1

RIVER DEVELOPMENT SHAPED BY COMMUNITY RESILIENCE THROUGH

CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MALAYSIA URBAN

NEIGHBOURHOOD

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

PREPARED BY:

ROHANA BINTI MOHD FIRDAUS

PhD CANDIDATE (PBE173062)

rohana_lbn@ymail.com

SUPERVISOR:

ASSOC. PROF. DR. MOHD HISYAM BIN RASIDI

CO-SUPERVISOR:

DR. MUHAMMAD FARID AZIZUL BIN AZIZUI

PROF. DR. ISMAIL BIN SAID

FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

81310 SKUDAI, JOHOR

20 MAY 2018

2

1.0 Research Title

River Development shaped by Community Resilience through Cultural Ecosystem

Services in Malaysian Urban Neighborhood

2.0 Research background

Generally, urbanization has become one of the global issue that faced by multiple

rising countries which threaten the importance of urban river in many aspects (Deng

& Xu, 2018). With human as one of the drivers, it has led more destruction of

communities than the natural catastrophes and with environmental threats as well,

many communities have become increasingly suffering the social, political, cultural

and economic disturbance which threatens their survivability (Wilson, 2012);

especially the community nearby the urban river.

Urban river is one of the natural resources that possess many benefits to both human

(Johnson, Bell, & Leahy, 2018) and nature since history whereby major of cities

were built and developed by the riverside (Baschak & Brown, 1994). Urban river is

one of the communal spaces; that offers green space to maximize the level

biodiversity and improve psychology of human being in urban area (Southon,

Jorgensen, Dunnett, Hoyle, & Evans, 2018). However, the appreciation value toward

urban river has been degraded by the development that has turned their back to the

river (Eric, 2018). This has result the disappearance of river in urban neighborhood

accelerated by issue tackled by local authorities or stakeholders are addressed at the

wrong spatial scale (Palmer & Filoso, 2009) with the wrong problems and measures

(González del Tánago, García de Jalón, & Román, 2012). Nevertheless, river

development in urban area has gain attention in these past few years due to the

impact of urbanization that degrade the urban river (Prominski, Stokman, & Zeller,

2012). Due to unsustainable planning and irresponsible human activities, the urban

river has been degraded in many aspects such as its water quality (e.g.: Brotons and

Mallari (2016); Chan, Abdullah, Ibrahim, and Ghazali (2003); Lah, Park, and Cho

(2015)) , river function in flood mitigation (e.g.: Chan et al. (2003); Deng and Xu

(2018)), aquatic ecosystem (e.g.: Everard and Moggridge (2012); Steward, Negus,

3

Marshall, Clifford, and Dent (2018)) and aesthetic value (e.g.: Chen, Hua, Liekens,

and Broekx (2018); Junker and Buchecker (2008); Asakawa, Yoshida, and Yabe

(2004); Plieninger et al. (2015)).

Figure 2.1: Yamuna River, India; Cittarum River, Indonesia; Marilao River,

Philippines; respectively (Source: https://helpsavenature.com/top-ten-most-polluted-

rivers-of-world)

Figure 2.1 shows the top rank of most polluted river in the world which as a result

from serious impact of urbanization to the urban river. These impacts also influence

the community resilience in which according to Pelling (2003), the community

survival is threatening their community resilience through social political, cultural

and economic. In short, community resilience is defined as the capacity to adapt with

the change (Magis, 2010). Community resilience is needed to ensure the community

able to adapt in urban stress and live sustainably with unexpected change. There are

drivers that influence the community resilience which will depend on the river

development. The drivers are influence by social memory which establish a path

dependency of community to be resilient in certain situation (Wilson, 2012).

According to Blignaut, Wit, and Zy (2011), community possess the moral, spiritual,

educational, aesthetic-desired, place-based, and other values towards the urban

environment which influence their attitudes toward Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem

Services is defined as the benefits of people gain from the ecosystem. According to

Blignaut et al. (2011), there are four major are services within Ecosystem Services

namely provisioning services, regulating services, habitat or supporting services, and

cultural services. It has been highlighted by Haase et al. (2014) and Vollmer,

Prescott, Padawangi, Girot, and Grêt-Regamey (2015) that Cultural Ecosystem

Services are the least explored and seldom considered in research because of its

intangible dimension. According to Hassan, Scholes, Ash, Condition, and Group

4

(2005), Cultural Ecosystem Services is commonly defined as the ‘non-material

benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive

development, reflection, recreation, an aesthetic experience, including knowledge

systems, social relations, and aesthetic’. In relation to this research, it is seen that

community resilience is associated with Cultural Ecosystem Services as both are

benefits the community through ecology and environment; in context of river

development in urban neighborhood. Within Malaysia context, it is highlighted by

Chan (2009) that most of the laws and rules on water in Malaysia has failed to

underline the social aspect.

3.0 Problem statement

The deterioration of river persists despite the river development received the

attention for sustainable urban development. The urbanization is caused by

anthropogenic activities which have impacts on land use pattern that threaten the

river (Weil et al., 2018) and resulting the effect on community resilience due to the

river degradation. According to Lerch (2015), the communities and challenges faced

are dynamic. Thus, the impact of community resilience is measured through the

ability to adapt with the changing (Cutter et al., 2008) because the adaptation is an

ongoing process. It will never reach maximum resilience but can only strive to

maximize the resiliency (Wilson, 2014). However, their adaptation is toward the

issue can be threatening and opposing to sustainable living. This is linked with the

urban community whereby they did not have the awareness to be resilient in

sustainable ways. But, resilience is only visible, or revealed, after the occurrence of

an adversity (Schipper & Langston, 2015). This suggests that the adversity is one of

the trigger to the community resilience. In this research, the trigger is referring to the

river development in which focusing on Cultural Ecosystem Services.

In regards to Malaysia context, the river development received well attention since in

late 1990s studied mostly by Chan (1998). He highlighted the issues on protection of

water resource, prevention of water pollution, and treatment of water supply. Despite

the effort on water management by government, the government has failed to

underline the social aspect toward human responsibilities in water management and

this is shown through the government decision in using a top-down approach

5

whereas this approach has been proved to be ineffective in many countries (Chan,

2009). Community resilience involves the social aspect to participate in river

development. This shows that Malaysia is lacking in term of community resilience

perspective which some development failed to underline social aspect (Chan, 2009).

