RECLAIMING RIVER ROUGE, MI: AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH
By
Rory Quentin Hyde

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Environmental Design—Master of Arts
2013

ABSTRACT
RECLAIMING RIVER ROUGE, MI: AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH
By
Rory Quentin Hyde
In this research based design thesis, the relationship
between human and non-human ecosystems was explored through the
creation of a hypothetical master plan design for the city of
River Rouge, MI, USA, to remedy the current problems faced
there, specifically the loss of urban density, indigenous habitat destruction, and wasteful stormwater management techniques.
The design is presented through a series of plan view schematics, and images from a three-dimensional model. A Post-treatment
test was conducted to evaluate the attractiveness via a visual
quality analysis comparing current site photographs to created
scenes. Scores were compared using an un-paired T-Test. Results
show a significant improvement of visual quality when comparing
mean values and also the 95% confidence intervals. Means differ
by -28.18 ± 5.392 (a lower/more attractive Visual Quality
score). The 95% confidence interval found that the original site
mean scores falls between 61.18 and 81.21, while the created
mean lies within 37.15 and 48.89. The P value for this experiment was found to be less than 0.0001. Treatments utilized within this study prove promising to improve this suffering suburb
of Metropolitan Detroit, MI.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to personally thank all my friends and family
for their continuous support throughout my education and also
this thesis writing process. Specific thanks must be given to my
sister Jessica E. Hyde for being the one to suggest that I study
Landscape Architecture, it has become an excellent fit for my
varied fields of interest.
Completion of this paper would not have been possible with
the expert guidance of my graduate professors at Michigan State
University, most importantly Dr. Jon B. Burley. His help has allowed me to take a rough idea and develop it into a finished
product.
I would also like to thank my wonderful committee members:
Dr. April Allen, Dr. Patricia Machemer, and Paul Nieratko for
taking time to read, edit and discuss this project with me.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................vii
INTRODUCTION...................................................1
Overview of Problem.......................................2
Purpose of the Study......................................4
Definition of Terms.......................................5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK..........................................6
The Biophilia Hypothesis..................................7
Exploration Questions.....................................8
Hypothesis................................................8
REVIEW OF LITERATURE...........................................9
Research Areas...........................................10
Sustainable Urban Revitalization.........................11
Development Trends..................................13
Discrepancy Between Terms...........................14
Lack of Connections.................................15
Ineffective Urban Compaction........................16
Ecosystem Fragmentation.............................17
Professional Irresponsibility.......................18
Economic Value of Conservation......................19
Scale Failures......................................20
Urban Ecology.......................................22
New Urbanism........................................23
Technology and Landscape............................25
Biophilia...........................................26
Wetland Reclamation......................................30
Wetlands Effectiveness for Detention/Retention......31
Wetland Design Methodology..........................32
Nutrient Removal....................................34
Wildlife Conservation...............................36
Pest Problems.......................................38
Microbial Biomass...................................39
Methane and Greenhouse Gas Emissions................40
Stormwater Management....................................41
Treatment Design Shapes and Forms...................42
Biofiltration.......................................45
Low-Impact Design...................................48
iv

Visual Quality/Environmental Preference..................50
Summary of Literature....................................56
METHODS.......................................................58
Research Design..........................................59
Stage 1 Qualitative data collection and analysis.........60
Stage 2 The Design Process...............................60
Stage 3 Quantitative data collection and analysis........61
Validity approaches......................................64
DESIGN........................................................66
Introduction.............................................67
Assumptions..............................................67
Inventory and Analysis...................................67
Site Selection......................................67
Inventory...........................................72
Design Inspiration.......................................74
Concept..................................................75
Program..................................................76
Functional Relationships.................................77
Master Plan..............................................81
Building Use........................................84
Local Connections...................................85
Hydrology...........................................86
Neighborhood Scale Land Use.........................88
Site Details.............................................90
Reflection/Summary......................................106
RESULTS......................................................110
DISCUSSION...................................................116
Limitations.............................................117
Recommendations.........................................119
Conclusions and Significance............................123
APPENDICES...................................................124
Appendix A: Tested Images...............................125
Appendix B: Glossary....................................130
REFERENCES...................................................148

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Independent Variables................................62
Table 2. Environmental Quality Index..........................63
Table 3. Visual Quality Scores...............................111
Table 4. Statistical Analysis................................114

