Opportunity in lost spaces: Exploring the potential of edible landscapes in viaduct underpasses
Vol 9, Issue 9, 2024, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 26 (Abstract) 6 (PDF)
Abstract
This paper introduces the concept of edible landscapes to underutilized spaces in viaduct underpasses to explore their untapped potential. Using a case study approach that involves on-site observations, questionnaires, and photographic documentation, this study will document the characteristics of 29 space nodes beneath 18 viaducts and along their routes in Guangzhou’s Tianhe District. It analyzes user behavior and aspirations to activate the underutilized spaces of the viaduct underpass, optimizing their residual space, and enhancing their interactive potential. Furthermore, the paper proposes targeted design strategies for the rejuvenation and sustainable management of these underappreciated urban lost spaces. This study has two primary contributions. Firstly, it enhances the conceptual understanding of the lost spaces located in the viaduct underpass. Secondly, it investigates potential approaches and the benefits of utilizing these spaces for edible landscape development within the urban environment of Tianhe district in Guangzhou city.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. B. Yuen and W. Nyuk Hien, “Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore,” Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 263–276, Dec. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.001.
2. P. M. Sanches and P. R. Mesquita Pellegrino, “Greening potential of derelict and vacant lands in urban areas,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 19, pp. 128–139, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.002.
3. E. C. Anderson and E. S. Minor, “Vacant lots: An underexplored resource for ecological and social benefits in cities,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 21, pp. 146–152, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.015.
4. M. I. N. Mohamed Anuar and S. A. Abdullah, “THE BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING IN ADDRESSING LOST SPACES UNDERNEATH ELEVATED URBAN HIGHWAYS,” Plan. Malays., vol. 20, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.21837/pm.v20i23.1165.
5. Trancik, “‘Density Form and Transportation.’ Inspired by ‘What is Lost Space’ (Roger Trancik, 1986),” 1986, Accessed: Nov. 09, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.academia.edu/2040496/_Density_Form_and_Transportation_Inspired_by_What_is_Lost_Space_Roger_Trancik_1986_
6. M. Naghibi, M. Faizi, and A. Ekhlassi, “Design possibilities of leftover spaces as a pocket park in relation to planting enclosure,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 64, p. 127273, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127273.
7. G. M. Doron, “The Dead Zone and the Architecture of Transgression,” City, Jul. 2000, doi: 10.1080/13604810050147857.
8. T. Nielsen, “The Return of the Excessive: Superfluous Landscapes,” Space Cult., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53–62, Feb. 2002, doi: 10.1177/1206331202005001006.
9. K. Cupers and M. Miessen, Spaces of Uncertainty - Berlin revisited: Potenziale urbaner Nischen. Birkhäuser, 2018.
10. A. E. Van Den Berg and C. C. Konijnendijk, “Ambivalence Towards Nature and Natural Landscapes,” in Environmental Psychology, 1st ed., L. Steg and J. I. M. Groot, Eds., Wiley, 2018, pp. 76–84. doi: 10.1002/9781119241072.ch8.
11. S. Tonnelat, “`Out of frame’: The (in)visible life of urban interstices — a case study in Charenton-le-Pont, Paris, France,” Ethnography, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 291–324, Sep. 2008, doi: 10.1177/1466138108094973.
12. “Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary Public Space Critique and Classification, Part One Critique. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 123-148. - References - Scientific Research Publishing.” Accessed: Oct. 05, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453ed%20snp55rrgjct55))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=3069252
13. M. Hamersma, E. Heinen, T. Tillema, and J. Arts, “The development of highway nuisance perception,” Land Use Policy, vol. 61, pp. 553–563, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.008.
14. M. I. N. Mohamed Anuar and R. Ahmad, “Elevated Highways and its Lost Spaces: A Review of Kuala Lumpur’s seldom seen,” Environ.-Behav. Proc. J., vol. 2, no. 6, p. 279, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.21834/e-bpj.v2i6.966.
15. Z.-W. Zheng and R.-J. Chou, “The Impact and Future of Edible Landscapes on Sustainable Urban Development: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Urban For. Urban Green., p. 127930, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127930.
16. R. Creasy, The Complete Book of Edible Landscaping. Sierra Club Books, 1982.
17. M. Antrop, “Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe,” Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 67, no. 1–4, pp. 9–26, Mar. 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4.
18. B. Hu and J. Zhao, “Factors promoting nature-based outdoor recreation during the daytime and evening,” J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour., vol. 40, p. 100572, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2022.100572.
19. M. Mostafavi and G. Doherty, Ecological Urbanism. Lars Müller Publishers, 2016.
20. N. Qamaruz-Zaman, Z. Samadi, and N. F. N. Azhari, “Opportunity in Leftover Spaces: Activities Under the Flyovers of Kuala Lumpur,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 68, pp. 451–463, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.241.
21. M. Chisholm, Rural Settlement and Land Use: An Essay in Location. Hutchinson, 1979.
22. T. Hauck, Infrastructural Urbanism: Addressing the In-between. DOM Publishers, 2011.
23. J. M. Morse, Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures. Routledge, 2016.
24. H. Taherdoost, “Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research,” SSRN Electron. J., 2016, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3205040.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i9.2980
(26 Abstract Views, 6 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Huihua Yang, Mohd Kher Hussein, Roziya Ibrahim, Qianda Zhuang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.