culturelle des arbres sur un pied d\u27égalité avec leurs valeurs écologiques. Cet article explorera les changements de politique et les approches de la documentation et de la protection qui doivent se produire pour que la parité nature-culture soit réalisée. Español: Los árboles patrimoniales brindan un sentido de permanencia y un sentido de lugar, conexiones espirituales y también un depósito crítico de un acervo genético, la historia de la adaptación climática y los recursos humanos futuros. Caracterizado como el árbol más antiguo y / o más grande de una especie, los árboles patrimoniales o campeones , como a menudo se los denomina, contienen una biblioteca de cambios climáticos que han tenido lugar durante cientos y, en algunos casos, miles de años. Pero en la designación y protección de los árboles patrimoniales, los criterios de los servicios ecosistémicos y los valores económicos se mencionan con mucha más frecuencia en la legislación y la investigación que los valores culturales o patrimoniales. Esto es particularmente evidente cuando se examinan los registros nacionales de árboles patrimoniales (por ejemplo, American Forests 2017; National Trusts of Australia 2013). Durante las últimas décadas, en un esfuerzo por apoyar su protección y mantenimiento, se han realizado investigaciones en muchos países sobre el uso, la importancia y el valor de los árboles patrimoniales. Con la rara inclusión del análisis de árboles patrimoniales y su importancia en el turismo (Hall, James y Baird 2011), la investigación se ha centrado principalmente en los servicios del sistema ecológico, los alimentos humanos y el valor de la madera y el valor económico general. Además, existen varios registros que se centran en el estado de los árboles patrimoniales como en peligro de extinción, como iconos en el paisaje o como los más grandes de sus especies como indicador de la edad (Ritchie, Szuster y Kaufman 2021). La mayoría son designaciones meramente honoríficas, con protección legal delegada a las leyes locales o como parte de otra legislación patrimonial. En el impulso hacia la integración de la cultura de la naturaleza en el Patrimonio Mundial y los paisajes culturales en general, es necesario colocar el valor cultural de los árboles en pie de igualdad con sus valores ecológicos. Este documento explorará los cambios en las políticas y los enfoques de la documentación y la protección que deben ocurrir para que se realice la paridad naturaleza-cultura

Effects of Detention for Flooding Mitigation under Climate Change Scenarios— Implication for Landscape Planning in the Charles River Watershed, Massachusetts, USA

Climate change has posed increased risks to environmental hazards (e.g., flooding, droughts, hurricanes) in addition to new challenges under climate change impacts (e.g., early snow melt, sea level rises, heat waves). Floods are omnipresent in almost every city in the United States and account for the most economic losses than any other single geophysical hazard (White and Haas 1975). Previous climate change studies have suggested promising trends of increasing temperature and changing precipitation patterns as well as increased intensity and duration of storm events that are likely to result in more flooding events in the Northeast region. Flooding mitigation strategies have been focusing on structured engineering solutions such as dams and dikes along streams and rivers since the late 1910s. In recent decades, in lieu of conventionally engineered infrastructure, scholars have called for “soft” strategies such as green infrastructure (Thomas and Littlewood 2010) and land use planning (Burby 1998; Godschalk 2004) for comprehensive hazard mitigation and stormwater management integrated into planning and design interventions for flooding mitigation. Stormwater detention is among the most prevalent stormwater management practices for flooding mitigation; however, the perceived benefits could be overestimated without empirical study (Beecham et al. 2005). In addition, planners are now facing challenges to cope with uncertainties from climate change impacts under a paradox between making room for water while managing growth in land use planning. For local planners and stakeholders to make adaptive land use decisions for climate change, this paper aims to answer two key questions: (1) to what degree and in what way does climate change have impacts on long-term flooding hazards? (2) how much detention area in the watershed would be needed for mitigating flooding hazards induced by climate change? And what do the results imply for innovations in landscape planning

The Potential For Development of an Integrated Network of Greenway Trails on Medieval Hedgerows Landscapes in the Czech Republic

Today in the Pilzen region of the Czech Republic, remnants of medieval fields known as “pluzinas” represent an extremely valuable historical landscape pattern. The character of a pluzina landscape is in many aspects comparable to the hedged field (bocage) landscapes that are well known as a symbol of some parts of Europe, e.g. Belgium (Flanders), England, Scotland, Wales, France (Brittany and Normandy) or the Irish highlands. The character of preserved pluzinas in the Czech Republic differs from that of typical bocage landscapes in some respects, especially in spatial composition. In pluzinas, long parallel plots connected to the individual farmsteads of the village prevail, with a minimum of shorter, transversal hedgerows (see Figure. 1)

Martin Luther and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“Outside of the Church There is No Salvation”): Did Luther Really Abandon Cyprian?