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Selected site location. FlashEarth/Bing Maps/Microsoft
Corporation. Annotations by Rory Hyde 2013...............69
Figure 2. Selected site of River Rouge, MI along Detroit River
FlashEarth/Bing Maps/Microsoft Corporation...............71
Figure 3. Prior Landcover on site, circa 19th century. Scale not
given. Albert 2008.......................................73
Figure 4. Generation of a fractal snowflake. Rory Hyde 2013...75
Figure 5. Schematic Functional Use Diagram. Rory Hyde 2013....77
Figure 6. Schematic Functional Use Diagram #2. Rory Hyde 2013.78
Figure 7. Schematic Functional Use Diagram #3. Rory Hyde 2013.79
Figure 8. Schematic Fractal Coastline. Rory Hyde 2013.........80
Figure 9. Proposed Master Plan, Landscape Scale. Rory Hyde 2013..
.........................................................83
Figure 10. Proposed building use. Rory Hyde 2013..............85
Figure 11. Proposed neighborhood connectivity. Rory Hyde 2013.86
Figure 12. Hydrology schematic. Rory Hyde 2013................88
Figure 13. Neighborhood scale Proposed Land Use. Rory Hyde
2013.....................................................90
Figure 14. Aerial view of proposed residential peninsula. Rory
Hyde 2013................................................91
Figure 15. Aerial view of Riverview Plaza. Rory Hyde 2013.....91
Figure 16. Riverview Plaza perspective. Rory Hyde 2013........93
Figure 17. Residential interior treatment channel. Rory Hyde
2013.....................................................94
vii

Figure 18. Residential interior treatment channel seen from
apartment window. Rory Hyde 2013.........................95
Figure 19. Greenway traversing residential blocks. Rory Hyde
2013.....................................................96
Figure 20. Exterior view of residential peninsula from apartment
window. Rory Hyde 2013...................................97
Figure 21. Aerial view of proposed Mixed-Use corridor. Rory Hyde
2013.....................................................98
Figure 22. Streetscape of proposed Mixed-Use area. Rory Hyde
2013.....................................................99
Figure 23. New Center Square. Rory Hyde 2013.................100
Figure 24. New Center Square cafe perspective. Rory Hyde 2013...
........................................................101
Figure 25. Alleyway with fabric canopy. Rory Hyde 2013.......102
Figure 26. Interior view of covered alleyway. Rory Hyde 2013.103
Figure 27. Wetland Park. Rory Hyde 2013......................104
Figure 28. Utility Park. Rory Hyde 2013......................105
Figure 29. Proposed bird rookery. Rory Hyde 2013.............106
Figure 30. NE corner of Marion Industrial Hwy, looking South.125
Figure 31. NE corner of Marion Industrial Hwy, looking East..125
Figure 32. NE corner of Marion Industrial Hwy, looking Northeast.
........................................................125
Figure 33. NE corner of Marion Industrial Hwy, looking West..125
Figure 34. Belanger Park, at river looking North.............126
Figure 35. Belanger Park, looking North......................126
Figure 36. Belanger Park, playground looking Northwest.......126
viii

Figure 37. Belanger Park, looking South......................126
Figure 38. John Dingell Park, looking North..................126
Figure 39. John Dingell Park, looking East at Mud Island.....126
Figure 40. John Dingell Park, looking South..................127
Figure 41. Abbott Street, looking West.......................127
Figure 42. Walnut and Genessee, looking East.................127
Figure 43. Walnut and Genessee , looking West................127
Figure 44. Jefferson Ave and Henry St, looking Southeast.....127
Figure 45. Riverview Plaza, looking East from housing block..127
Figure 46. Housing block near Riverview Plaza, looking West..128
Figure 47. Housing block near Riverview Plaza, looking West from
Apartment window........................................128
Figure 48. Greenway traversing residential block, looking
North...................................................128
Figure 49. Exterior view of residential peninsula, looking
Northwest...............................................128
Figure 50. Mixed use streetscape, looking North..............128
Figure 51. New Center Square, looking Northeast from office window.....................................................128
Figure 52. New Center Square cafe, looking West..............129
Figure 53. Covered alleyway, looking West....................129
Figure 54. Covered Alley interior, looking Southwest.........129
Figure 55. Wetland Park, looking Southeast...................129
Figure 56. Bird rookery, looking East........................129
Figure 57. Utility Park, looking South.......................129
ix