Figure 3.1: According to Kasnoon (2003) from Astro Awani, these are 3 out 5 most

polluted rivers in Malaysia namely Klang River in Selangor, Tebrau River in Johor

and Penang River in Penang, respectively (Source: Astro Awani)

Figure 3.1 shows that the water stressed through the polluted river such as in Klang

River in Selangor, Tebrau River in Johor and Penang River in Penang. According to

the Laporan Tahunan JPS 2016, the number of rivers in Malaysia has been increasing

up to 120 by 2002 and out of that only 30 are categorized as clean by the Department

of Environment Malaysia. It has been detected during in early 2000s, 55 rivers has

exceed its limit after receiving pollutants and thus categorized as polluted. This has

the relationship with the evolution of river; previously, Malaysian’s rivers begin with

settlement by riverside because of the proximity to water supply, function in

transportation, source of food and power generation (Chan et al., 2003). However,

river also become one of the easy conduit for human to discharge waste which has

degrade the value of river, especially in urban context because of the many land uses

developed discharge their harmful waste into the river without treatment (Chan et al.,

2003). This shows the action comes from community decision making which has

lack of awareness toward the river development.

6

4.0 Research Gap

Research on river development has been increasing due to the need of sustainability

caused by the threats from urbanization. Table 4.1 shows studies on river

development have been focusing on many aspects that involve environmental,

economy, politic and social aspect as well.

Table 4.1: Summary of related studies on river development

Authors (years) Concerns/ Issues Explanation

Eze and Knight (2018);

Brierley, Fryirs, Outhet,

and Massey (2002)

Physical of river

profile The river’s fluvial system.

Vollmer et al. (2015);

Kumar, Masago, Mishra,

and Fukushi (2018); Liu,

Shen, Yan, and Yang

(2018); Solins, Thorne,

and Cadenasso (2018)

Ecology of river

and water quality

The riparian plantings’ role in

providing habitat for the aquatic

and improve the river hygienic

environment.

van den Brandeler, Gupta,

and Hordijk (2018); Weil

et al. (2018); Lah et al.

(2015); Chan (2009)

Urban water and

river management

to sustainability

Involves urban planning,

economy and politics as well that

ensure the river and urban

sustainability.

Chen et al. (2018);

Asakawa et al. (2004);

Masud, Moni, Azadi, and

Van Passel (2018);

River development

and Ecosystem

Services

Include human value in river

development that associated with

Ecosystem Services such as

Md. Yassin, Eves, and

McDonagh (2010); Latip,

Shamsudin, and Liew

(2012)

Evolution of river

and waterfront

The transformation of river into a

waterfront for communal uses.

Kondolf and Pinto (2017);

Everard and Moggridge

(2012); Darby and Sear

(2008); Brotons and

Mallari (2016); Gregory

(2006); Chan et al. (2003)

River development

and social aspect

The integration between

community and river environment

such as community’s benefits,

interaction and participation.

Furuta and Shimatani

(2017); Deng and Xu

(2018); (Patel & Gleason, 2018)

River and disaster

recovery

The river used as flood mitigation

and community is highlighted on

the emergency management through the river development.

From the Table 4.1, it shows there is lacking of research on river development

shaped by community resilience. It is also mentioned by Haase et al. (2014) that

Cultural Ecosystem Services is the least explored. This is due to its intangible

7

dimension, non-material benefits and subjective characteristic (Cortinovis &

Geneletti, 2018). Thus, this research aims to investigate the river development

shaped by community resilience by taking Cultural Ecosystem Services as the

landscape perspective.

5.0 Research question

The research questions for this research are:

(a) How the community adapt to the river development shaped by its resilience

through Cultural Ecosystem Services in urban neighbourhood?

(b) Why does community in urban neighbourhood degrade the river?

(c) What are the practices that affecting the community resilience through Cultural

Ecosystem Services within river development in urban neighbourhood?

(d) How aesthetic as cultural ecosystem service gives impact to the community

resilience within river development in urban neighbourhood?

6.0 Research aim

The aim of this research is to investigate how the river development shaped by

community resilience through Cultural Ecosystem Services in Malaysia urban

neighbourhood.

7.0 Research objectives

To achieve the aim, the following objectives are formulated:

(a) To identify factors of community resilience in urban neighbourhood that shapes

river development through Cultural Ecosystem Services;

(b) To examine the level of community resilience toward river development through

Cultural Services in urban neighbourhood; and

(c) To determine the effect of Cultural Ecosystem Services toward community

resilience within river development in urban neighbourhood.

8

8.0 Scope of research

This research will be conducted at Sembulan River Park in Kota Kinabalu Sabah; an

urbanized area which is majorly consists of commercial, industrial and urban

residential uses. This research covers the urban community that lives nearby and use

Sembulan River Park including the squatter settlement. In regards to the Sembulan

River Park, it has been developed through beautification approach but according to

Eric (2018) who design the river park said the design has failed. One of the factors to

the failure was said social aspect. The urban community’s knowledge will be tested

to measure the awareness of the community. Both knowledge (Berkes, Colding, and

Folke (2003); Gunderson, Pritchard, and Environment (2002)) and awareness

(Hunter, 2011) will have influence to their perception (Gregory (2006); Costello,

Johns, and Guilfoyle (2007)) and acceptation (Cha, Shim, and Kim (2011); Costello

et al. (2007)). Thus, it forms their stewardship (Ahmed, Seedat, Niekerk, and

Bulbulia (2004); Davis, Cook, and Cohen (2005)) of the community that shapes their

resiliency.

9.0 Assumption

Due to previous river developments that lack of consideration in social aspect

(Chan, 2009), it has continuously influence the community resilience (Hunter, 2011).

Thus, the river in urban neighborhood is influenced by the community resilience.

This lead to the assumption of river development is worsened by the community

nearby the river that has lack sense of appreciation toward the river development.