... careful study of the Luther’s writings reveals that, while he repudiated many Catholic ways of understanding and conducting church, and while he attempted to harmonize ecclesiastical structures and sacramental theology with the foundational principles of Protestantism, he was essentially unable to break away from medieval modes of thinking. Notwithstanding his rejection of the Catholic emphasis on the visible church, he struggled to free himself from reliance on institutional structures for salvation. Ultimately, Luther affirmed the necessity of the visible church for salvation. In His wisdom, Luther believed, God had decreed the church to be the means of grace, without which no one could be saved. As a result, while a person could be in the church and unsaved, the option of not being in the church was not open to those who were predestined for salvation by God. Abandoning the church was a sure sign that one had not been among the elect. While each of the Reformation’s solas represented some form of reaction against medieval Catholic soteriology, the fact that Luther’s soteriology developed within the context of Augustinian monergism resulted only in providing an alternative theological foundation for the Catholic doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Such a vision of the church was congruent with the social and political milieu of early 16th century. While beginning well, Luther’s Reformation ultimately defaulted to its ecclesiastical and cultural surroundings

Phosphoinositide-3 kinase inhibition modulates responses to rhinovirus by mechanisms that are predominantly independent of autophagy

Human rhinoviruses (HRV) are a major cause of exacerbations of airways disease. Aspects of cell signalling responses to HRV infection remain unclear, particularly with regard to signalling via PI3K, and the PI3K-dependent pathway, autophagy. We investigated the roles of PI3K and autophagy in the responses of epithelial cells to major and minor group HRV infection. The PI3K inhibitor 3-MA, commonly used to inhibit autophagy, markedly reduced HRV-induced cytokine induction. Further investigation of potential targets of 3-MA and comparison of results using this inhibitor to a panel of general and class I-selective PI3K inhibitors showed that several PI3Ks cooperatively regulate responses to HRV. Targeting by siRNA of the autophagy proteins Beclin-1, Atg7, LC3, alone or in combination, or targeting of the autophagy-specific class III PI3K had at most only modest effects on HRV-induced cell signalling as judged by induction of proinflammatory cytokine production. Our data indicate that PI3K and mTOR are involved in induction of proinflammatory cytokines after HRV infection, and that autophagy has little role in the cytokine response to HRV or control of HRV replication

Effect of aliskiren on post-discharge outcomes among diabetic and non-diabetic patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the ASTRONAUT trial

Aims The objective of the Aliskiren Trial on Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) was to determine whether aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, would improve post-discharge outcomes in patients with hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) with reduced ejection fraction. Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested potential heterogeneity in post-discharge outcomes with aliskiren in patients with and without baseline diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods and results ASTRONAUT included 953 patients without DM (aliskiren 489; placebo 464) and 662 patients with DM (aliskiren 319; placebo 343) (as reported by study investigators). Study endpoints included the first occurrence of cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 and 12 months, all-cause death within 6 and 12 months, and change from baseline in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) at 1, 6, and 12 months. Data regarding risk of hyperkalaemia, renal impairment, and hypotension, and changes in additional serum biomarkers were collected. The effect of aliskiren on cardiovascular death or HHF within 6 months (primary endpoint) did not significantly differ by baseline DM status (P = 0.08 for interaction), but reached statistical significance at 12 months (non-DM: HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99; DM: HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.91-1.47; P = 0.03 for interaction). Risk of 12-month all-cause death with aliskiren significantly differed by the presence of baseline DM (non-DM: HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.94; DM: HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15-2.33; P < 0.01 for interaction). Among non-diabetics, aliskiren significantly reduced NT-proBNP through 6 months and plasma troponin I and aldosterone through 12 months, as compared to placebo. Among diabetic patients, aliskiren reduced plasma troponin I and aldosterone relative to placebo through 1 month only. There was a trend towards differing risk of post-baseline potassium ≥6 mmol/L with aliskiren by underlying DM status (non-DM: HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.71-1.93; DM: HR: 2.39, 95% CI: 1.30-4.42; P = 0.07 for interaction). Conclusion This pre-specified subgroup analysis from the ASTRONAUT trial generates the hypothesis that the addition of aliskiren to standard HHF therapy in non-diabetic patients is generally well-tolerated and improves post-discharge outcomes and biomarker profiles. In contrast, diabetic patients receiving aliskiren appear to have worse post-discharge outcomes. Future prospective investigations are needed to confirm potential benefits of renin inhibition in a large cohort of HHF patients without D