INTRODUCTION

1

Overview of Problem
Of all the issues facing the design world today, the effects of uninformed decision-making and wasteful development
practices is of the most urgent concern (Göçmen 2009). This phenomenon is often described as “Urban Sprawl.” Urban Sprawl is
responsible for numerous ecological impacts including habitat
loss(Berke et al. 2003), ecosystem fragmentation (Brook 2005),
decreased bio-diversity (Petersen 2013), air and water pollution
(Echols 2008), as well as climatological effects. (Alberti 1999,
Göçmen 2009, Pauleit & Golding 2005) Though awareness of these
impacts have become widely known, current developmental patterns
are doing little to counteract against the negative impacts associated with sprawl(Pauleit & Golding 2005). An increasing number of policies designed to protect and preserve ecosystems and
natural areas have been devised (Kaplan et al. 2004, McWilliam
et al. 2010), but many decisions are still left to individuals
and developers(Alberti 1999, Conway 2006. Göcmen 2009, Thompson
2004). What factors are inhibiting the utilization of the scientific findings(Alberti 1999, Conway 2006, Pauleit & Golding
2005, Thompson 2004) concerning ecological impact to create informed developmental policy? How can developers and individuals
be educated and encouraged to make environmentally sensitive decisions in spite of new policy? Can conservation techniques pos2

itively influence suburban resident satisfaction? (Brook 2005,
Göcmen 2009)
Development trends and sprawl patterns have been a popular
area of investigation in the recent decades(Pauleit & Golding
2005). Urban populations have been on the rise, and many suburban areas have also seen dramatic influx in population(Göcmen
2009). More recently, the ecological impacts associated with
these patterns have been studied; how this knowledge is passed
on and understood by those responsible for and involved in these
patterns (Alberti 1999, Conway 2006. Pauleit & Golding 2005,
Thompson 2004). Past studies seemed to focus primarily on dense
urban environments, but recent studies have also begun looking
into the relationship between suburban development and natural
ecosystems, specifically definitions of terminology, and environmental attitudes (Weller 2008, Ndubisi 2008, Kaplan 2004,
Thompson 2004). Economic aspects have also been frequently addressed. Studies have found significant correlations between
preserving natural areas and increased property values (Thorsnes
2002, McWillian et al. 2010. Geoghegan 2002).
Despite the increased amount of study in the problem area,
there seem to be substantial deficiencies in the full understanding of the topic. Few studies have identified factors that
influence decisions made by real-estate developers, and suburban
3

residents. While some have shown that these populations are
aware of environmental benefits of alternative design management, why aren’t pro-environmental behaviors more prevalent?
How could these practices be marketed to developers? How could
ecologically progressive communities be marketed to homebuyers?
Further research is needed to address these issues.

Policy mak-

ing could benefit from tried and tested developments, that effectively act against sprawl, and showcase how scientific discovery can be used to inform decision making on the entire scale
of land use management.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to investigate the relationship between human and non-human (natural) ecosystems within an urban residential environment, how they relate currently, and how they can be
better integrated, if at all. This information could play a vital role in marketability of ecologically/environmentally sensitive developments. Policy makers on the local, regional, and
federal scale could potentially benefit from information on how
to better design communities, restore non-human habitats, how to
designate land to be preserved, and what to enforce within developmental procedures. However, most importantly this thesis
aims to demonstrate the author's abilities and knowledge within
the holistic field of Environmental Design; Bridge the gaps
4

between Urban Planning, Ecology and Landscape; and explore the
application of personal design philosophy.
Definition of Terms
For a complete list of definitions of terms used throughout
this thesis, please refer to the Glossary in Appendix B.

5

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

6

The Biophilia Hypothesis
The central theory driving this thesis is that of the “Biophilia Hypothesis.” This project explores the claims proposed by
the “Biophilia Hypothesis” and seeks to create an example of its
potential for real world applications.
The “Biophilia Hypothesis” was first suggested by Edward O.
Wilson in 1984. The basic idea is that humans have an innate
connection to the natural world, because their brains evolved
within it. Biophilic Design stems from this principle, suggesting that good design caters to our need for this connection,
utilizing patterns and forms found often in nature, specifically
the environments in which humans evolved.
“Humanity is exalted not because we are so far above other
living creatures, but because knowing them well elevates
the very concept of life." (Wilson 22)
“The one process now going on that will take millions of
years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats.

This is

the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us."
(Wilson 121)

7

Exploration Questions
The following questions were foundational to the choice of
research fields, design philosophies, and the development of the
experimental hypothesis:
Can Biophilic Design be successfully woven into the current urban fabric?
Can indigenous landscapes be successfully restored in the urban
fabric?
Can human and non-human ecosystems be integrated in an urban
residential setting?
What effects would these integrations have on the lives of residents?
Hypothesis
The theoretical hypothesis for this study is: “Human and
non-human ecosystems can be integrated in a mutually beneficial
manner, which will provide an attractive setting to increase
urban density.”
While a testable hypotheses is: “If the selected site of
River Rouge, MI is treated through applied Biophilic design,
then the resulting product will display lower(more attractive)
Visual Quality scores.” A testable null hypothesis would be; “If
the selected site of River Rouge, MI is treated through applied
Biophilic design, then the resulting product’s Visual Quality
scores will not differ significantly from scores of the existing
site.”
8