This can be seen from the lack of visual attractiveness (derived from aesthetic in

Cultural Ecosystem Services) in the river development shaped by community

resilience.

10.0 Significance of research

This research is significant by responding to the failure of underlining the social

aspect and considers the community resilience through Cultural Ecosystem Services

within river development in urban neighborhood context. The outcome of this

research is a framework on river development that considers the community

9

resilience to ensure the sustainability of the river is maintained by the community

itself. It uses the aesthetic as one of the functions to initiate the community’s

awareness toward sustainability. Thus, it helps the river to be able to become self-

maintain.

11. Literature review

11.1 River development

The topic in regards to human role in changing the river was initiated by Lane in

1955 and 1956 by Strahler. It is supported by Maya et al. (2011) that human being is

the most intensive influence on river. River is one of open spaces; that offers green

space to maximize the level biodiversity and improve psychology of human being in

urban area (Southon et al., 2018). Urban area is defined as the area with high

biodiversity whereby human tend to establish their settlement nearby their natural

resources (Cincotta et al., 2000; Luck, 2007; Macdonald et al., 2008). However, the

appreciation value toward urban river has been degraded whereby the urban

developments have turned their back to the water bodies and some developments

treat it as a drain (Prominski et al., 2012). This is accelerated by the land use pattern

change due to community’s need for built up area; also known as land expansion

(Zhifang Wang, 2018), it results the lack of open spaces and water bodies. The lack

of open spaces is an additional factor for river corridor to deteriorate further

(Asakawa et al., 2004). The deteriorating of river influences its behaviour as a

natural water body and negatively affect the aquatic ecosystem (Eze & Knight,

2018). In addition, due to unsustainable planning and irresponsible human activities,

the urban river corridor has been degraded in aspect of water quality (e.g.: Brotons

and Mallari (2016); Chan et al. (2003); Lah et al. (2015)) , river function in flood

mitigation (e.g.: Chan et al. (2003); Deng and Xu (2018)), aquatic ecosystem (e.g.:

Everard and Moggridge (2012); Steward et al. (2018)) and aesthetic value (e.g.: Chen

et al. (2018); Junker and Buchecker (2008); Asakawa et al. (2004); Plieninger et al.

(2015)).

Nevertheless, river development in urban area has gain many attentions in these past

few years due to the impact of urbanization that degrade the urban river (Prominski

10

et al., 2012). The urbanization has become one of global issue that faced by multiple

rising countries which threaten the importance of urban river in many aspects such as

flood risk, quality of water and ecosystem (Deng & Xu, 2018). Urban river is one of

the natural resources that possess many benefits to both human (Johnson et al., 2018)

and nature since history. Importance of river includes microclimate regulation, clean

water supply, and biodiversity enhancement (Eze & Knight, 2018) as well flood

mitigation function, transportation, riparian habitat, and aesthetic value. Yet, in most

of urban area, the river has been hardened and straightened due to rapid urbanization

until the volume of water can be estimated from its trapezoidal shape and river length

(Deng & Xu, 2018). This shows serious impact of urbanization to the urban river.

Thus, why does the human continues its anthropogenic activities that threatened the

natural resource; urban river?

11.1.1 River profile

According to Chapter 8 of Fluvial Geomorphology in Watershed Science (2012),

fluvial geomorphology is the study of stream’s form and function and its interaction

with the landscape. It is related to the river whereby the fluvial itself is referred as the

processes of running waters which associated within river context; whereas ‘geo’ is

known to refer to earth and ‘morphology’ refers to the form, shapes or structure.

According to Eze and Knight (2018), fluvial geomorphology affect (a) characters, (b)

evolution, (c) behaviour, of biophysical interaction within catchment and recover

potential.

11.1.2 Challenges (Maintaining natural state, multiple roles, complexity,

uncertainty, and sustainability)

Within river development, the challenges become more demanding due to the

increase of complexity within the development itself and community too (van den

Brandeler et al., 2018). It has been noticed one of the challenges in river

development these days is the idea to maintain natural state of river (Eze & Knight,

2018). Thus, the understanding of river behaviour is vital to implement the solution

in development (Franchis, 2014). Previously, most river developments are ad hoc to

single driver or primary outcome only such as water quality. Nowadays, with the

11

urbanization and competing users has become two of the main concerns in

development, multiple requirements are needed (Palmer, Hondula, & Koch, 2014).

For example, a river development that could have multiple roles includes the water

quality, amenities enhancement and flood protection (Liao, 2013). In term of

complexity and scale challenge, it is imposed mostly by the government and

community as well (Speed et al., 2016). In simple words, if the government provide

solution to certain issue in regard river pollution; it is unlikely the community have

the capacity to adapt with the solution. Thus, from this it leads to the increasing of

uncertainty in river development.

According to (Saxton, 2013), river development must allow shift in human value and

belief system. This is seen as to relate with the community resilience. Community

adaptation with the disturbance is a never ending process as mentioned by Davies

(1995), thus the human value and belief system is always changing as well

responding to the development and environment. Furthermore, the challenge toward

ensuring the sustainability of river development is also vital to have the consideration

of social capital (Western, Stimson, Baum, & Van Gellecum, 2005), economic

capital (Adger, 2000), and environment capital (Magis, 2010) which form the

community resilience to ensure the sustainability. However, it is not easy to achieve

the community resilience as there are drivers that influence the community from

achieving sustainable living environment.

11.1.3 River in Malaysia (Overview)

Within Malaysia’s context, it has been detected there is 150 rivers in Malaysia in

2003 and out of that number, it found that 25 experienced water stress and overtime,

the number has increased to 55 which has exceed water limit with heavy metal

contamination (Chan et al., 2003). Data provided by Department of Environment

Malaysia from Laporan JPS 2016 state that there are an increasing number of rivers

that has been monitored throughout Malaysia since 1987 to 2002 from 91 to 120

rivers respectively.