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

9

Research Areas
This study seeks to address a problem consisting of many
interrelated fields of research/topics. For this reason, multiple disciplines were investigated throughout the course of the
review of current literature relevant to the problem at hand. To
begin, the literature has been divided into three major areas of
research:
-Sustainable Urban Revitalization
-Wetland Reclamation
-Stormwater Management
As these areas of research are interrelated, overlap occurs
within every category. It is essential to identify these relationships and synthesize them to accurately understand the direction of current research trends related to the problem.
During the review process, another distinct topic trend was
discovered, visual quality and environmental preference of “natural” areas. This topic is very relevant to the other fields of
study, and for that reason was chosen as a means for evaluating
the success of the final design product.
For the sake of this review of literature the three major
research areas will be given their own individual subchapters,
along with one devoted to visual quality/environmental preference.
10

Sustainable Urban Revitalization
Environmental Design, Landscape Architecture and their related disciplines all serve the primary function of providing
for human use and well-being. For this reason the author has selected Sustainable Urban Revitalization as the primary field of
research for this study.
Urban Sprawl and human development are responsible for habitat loss & fragmentation(Berke et al. 2003,Brook 2005), decreases in bio-diversity(Petersen 2013), and the pollution of
air and water (Echols 2008, Pauleit & Golding 2005). Current
design practices do little to suit the needs of human and nonhuman users (Baldwin et al. 2010, Pauleit & Golding 2005,
Thompson 2004, Wener and Carmalt 2006). The general public lacks
a strong land ethic, a connection to the ecosystem of which they
are a part (Thompson 2004).
Throughout the course of human history residential development has occurred in primarily three forms: urban, suburban, and
exurban. Of these forms suburban development is most often attributed to the most devastating consequences(Göcmen 2009,
Pauleit & Golding 2005). Suburban development has been a trend
in the United States beginning roughly at the end of the 19th
century; however it wasn’t until after the end of World War II,
when the economy was most suitable, that serious outward expan11

sion began, commonly refereed to as “Urban Sprawl,” (Lovejoy et
al. 2010). As cities were expanding, the potential negative influences of such development became a great interest to planners, scientists and concerned citizens. In the recent decades
suburban development has been placed under increasing scrutiny.
Some communities as well as planning and design groups have
taken initiative to begin building residential areas using more
sustainable approaches(Baldwin et al. 2010, Kaplan et al. 2004,
Lovejoy et al. 2010, Pauleit & Golding 2005, Stangl and Guinn
2011). This practice however is still struggling to become the
norm; Sprawl is still occurring, and development is not always
under the influence of informed decision making.

For these

reasons, the emerging topic of “Sustainable Urban Revitalization” has become popular within the scientific and professional
communities (It is important to note that this term has been
chosen by the author to represent the many related design philosophies seeking to address the issues created by Urban Sprawl.
Many of these individual philosophies will be explained later on
within this review). The major issues surrounding Sustainable
Urban Revitalization are: harmful development trends, the discrepancies between terms and definitions, a lack of connection
between environmental attitudes and behaviors, ineffective urban
compaction, professional irresponsibility, conservation and its
12

economic value, failures to study at multiple scales, few studies of urban ecology, the popular philosophy of New Urbanism,
Technology and Landscape, and also the concept of Biophilia.
Development Trends
Currently there is still a trend to build low-density developments, despite the discouragement of the scientific community(Göcmen 2009). Studies have looked into the relationships
between residential development and environmental perceptions
(Göcmen 2009). Results have shown that the presence of natural
areas is among the top reasons that homebuyers choose their home
location, which often leads to preference for the low-density
trend. These communities result in increased dependency on automobiles and add strain to existing infrastructure and resource
distribution. Disastrous effects on air and water quality are
among the other impacts of current low-density development. One
explanation of these effects reads, “Sprawl increasingly dominates the landscape by converting vast expanses of land into
roads, parking lots, roofs, and driveways. These impervious surfaces generate polluted runoff that is recognized as a leading
threat to water quality, as well as increase downstream flooding
and habitat loss” (Berke et al. 2003). To support the establishment of green suburban theories, consumers must be educated to
make more informed decisions about housing location choice. If
13

this is done then there might be enough demand to influence
policy and improved development practices.