12

Table 11.1: Number of river in Malaysia (Source: Department of Irrigation and

Drainage, https://www.water.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/702)

Region Number of river

Peninsular Malaysia 89

Sabah 78

Sarawak 22

Total rivers 189

From the National Register River in 2017, Table 10.1 shows the total number of

rivers in Malaysia; 89 rivers in Peninsular Malaysia, 78 rivers in Sabah and 22 rivers

in Sarawak, respectively. Malaysian’s river becomes the hub of life for economic and

social activity whereby since the independence in 1957, Malaysia has experience

transformation from rural economy that based on agriculture and tin mining, into an

unprecedented rapid urbanization and industrialization (Chan et al., 2003). The

rubber estate has shifted to oil palm and the extensive tract of land was done by

Federal Land Development Agency (FELDA). This is followed by uncontrolled

logging as well expansion of commercial and industries. The impact of the activities

has result the overstressed of river system whereby the river reached its threshold to

receive the pollutants.

Malaysia is well known for its rich resources including water but ironically the water

is stressed (Chan, 2009). According to Tan Sri Razali (2001), it is due to the

mismanagement of water resource. It is concluded by Chan (2009) that generally the

development regarding water resource fails to underline the social aspect. Nowadays,

Malaysia has the River Basin Management as one of the divisions in Department of

Irrigation and Drainage that ensure the rivers in Malaysia are clean, vibrant and

liveable. According to the Lembaga Urus Air Selangor (2017), the main concept

applied by Department of Irrigation and Drainage is Integrated River Basin

Management (IRBM) includes the aspects of protection, conservation, and integrated

river basin management. In addition, the well-known approach toward river is River

13

of Life focuses on three components namely river cleaning, river master planning

and beautification, and river development. The approach is through the civic science

which is awareness, knowledge, skill and action; that associated with the community

resilience. It is integrated with the objectives of River of Life that also target to

promote sense of ownership toward the river in achieving long term sustainable

behavior to appreciate the river development.

11.1.4 Summary of River Development

Table 11.2: Summary of river development

River development

River profile Challenges Rivers in Malaysia

Character

Evolution

Behaviour

Maintaining natural

state, multiple roles,

complexity, uncertainty,

and sustainability

Issue: Resource fails to

underline the social

aspect (Chan, 2009)

The Table 11.2 shows the summary of river development. It is important to

understand the river profile and challenges in developing a river in urban

neighborhood. This is because disturbances from anthropogenic activities influence

the river development and create some challenges in achieving sustainability. In

context of Malaysia, this research investigates the rivers in Malaysia to understand

the status of river development in urban neighborhood.

11.2 Community resilience (overview)

Community resilience comes in many definitions according to its context. The initial

definition of resilience was introduced by Holling (1973) whereby he relates it with

ecological resilience on how the ecosystem responded to the disturbance by man.

This mean the ecological resilience is explained through evolutionary change. The

resilience itself means to leap back, rebound or recoil which emphasize on processes

rather than the ability to reach the climax (Folke, 2006). In context of social

14

resilience, community resilience is a subset of social resilience and is defined as the

existence, development, and engagement of community resources by community

members to thrive in an environment characterized by change, uncertainty,

unpredictability, and surprise (Magis, 2010). Community resilience play vital role in

strengthening the strategic planning toward sustainable urban development as it

comes with many perspectives such as community resilience in public health and

crisis management (Ahmed et al., 2004), community resilience in natural resources,

community resilience in social science and many more (Magis, 2010). This studies

shows resilience is a must for urban to develop sustainably.

The role of community resilience in urban is to ensure the community able to

respond with the changes (Ahmed et al. (2004); Gibbon, Labonté, and Laverack

(2002)). Folke, Colding, and Fikret (2003) emphasizes that the change is inevitable

and need to be accepted by the community as well able to adapt with the uncertainty

and surprise. Community resilience create robustness in society by establishing the

capacity to absorb the disturbance to maintain function, structure and identity

(Anderies, Janssen, and Ostrom (2004); Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig

(2004)). From these studies, it show that the role community resilience is important

in shaping a community that able to undergo uncertainty and changes as well respond

to it through their adaptation.

Aforementioned, community resilience a subset of social resilience as defined by

Adger (2000); the ability of a group or communities to cope with external stresses

and disturbances caused by the social, political and environmental change. In

addition, Folke (2006) defined social resilience as the necessity of human system to

learn in managing the changes which involves uncertainty and surprise as part of the

system process. The similarity between the two definitions is on the managing the

disturbance caused by uncertainty and surprises from social, political and

environment. It is needed to ensure the community able to adapt in urban stress and

live sustainably with unexpected change. Resilience itself can be measured by how

far the system can tolerate and yet maintain the system function (Wilson, 2012).

According to Wilson (2012), the quality of resilience can be measured through the

indicators such as resilience and vulnerability. As mentioned, these indicators will be

influenced by the drivers such as adaptive capacity (Folke et al., 2003), the capitals

15

(Magis, 2010); transition theory (Wilson, 2014), and stewardship (Hunter, 2011).

11.2.3 Indicators

Indicators are used to measure the community resilience. According to Wilson

(2012), the measurement is in range between resilient and vulnerable; whereby

resilient is to be considered as strong resilience while venerable is considered to be

weak resilience.

Figure 11.1: General measurement of community resilience (Source: Adapted from

(Wilson, 2012).

Figure 11.1 shows the general measurement of community resilience that applied in

the drivers. In resilient situation, the community is said to have improved access to

education, markets and skills. The modernization, technology advance and

globalization are part of being resilient. However, it also may contribute to the

community vulnerability. In vulnerable situation, the community is highlighted by

Wilson (2012) to face the loss of environmental capital through destruction and

degradation, and social capital through such as outmigration. This indicator is

depending on the drivers because the drivers play role in shaping the community

resilience.

Resilient (strong) … Vulnerable (weak)

16

11.2.4 Summary of community resilience

Table 11.3: Summary of community resilience

Community resilience

Definition Driver Indicators

Capacity to adapt with

the change (Magis, 2010)

- Adaptive

capacity

- Capitals

(Social,

environmental,

economy)

- Transition

theory

- Stewardship Influ

en

ce

d d

rive

rs t

hro

ug

h S

oc

ial

me

mo

ry a

nd

Pa

th d

ep

en

de

nc

y

Resilient (strong)…

Vulnerable (weak)

The Table 11.3 shows the summary of community resilience. It is important to

understand the definition of community resilience as there are many definitions from

many aspects but interrelated with one another. Community resilience is influence by

the driver and the drivers are influenced by the social memory and path dependency

that can be results the measurement; either resilient or vulnerable.