(Göcmen 2009, Kaplan

et al. 2004, Thompson 2004)
Studies concerning resident satisfaction within different
types of neighborhoods have been increasingly popular in recent
years (Lovejoy et al. 2010). Identifying the characteristics important to residents is key to designing attractive developments. Lovejoy et al. 2010 published a paper comparing suburban
neighborhoods to traditional environments to determine residential satisfaction. Results suggest that traditional neighborhoods are in fact preferred when compared to the suburban developments typical of sprawl. The article states, “For both types
of neighborhoods, the most important predictor of neighborhood
satisfaction are resident’s perceptions of the attractive appearance and safety of the neighborhoods,” (Lovejoy et al. 44).
The same study was surprised to find that other factors did not
influence satisfaction significantly, for instance, low density
or the availability of parking(Lovejoy et al. 2010).
Discrepancy Between Terms
One major issue in the struggle to build greener communities is the discrepancy between term use and their definitions
(Kaplan et al. 2004). The professional world and the world of
homeowners use different terminology to describe the subdivi14

sions in which they live. Terms such as “conservation”, “sustainability”, “green space” and “open space” are common in the
realm of suburban design, but there is little being done to establish a unified standard to aim towards. If progress is to be
made, there must be a well-defined framework model for green
communities to undertake, and its goals must be understood and
supported by those who live there (Kaplan et al. 2004).
There also proves to be significant discrepancy between the
different sustainable design philosophies, as well as problems
between what individual approaches prescribe and actual implementation (Berke et al. 2003). One such design concept is named
New Urbanism. The approach claims to offer social, fiscal and
environmental benefits when compared to more often utilized development methods, but problems have arisen while attempting to
prove this claim empirically (Berke et al. 2003).
Lack of Connections
Another important concern of researchers is the lack of
connection between environmentally conscious attitudes and proenvironmental behaviors (Thompson 2004). Even though residents
and developers may be well informed about the impacts of development, they are not making sustainable, green decisions collectively (Thompson 2004). While there is increasing trends to
support sustainable development, there is not a strong land eth15

ic shared by the community to foster successful enactment
(Thompson 2004). Scientific organizations and design professionals may be advocating better planning practices, but ultimately
major environmental impacts are the results of numerous small
private-sector decisions (Thompson 2004). Connections must be
made between developers, educators, residents, and planners;
these connections must be supported with strong community interaction, as well as interaction between the disciplines(Thompson
2004).
Ineffective Urban Compaction
Urban compaction is often seen as a solution to fighting
the effects of sprawl and preserving areas of open space and
natural vegetation (Pauleit & Golding 2005). Much research has
been done on its effectiveness and theory. Urban compaction aims
to slow or stop sprawl by revitalizing urban environments to
suit the needs of increasing populations, through conscientious
planning and density analysis. By using Geographic Information
Systems in conjunction with regional surveys, Pauleit and Golding (2005) studied the patterns of growth and development within
American cities.

Findings have shown that even in compacted de-

velopments, green spaces have been lost to development, especially in economically affluent areas. Suggestions have been
made to inform policy making about proper ways to permanently
16

preserve natural areas while restricting development. (Pauleit &
Golding 2005)
Ecosystem Fragmentation
Connections between preserved natural areas are another
concern of contemporary research (Brook 2005, Conway 2006. Göcmen 2009). Current methods of conservation have been shown to be
ineffectively addressing the flow of abiotic and biotic features
within the environment. Preservation methods are creating islands of habitat disconnected from other ecological systems. Research has shown that public land preservation such as parks and
green ways are not capable of advancing sustainability alone;
private land must also be worked into the network to truly be
sustainable (Conway 2006). Under current policy it is expected
that connectivity resistance will continue to rise(Conway 2006).
Without proper education, utilization of private and public land
will not achieve the necessary levels of conservation to sustain
and maintain ecosystem services (Conway 2006). Specific
guidelines must be established for homeowners and private developers to facilitate connections between areas of habitat and
natural vegetation (Conway 2006, Göcmen 2009). Sustainable development itself is under scrutiny by researchers concerned with
its ability to reach the goals the movement has
established(Baldwin et al. 2010, Berke et al. 2003, Brook 200,
17