11.3 Cultural Ecosystem Services

Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) is one of the services in Ecosystem Services

(ESS). Ecosystem Services is the direct and indirect services whereby human can

gain benefits from the ecosystem (Austin, 2014). According to The Economics of

Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB), there are four major are services within

ecosystem services namely Provisioning Services, Regulating Services, Habitat or

Supporting Services, and Cultural Services. Firstly, the Provisioning Services

describe the material or energy outputs from ecosystem that includes food, raw

materials, fresh water and medicinal resources. For example in food aspect, the

ecosystems provide the conditions for growing food that to sustain the humanity.

17

Secondly, the Regulating Services are the services that ecosystems provide by acting

as regulators. For example, Regulating Services can be seen through the regulation of

the air and soil quality, or flood food provision and disease control. Thirdly, the

Supporting Services complement the other services. For example, the Supporting

Service includes the nutrient cycling that maintains the conditions for life on Earth

and habitats that provided for the species to survive. Lastly, the Cultural Ecosystem

Services is the intangible value the community benefit from such as recreation,

mental and physical health, tourism, aesthetic, and many more.

According Hassan et al. (2005) and The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity

(TEEB), Cultural Ecosystem Services is commonly defined as the ‘nonmaterial

benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive

development, reflection, recreation, an aesthetic experience, including knowledge

systems, social relations, and aesthetic’. Cultural Ecosystem Services is more directly

experienced and can be appreciated through intuition by community (Abson et al.,

2017). However, due to its intangible dimension (Haase et al. (2014); Vollmer et al.

(2015), it is highlighted that of all Ecosystem Services, Cultural Ecosystem Services

are the least explored in literature review. According to La Rosa, Spyra, and

Inostroza (2016), Cultural Ecosystem Services receives little attention especially

regarding the relevant benefit that community and the urban planning processes may

gained from Cultural Ecosystem Services.

In relation to the river development, the urban river has the potential to be developed

as a park (Plieninger et al., 2015) and become part of communal space which is to

Cultural Ecosystem Services, park is valued highly for its landscape characteristic

(Austin, 2014). River development is potential in providing the aesthetical value,

sense of place, recreational, inspirational value and educational value (La Rosa et al.,

2016) that addressed in shaping the community resilience in urban neighbourhood.

Thus, the visual attraction may be seen in river development that is shaped by the

community resilience.

18

11.3.1 Function of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Aesthetic is referring to the visual quality gained by human whereas spiritual is

referring to the experience through senses that can be interpreted and appreciated

with our mind. Study by Austin (2014) shows that people responds to landscape

characteristics such as the texture, pattern, colour, sense of harmony, and many more.

According to The Economic of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB), the aesthetic

contribute to appreciation value as well becoming inspiration in culture, art and

design of language, knowledge and natural environment as these has been related

intimately with human since history and nowadays has growing in becoming source

of inspiration in science. Meanwhile, the spiritual is associated with the nature

setting that form the sense of belonging.

Health and recreation are combined together and interpreted as the landscape that

consist of spaces for physical activities (Austin, 2014). According to The Economic

of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB), through such activities, it improves

community’s well-being by giving sense of relaxation to them. This proves and been

increasingly recognized that green spaces play role in maintaining community’s

mental and physical health despite of the difficulties in measuring it. Indirectly, this

situation gives impact on economic value because from the economic perspective,

the value of open space and recreation in urban area was not fully understood and yet

physical and psychological health become one of the concerns in urban (Austin,

2014). Study by Grant (2010) proves that open spaces and health is strongly related

whereby people in area with high mass of greenery are three times more active and

40% experience less obese.

Large portion of nature becomes the main attraction in tourism whereby Austin

(2014) state that the tourist’s journey consist of part which dedicated to travel and

visit park with high quality and recreational facilities. In relation to high quality of

park, it has been studied that due to the existence of park, the property tax increases.

For example, the sales tax for residential is higher with the existing of park in the

neighbourhood compared to residential without park; in a way, the existing of park

reduce the cost for stormwater management whereby it regulates the nature process

naturally (Austin, 2014). In reference to The Economic of Ecosystem and

19

Biodiversity (TEEB), this shows that tourism contributes to economic benefits which

become one of the income sources for many countries.

11.3.2 Factor of Cultural Ecosystem Services

The factor that affect Cultural Ecosystem Services is divided into two categories

namely economic value and sustaining ecosystem services (Austin, 2014) as Cultural

Ecosystem Services is valued differently by different people’s perspective under

different socio-economic condition (Plieninger et al., 2015). According to Throsby

(2001), Cheng (2006), Bucci and Segre (2011), the economic concept has taken

shape to assess the Cultural Ecosystem Services because out of all indicators in

Ecosystem Services Assessment, only 6% is referred to Cultural Ecosystem Services.

According Austin (2014), economic value is one of the vital factors that support and

at the same time diminished the Cultural Ecosystem Services by the land use.

Traditionally, only commercial and industrial has been understood to add the

economic value of a city. Nowadays, ecosystem plays part both directly and

indirectly influencing the economic value whereby ecosystem indirectly reduce the

maintenance cost of system which in turn helps the economic value (Austin, 2014).

The Cultural Ecosystem Services is also depending on the health of Ecosystem

Services; on how the health of ecosystem is being taken care of. It refers on the

human access to manage the ecosystem and it respond by influencing the community

experience in nature, the cultural understanding, and the education opportunity

(Austin, 2014). In regards to community experience in nature, Austin (2014)

highlights the health and aesthetic value whereby these two aspect gives the

enjoyment in nature. As mentioned in The Economic of Ecosystem and Biodiversity

(TEEB), the nature environment is one of the common elements that create sense of

belonging within community. This can be seen as one of the links between

community resilience and Cultural Ecosystem Services whereby the ecosystem affect

the community’s awareness and perception to the environment. According to Daily

(1997), it is the community that has been sustained by nature world and not the other

way around because the nature is the main resource that provide continuous product

for human to survive (Wilson, 2012). Therefore, the functions provided by Cultural

20

Ecosystem Services need to be distributed throughout community to gain and

experience the benefits.