Göcmen 2009, Stangl and Guinn 2011, Thompson 2004, Wener and
Carmalt 2006). While the movement attempts to limit the impact
on the natural environment and even establish new green connections, it fails to the needs of ecological systems and resources(Baldwin et al. 2010). Those who are responsible for development are not often authorities on ecological systems and
development, leading to the inability for human environments to
meet the needs of the environment (Göcmen 2009, Thompson 2004).
Environmentally sustainable practices are now being implemented
by developers, but are often simplified and ineffective. Research has suggested that strong, steadfast communication must
be developed between environmental and ecological experts,
design professionals, and land developers for sustainable practices to accurately actualize(Göcmen 2009, Thompson 2004). The
often overlooked and under-appreciated profession of landscape
architecture is considered a potential facilitator between those
involved in suburban development (Brook 2005).
Professional Irresponsibility
The role of landscape architects within the suburban realm
has also been called into question. Some professionals have concluded that the traditional work performed within the profession
is one based on superficiality (Weller 2008). Suburban communities are often misunderstood and understudied if even studied at
18

all by landscape architects, even though they have potential for
being working experts in the area (Weller 2008). There are often
too many factors contributing to the inability of suburban developments to become sustainable and practice green urbanism
theory (Weller 2008). Unless control is gained within the umbrella of suburban development, disconnects will continue to exist between theory and practice (Weller 2008). The many
paradigms of development must be unified under a common goal
with clear direction, framework and guidelines (Weller 2008).
Economic Value of Conservation
Economic value of preserved lands has been another area of
study for landscape researchers. Financial barriers are often
considered barriers to green development, but many studies have
shown potential monetary gain from implementing conservation
techniques (Hardie et al. 2007, Thorsnes 2002). Areas of preserved natural vegetation have a direct effect on the property
value of residential homes. For instance, properties that backed
up to a forest preserve sold at significantly higher rates and
prices than those that did not (Thorsnes 439). Non-monetary
value is also attributed to such areas, and is recognized by
residents. Thorsnes’s research (2002) has found that permanent
preserves can offer many benefits to housing communities including flood control, recreational space, wildlife viewing, pollu19

tion control, privacy and reduced congestion. (Thorsnes 2002)
A similar study by Hardie et al. (2007) investigated the
effects of forest conservation and zoning on subdivision land
value. The study features comparison with requirements from the
Maryland Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1991 and its potential
to affect property values. Results from the study, “find that
the average values of developed lots per subdivision acre are
positively associated with the percentage of the subdivision
that developers are required to plant in forest under the FCA,”
(Hardie et al. 471). In addition, Hardie et al. discovered that
zoning regulations have an effect on property values where,
“planning associations in Maryland force developers to subdivide
into smaller number of large lots than would be privately profitable,” (470). The authors suggest that residential land use
zoning would benefit from requiring higher density developments
by commanding higher average lot values. (Hardie et al. 2007)
The relationship between these benefits and values in comparison to traditional means of development must be further
studied. Only if these benefits can be understood and clearly
communicated to developers, planners, and politicians will the
practice have positive effects in the fight against sprawl.
Scale Failures
The scale at which urban sprawl is addressed is an area of
20

study of contemporary research (Mason 2011, Ndubisi 2008, Wheeler 2009). “Sustainable regionalism” is a method being studied,
with focus on its ability to address the many issues of sprawl
that cannot be solved on smaller scales (Ndubisi 2008).

It is a

theory that aims to establish ecological systems within regions
experiencing urban growth. Ndubisi(2008)has shown that focusing
on the city, and the communities that surround them as separate
entities results in incomplete design and planning prescriptions. Sustainable practices must be studied and enacted as a
network connecting all forms and scales of development together.
Until this is done, far-reaching sustainability is not an accessible goal (Ndubisi 2008).
In 2011, Mason discussed the historical roots and current
trends of what he calls, “ecoregional planning.” Ecoregions are
defined by natural boundaries, rather than political, such as;
topography, hydrology, flora and fauna (Mason 2011). These regions differ in scale, mega- meso- and micro-, of which the latter sees the most activity in planning (Mason 2011). Mason
demonstrates how this is a problem, stating, “Environmentalists,
bioregionalits, conversation biologists, and many others have
long held the view that if we are to properly manage our environmental resources, America must be viewed foremost as a collage
of ecoregions, rather than a collection of state and local gov21

ernments,” (408). The paper also posits that ecoregioinal planning will continue to suffer unless economic and political barriers are overcome (Mason 2011). The best solution given by the
study is to provide and enforce effective incentive-disincentive
programs at the mega- and mesolevel ecoregional scales (Mason
2011).
Urban Ecology
The particular ecology within cities is an area of little
study within the realm of landscape architecture and urban planning. There is a complex relationship within cities between socioeconomic structures, ecology within cities, and cities as
ecosystems.

Some feel that cities are “holes” within the fabric

of natural ecosystems, and not much has been studied on this
disturbance (Wu 2008). There is consistent encouragement of adopting a new perspective when designing and revitalizing cities,
one that focuses on interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches to integrating human ecology with the rest of the ecosystem.

Once patterns of urban growth and development are stud-

ied in more detail, then designers and planners can better formulate approaches to designing for the needs of a growing population.

If properly planned, development can be switched from

the cause of environmental degradation, to the means to achieve
sustainability. (Wu 2008)
22

New Urbanism
New urbanism is a relatively new design approach seeking to
provide a beneficial means for low-impact development(Katz 1993;
Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Alminana 2003). The theory is defined
as, “Neighborhood design trend used to promote community and
livability. Characteristics include narrow streets, wide sidewalks, porches, and homes located closer together than typical
suburban designs,” (Farr 2008). Integral to the philosophy is
increasing the density of residential dwelling units. “Seven
swelling units per acre is a minimum threshold of net density
for new urban developments, compared to four dwelling units per
acre(or less) for conventional developments,” says Berke on page
400 of his study on the effectiveness of the approach. Pedestrian orientation is another key component. New Urbanism designs
with the intent of reducing the use and prominence of automobiles within developments. For this reason, an increased amount
of pedestrian and bike trails are often created; these trails
can actually increase impervious surfaces within green areas and
could be seen as a disadvantage. Berke and his fellow authors
point out that these trails could trade runoff for improved air
quality due to decreased used of motor vehicles for travel. Furthermore, by designing mixed land uses within developments, New
Urbanism posits increased attraction, satisfaction, diversity,
23

incomes, and civic bonds within its communities (Berke et al.
2003). An important finding from the Berke study is that within
greenfield developments New Urbanism is more effective than conventional developments at incorporating watershed protection.
The same study did not find strong evidence to suggest that New
Urbanism was as successful in urban infill sites. The authors
suggest for this reason that,”New Urban developments in urban
core areas should more effectively account for watershed impacts,” pg. 410. Providing incentives for New Urbanist infill
development would provide for future studies of its effectiveness (Berke et al. 2003).
New Urbanism and LEED-ND were evaluated in a study by
Stangl and Guinn in 2011. They state that while LEED-ND portrays
itself as tool for meeting the requirements of New Urbanism theory, it actually fails to accurately account for connectivity
within neighborhoods. The authors demonstrate several scenarios
where neighborhood layouts pass LEED-ND’s connectivity test, but
feature dramatic connectivity limitations. Also, included in the
article is a method for determining route directness as a more
objective means to evaluate connectivity and ease of movement in
all directions (page 290) and easy solutions to remedying the
failures of LEED-ND. It is important for designers to not apply
theories, such as New Urbanism, but to verify that principles
24

and techniques within these theories in fact achieve the goals
they set out to reach. (Stangl and Guinn 2011)
Technology and Landscape
Key to a review on literature regarding sustainable urban
revitalization is the 1994 text Gray World, Green Heart: Technology, Nature, and the Sustainable Landscape, by Robert Thayer.
The book outlines human-landscape phenomenons such as technophilia, technophobia, topophilia, landscape guilt, deep ecology
and the Gaia Hypothesis. The main premise of the book is that
humanity innately loves both nature and technology, however the
presence of the two together often creates cognitive dissonance,
resulting in landscapes that are not sustainable (Thayer 1994).
Thayer also discusses dilemmas within landscape management
and planning practices concerning the aforementioned phenomenons. His particular style os sustainability includes 5 main
characteristics:
“1. Use primarily renewable, horizontal energy at rates which
can be regenerated without ecological destabilization.
2. Maximize the recycling of resources, nutrients, and
byproducts and produce minimum “waste,” or conversion of materials to unusable locations or forms
3. Maintain local structure and function, and not reduce the diversity or stability of the surrounding ecosystems
25

4. Preserve and serve local human communities rather than change
or destroy them
5. Incorporate technologies that support these goals. In the
sustianable landscape, technology is secondary and subservient,
not primary and dominating,” (Thayer 243).
Of these characteristic, the fifth seems to be of strongest emphasis throughout the book. Thayer asserts that technology within a sustainable landscape must be transparent, and genuine,
displaying its true nature to the public, whether negative or
positive. Also, technology needs to add complexity without creating contradiction; with one example being that air conditioning must not afford some a pleasurable climate, while ultimately
resulting in the suffering of others (Thayer 313). This vision
may result in a post-postmodern world with, “the style of no
style,”(315) that departs from traditional aesthetics and adheres to ecological functionality of form (Thayer 1994).
Biophilia
One particular design philosophy that attempts to remedy
many of the aforementioned issues with sustainable design, is
Biophilia. Developed by Edward O. Wilson in 1984 it has been investigated and adapted by many other researchers. According to
Kellert et al. (2008),”The goal of Biophilic design is to integrate social and natural sciences to produce human living envir26