11.3.3 Summary of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Table 11.4: Summary of Cultural Ecosystem Services

Cultural Ecosystem Services

Definition Function/ benefit/ services

Non-material benefit

through spiritual enrichment,

cognitive development,

reflection, recreation, an

aesthetic experience

Aesthetic

& spiritual

Health &

recreation Education Tourism

Factors

Economic value Sustaining Ecosystem Services

The Table 11.4 shows the summary of Cultural Ecosystem Services. It is important

to understand the definition in order to explain the function of Ecosystem Services.

The factors are economic value and sustaining Ecosystem Services that influence the

functions stated in Table 11.4.

11.4 Relationship between community resilience and Cultural Ecosystem

Services within river development

According to Wilson (2012), the community resilience is glued together by

environmental, social and economy capital. It is further explained that the urban

environment itself affects the community resilience by influencing the consumption

behaviour (Zhan Wang, Deng, Wong, Li, & Chen, 2018). The river development is

seen as part of the urban environment too and consumption behaviour is referring to

the community in urban area. Aforementioned, the increase of demand has cause the

land use pattern change. The increase land use pattern and changes lead is influenced

by Cultural Ecosystem Service (Plieninger et al., 2015) and degradation in the river

development has result the imbalance development and retard the sustainability

21

strategies. This shows the negative impact on the community and environment is due

to anthropogenic activities which initiated by human themselves.

Figure 11.2: Theoretical framework of research

The overall denominator of the research is river development that shaped by

community resilience. Community resilience is influence by the drivers; which is

influenced by the factors. Thus, the factors develop the community’s knowledge

(Berkes et al. (2003); Gunderson et al. (2002)),create awareness (Hunter, 2011),

slowly formulate their perception (Gregory, 2006) toward river development, and

determine their acceptation (Cha et al. (2011). Finally, it forms their stewardship

(Ahmed et al., 2004) of the community that shapes their resiliency toward river

development. Based on the Figure 11.2, this research focuses the river development

shaped by community resilience through Cultural Ecosystem Services. Thus, through

Cultural Ecosystem Services, it improves the river development in the perspective of

landscape architecture.

22

12. Research methodology

This research is to investigate on how the community resilience shapes river

development through Cultural Ecosystem Services in urban neighbourhood, therefore

it involves three methods namely observation, interview and semi structured

questionnaires, and Driver-Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)

Framework.

12.1 Observation

The observation is to recognize the river profile that affect the community resilience

through Cultural Ecosystem Services. It is to achieve objective one and two of

research; to identify the factors and level of community resilience. The data

collection will be based on the evolution of river from 1957 which will be collected

from Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Environment,

Department of Landscape in Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu and other Non-

Government Organization that has involved in Sembulan River Park. The data will

be using Google Maps or ArcGis to analyse the changes from 1957 up until now.

Field observation will also be involved to confirm the current status of the river.

According to Chan et al. (2003), the issues that contribute to rivers begins after the

independence whereby the rapid development of agriculture and followed by

industrialization. Thus, it overstressed the river system as many rivers have reached

its limit. The health of river can be observed through water quality (Bunn et al.,

2010) as the ecological status of river.

12.2 Interview and Semi-Structured Questionnaire

Interview and semi-structured questionnaire are to achieve the objective one and two;

understand the factors and level of community resilience among the community

nearby Sembulan River Park, Kota Kinabalu. The data collection will be based on

the residences (including squatters) nearby the riverside and expertise from local

authorities. The questionnaire will be based on enquiry of their knowledge of river

23

development, followed by their awareness that formulate their perception and

acceptance to the current river development in urban area. NVIVO will be used to

analyse the data. In the end, stewardship can be explained through the sequences of

knowledge, awareness, perception and acceptance. Thus, this indicates the level of

community resilience on the study area.

12.3 Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework

Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework is one of tools that measure the

cause and impact relationship (Chiang, 2018). This is to achieve the last objectives;

to determine the effect of Cultural Ecosystem Services toward community resilience

within river development in urban neighbourhood. Some studies use it to assess the

knowledge, skills and network capacity achieved from different disturbances (Ling &

Chiang, 2018). Thus, it is useful to describe the relationship between community

resilience through Cultural Ecosystem Services on river development in urban

neighbourhood as entity in this research.

24

Figure 12.1: DPSIR framework

According to the Figure 12.1, the DPSIR framework is divided into five attributes.

Firstly is the Driver which is a need that cause result the issues or disturbance. In

regards to this research, the Driver questions “What are the issues?” Secondly is the

Pressure; it is associated with the cause of issue. It questions “What cause the

issues?” Thirdly is the State which is questions “What is the impact of the issue?”

Fourthly is the Impact; that helps in determining the quality of ecosystem and

welfare of human beings. It questions “What/whom the impact goes to?” And lastly

is the Response; it is a result of undesired impact and can affect any parts of the

framework. It questions “What action has been taken to tackle the issue?”

25

12.4 Summary of Methodology

R. Objectives Methodology Data source Variables Tools to analyze

(a) To identify factors of community

resilience in urban neighborhood

that shapes river development

through Cultural Ecosystem Services.

Interview and semi

structured

questionnaire

River urban user

(including

squatter)

Knowledge,

awareness,

perception,

acceptance,

stewardship

NVIVO

(b) To examine the level of

community resilience toward river

development through Cultural

Services in urban neighborhood.

River profile Sembulan River

Park

Evolution of

river, riparian

health, water

quality

Google Maps or

ArcGis

(c) To determine the effect of

Cultural Ecosystem Services toward

community resilience within river

development in urban

neighborhood.

Driver force -

Pressure - State -

Impact - Response

(DPSIR) Framework:

Describe the

interaction

between society

and environment

River urban user

(including

squatter) and

Sembulan River

Park

Knowledge,

awareness,

perception,

acceptance,

stewardship +

Evolution of

river, riparian

health, water

quality

DPSIR Framework

26

13. Flow chart

27

14. Anticipated findings

Rapid urbanization in river development influenced by community resilience through

Cultural Ecosystem Services. Therefore, this research anticipating that:

i. The river development shaped by community resilience through Cultural

Ecosystem Services is influence by the knowledge, awareness,

perception, acceptance and stewardship of community nearby the river.

ii. The community resilience within river development is affected through

aesthetic that form the visual attractiveness for the community to

appreciate the river development.

15. Contribution

This research is to produce a framework on how the future river development able to

be sustained by the community resilience through Cultural Ecosystem Services. It

contributes to the concept of Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) applied by

Department of Irrigation and Drainage that highlights on protection, conservation

and integrated river basin management. It is also parallel with River of Life approach

to a vibrant and livable urban river for community.

28

16. Gantt chart and Milestones

Figure 16.1: Gantt Chart

29

Figure 16.2: Milestones

30

17. References

Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., . . .

Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. AMBIO,

46(1), 30-39. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in

Human Geography, 24(3), 347-364. doi: 10.1191/030913200701540465

Ahmed, R., Seedat, M., Niekerk, A. v., & Bulbulia, S. (2004). Discerning

Community Resilience in Disadvantaged Communities in the Context of

Violence and Injury Prevention. South African Journal of Psychology, 34(3),

386-408. doi: 10.1177/008124630403400304

Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A Framework to Analyze the

Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective.

Ecology and Society, 9(1). doi: 10.5751/ES-00610-090118

Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., & Yabe, K. (2004). Perceptions of urban stream corridors

within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 68(2), 167-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-

2046(03)00158-0

Austin, G. (2014). Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning: Integrating Human

and Natural Systems: Taylor & Francis.

Baschak, L., & Brown, R. (1994). River systems and landscape networks. Landscape

planning and ecological networks, 6, 179.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems:

Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Blignaut, J., Wit, M. d., & Zy, H. v. (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem

Services in Urban Management.

Brierley, G., Fryirs, K., Outhet, D., & Massey, C. (2002). Application of the River

Styles framework as a basis for river management in New South Wales,

Australia. Applied Geography, 22(1), 91-122. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(01)00016-9

31

Brotons, J. C., & Mallari, J. (2016). How to Revive an Ailing River. Retrieved

08/04, 2018, from https://development.asia/case-study/how-revive-ailing-

river

Cha, Y. J., Shim, M.-P., & Kim, S. K. (2011). The Four Major Rivers Restoration

Project. from

un.org/waterforlifedecade/green...2011/.../session_8_water_planning_cases_k

orea.pdf

Chan, N. W. (2009). Issues and challenges in water governance in Malaysia (Vol.

6).

Chan, N. W., Abdullah, A. L., Ibrahim, A. L., & Ghazali, S. (2003). River pollution

and restoration towards sustainable water resources management in

Malaysia. Paper presented at the Society, Space & Environment in a

Globalised World: Challenges and Prospects, Penang, Malaysia.

Chen, W. Y., Hua, J., Liekens, I., & Broekx, S. (2018). Preference heterogeneity and

scale heterogeneity in urban river restoration: A comparative study between

Brussels and Guangzhou using discrete choice experiments. Landscape and

Urban Planning, 173, 9-22. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.010

Chiang, Y.-C. (2018). Exploring community risk perceptions of climate change - A

case study of a flood-prone urban area of Taiwan. Cities, 74, 42-51. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.11.001

Cortinovis, C., & Geneletti, D. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is

there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy, 70, 298-

312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017

Costello, D., Johns, M., & Guilfoyle, A. (2007). Understanding & Building

Resilience in the South West. Paper presented at the Australian Social

Conference.

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J.

(2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to

natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598-606. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Darby, S., & Sear, D. (2008). River Restoration: Managing the Uncertainty in

Restoring Physical Habitat: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Davis, R., Cook, D., & Cohen, L. (2005). A Community Resilience Approach to

Reducing Ethnic and Racial Disparities in Health. American Journal of

Public Health, 95(12), 2168-2173. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.050146

32

Deng, X., & Xu, Y. (2018). Degrading flood regulation function of river systems in

the urbanization process. Science of The Total Environment, 622-623, 1379-

1390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.088

Eric, Y. L. T. (2018). In R. M. Fridaus (Ed.).

Everard, M., & Moggridge, H. L. (2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers.

Urban Ecosystems, 15(2), 293-314. doi: 10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7

Eze, P. N., & Knight, J. (2018). A geomorphological characterisation of river

systems in South Africa: A case study of the Sabie River. Physics and

Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2018.01.001

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Folke, C., Colding, J., & Fikret, B. (2003). Synthesis: Building Resilience and

Adaptive Capacity in Social- Ecological Systems Navigating Social-

Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Furuta, N., & Shimatani, Y. (2017). Integrating ecological perspectives into

engineering practices – Perspectives and lessons from Japan. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.12.003

Gibbon, M., Labonté, R., & Laverack, G. (2002). Evaluating community capacity.

Health Soc Care Community (Vol. 10).

González del Tánago, M., García de Jalón, D., & Román, M. (2012). River

Restoration in Spain: Theoretical and Practical Approach in the Context of

the European Water Framework Directive. Environmental Management,

50(1), 123-139. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9862-1

Grant, L. (2010). Multi-Functional Urban Green Infrastructure (pp. 47).

Gregory, K. J. (2006). The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology,

79(3), 172-191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.018

Gunderson, L. H., Pritchard, L., & Environment, I. C. o. S. U. S. C. o. P. o. t. (2002).

Resilience and the Behavior of Large-Scale Systems: Island Press.

Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., . .

. Elmqvist, T. (2014). A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service

33

Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. AMBIO, 43(4), 413-

433. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0

Hassan, R. M., Scholes, R., Ash, N., Condition, M. E. A., & Group, T. W. (2005).

Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends: Findings of

the Condition and Trends Working Group: Island Press.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review

of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. doi:

10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Hunter, M. R. (2011). Impact of ecological disturbance on awareness of urban nature

and sense of environmental stewardship in residential neighborhoods.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(2), 131-138. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.005

Johnson, E. S., Bell, K. P., & Leahy, J. E. (2018). Disamenity to amenity: Spatial and

temporal patterns of social response to river restoration progress. Landscape

and Urban Planning, 169, 208-219. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.008

Junker, B., & Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological

objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(3), 141-

154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.11.002

Kasnoon, K. (2003). 5 sungai dikenal pasti paling tercemar di negara ini. Retrieved

28/04, 2018, from http://www.astroawani.com/berita-awani745/5-sungai-

dikenal-pasti-paling-tercemar-di-negara-ini-23535

Kondolf, G. M., & Pinto, P. J. (2017). The social connectivity of urban rivers.

Geomorphology, 277, 182-196. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.09.028

Kumar, P., Masago, Y., Mishra, B. K., & Fukushi, K. (2018). Evaluating future

stress due to combined effect of climate change and rapid urbanization for

Pasig-Marikina River, Manila. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 6,

227-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2018.01.004

La Rosa, D., Spyra, M., & Inostroza, L. (2016). Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem

Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological Indicators, 61, 74-89. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028

Lah, T. J., Park, Y., & Cho, Y. J. (2015). The Four Major Rivers Restoration Project

of South Korea:An Assessment of Its Process, Program, and Political

Dimensions. The Journal of Environment & Development, 24(4), 375-394.

doi: 10.1177/1070496515598611

34

. Laporan Tahunan JPS 2016. (2016).

Latip, N. S. A., Shamsudin, S., & Liew, M. S. (2012). Functional Dimension at

‘Kuala Lumpur Waterfront’. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49,

147-155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.013

Lerch, D. (2015). Six Foundations for Building Community Resilience.

Liao, K. H. (2013). Singapore's active, beautiful clean waters.

Ling, T.-Y., & Chiang, Y.-C. (2018). Strengthening the resilience of urban retailers

towards flood risks - A case study in the riverbank region of Kaohsiung City.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 541-555. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.020

Liu, J., Shen, Z., Yan, T., & Yang, Y. (2018). Source identification and impact of

landscape pattern on riverine nitrogen pollution in a typical urbanized

watershed, Beijing, China. Science of The Total Environment, 628-629, 1296-

1307. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.161

Magis, K. (2010). Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability.

Society & Natural Resources, 23(5), 401-416. doi:

10.1080/08941920903305674

Masud, M. M. A., Moni, N. N., Azadi, H., & Van Passel, S. (2018). Sustainability

impacts of tidal river management: Towards a conceptual framework.

Ecological Indicators, 85, 451-467. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.022

Md. Yassin, A., Eves, C., & McDonagh, J. (2010). An evolution of waterfront

development in Malaysia.

Palmer, M. A., & Filoso, S. (2009). Restoration of Ecosystem Services for

Environmental Markets. Science, 325(5940), 575-576. doi:

10.1126/science.1172976

Palmer, M. A., Hondula, K. L., & Koch, B. J. (2014). Ecological Restoration of

Streams and Rivers: Shifting Strategies and Shifting Goals. Annual Review of

Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45(1), 247-269. doi: 10.1146/annurev-

ecolsys-120213-091935

Patel, R. B., & Gleason, K. M. (2018). The association between social cohesion and

community resilience in two urban slums of Port au Prince, Haiti.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 161-167. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.003

35

Pelling, M. (2003). The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social

Resilience: Earthscan Publications.

Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley, P., . . .

Huntsinger, L. (2015). The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape

management and planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,

14, 28-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.02.006

Prominski, M., Stokman, A., & Zeller, S. (2012). River, Space, Design: Planning

Strategies, Methods and Projects for Urban Rivers: Birkhauser.

Saxton, N. (2013). River restoration in a subtropical region: A case study in South-

East.

Schipper, E. L. F., & Langston, L. (2015). A comparative overview of resilience

measurement frameworks: Working Paper 422. London, United Kingdom:

Overseas Development Institute.

Solins, J. P., Thorne, J. H., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2018). Riparian canopy expansion

in an urban landscape: Multiple drivers of vegetation change along headwater

streams near Sacramento, California. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172,

37-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.005

Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., & Evans, K. L. (2018).

Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: Cues, accuracy and well-

being impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172, 1-10. doi:

10.10164/j.andurbplan.2017.12.002

Speed, R. A., Li, Y., Tickner, D., Huang, H., Naiman, R. J., Cao, J., . . . Wei, Y.

(2016). A framework for strategic river restoration in China. Water

International, 41(7), 998-1015. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2016.1247311

Steward, A. L., Negus, P., Marshall, J. C., Clifford, S. E., & Dent, C. (2018).

Assessing the ecological health of rivers when they are dry. Ecological

Indicators, 85, 537-547. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.053

van den Brandeler, F., Gupta, J., & Hordijk, M. (2018). Megacities and rivers: Scalar

mismatches between urban water management and river basin management.

Journal of Hydrology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.001

Vollmer, D., Prescott, M. F., Padawangi, R., Girot, C., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2015).

Understanding the value of urban riparian corridors: Considerations in

planning for cultural services along an Indonesian river. Landscape and

Urban Planning, 138, 144-154. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.011

36

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Resilience,

Adaptability and Transformability in Social–ecological Systems. Ecology and

Society, 9(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Wang, Z. (2018). Evolving landscape-urbanization relationships in contemporary

China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 171, 30-41. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.010

Wang, Z., Deng, X., Wong, C., Li, Z., & Chen, J. (2018). Learning Urban Resilience

from a Social-Economic-Ecological System Perspective: a case study of

Beijing from 1978-2015. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.128

Weil, K. K., Cronan, C. S., Meyer, S. R., Lilieholm, R. J., Danielson, T. J.,

Tsomides, L., & Owen, D. (2018). Predicting stream vulnerability to

urbanization stress with Bayesian network models. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 170, 138-149. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.001

Western, J., Stimson, R., Baum, S., & Van Gellecum, Y. (2005). Measuring

community strength and social capital. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1095-1109.

doi: 10.1080/00343400500328222

Wilson, G. A. (2012). Community Resilience and Environmental Transitions:

Routledge.

Wilson, G. A. (2014). Community resilience: path dependency, lock-in effects and

transitional ruptures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,

57(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.741519