onments that sustain a human-nature connection; i.e., provide
psychological benefits,” (Baldwin et al. 2010).
Designers of supposedly green and sustainable developments
often overlook the means necessary to truly provide habitat
suitable for a diverse range of organisms, as well as human
well-being (Baldwin et al. 2010). However these authors suggest
that Biophilic design could remedy this problem based on support
that,“an abundance of research has revealed that ecosystems with
a full complement of interacting species have significant utilitarian value to humans by providing dividends for human
health,” (Baldwin et al. 2010). Some of the benefits discovered
include: reduced crime; reduced pain, stress and depression; enhanced physical and mental resilience; improved childhood development, attention, academic performance and productivity (Baldwin et al. 2010).
Important to the philosophy of Biophilia are the six approaches to design outlined by Kellert in his 2008 book Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Those approaches are “environmental features” such
as psychologically significant plants, animals and landforms;
“natural shapes and forms” including imitation of natural features, organic forms, and motifs; “natural patterns and processes” that represent growth and change, self-similarity, scale
27

repetition, and sensory variability; “light and space” with special regard to natural light, sequential spaces and transitional
indoor-outdoor spaces; “place-based relationships” such as connections to place with the use of indigenous materials and motifs; and finally “evolved human relationships to nature” especially prospect and refuge, order and complexity, innovation and
security (Baldwin et al. 2010). Baldwin recommends that these
approaches be used to link human development with approaches for
conservation. He makes an intriguing and innovative assertion
that, “If we choose to provide the infrastructure for sensitive
species first, the ideal infrastructure for long-term sustainability can follow in the ‘negative space’.” This view is very
different from traditional planning which provides for human use
first, and then may choose to devote leftover spaces for conservation.
A European researcher published a paper in 2007 making a
case for, and listing several examples of Biophilic architecture. The author agrees that research in the area supports that
human created environments could be designed to improve emotional and cognitive functioning (Joye 2007). The author posits
that, “by architecturally mimicking natural forms and structural
organizations of natural setting, these beneficial effects can
be tapped in the built context,”(Joye 305). Joye provides an ex28

cellent narrative explaining the many hypotheses that support
Biophilia. Important to the article are Joye’s suggestions on
how to actually go about incorporating the ideas of Biophilia in
the environment. He mentions the Savannah Hypothesis, that humans having evolved in a savannah setting prefer them to other
biomes, and provides a strategies that, “include creating wide
open spaces; making variations in the architectural topography;
integrating clusters of real or symbolic trees (e.g. collumns);
integrating a water feature (e.g. fountain) or even a small
fire,”(311). Furthermore, mentions the idea of amplification,
simplification, or abstractions of natural features and forms,
to increase their biophilic responses (pg 314). Joye compares
this idea with the success of architectural works by Gaudi and
Calatrava. (Joye 2007)
A short review on the subject was written by Elizabeth Molthrop in 2011. In the paper she discusses many of the aforementioned principles, specifically the historical evidence supporting Biophilia and also the fractal forms prevalent in the design
theory. However, the author emphasizes that, “the rates of technological progress have far exceeded rates of psychological
evolution, leaving us ill-equipped to cope with our lifestyle,”
(37). While technology is made to improve our lives, it also is
a source of much stress. The author believes that biophilic
29

design seeks to remedy this dilemma by creating environments
that facilitate good mental health. She even identifies two recent building projects that were executed with biophilic design
in mind. One is the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental
Studies at Oberlin College, Ohio and the other is the University
of Guelph Humber Building in Ontario, Canada.(Molthrop 2011)

In summary, the relationships of sprawl and the many influences of development have been a matter of frequent study within
the world of research. Trends in research have suggested a need
for better integration between the many study areas, and those
who participate in development. Education and discussion are integral to facilitating change in the current paradigms. Studies
must be done to help link these areas together, to complete a
comprehensive solution.

Wetland Reclamation
Wetlands have often been labeled as critically important
and extremely fragile ecosystems (Harrison et al. 2011, Mitsch
et al. 1998). In the United States efforts to protect, restore,
and reclaim these landscapes have become increasingly more frequent. Wetlands have great potential to support biodiversity,
provide ecosystem services, and foster human interest and recre30

ation (Harrison et al. 2011, Mitsch et al. 1998, Mitsch et al.
2012). Some of the popular topics in the literature on wetland
reclamation are: their effectiveness for detention and retention, wetland design methodologies, nutrient removal, wildlife
conservation, pest problems, microbial biomass, and methane gas
and greenhouse gas emissions.
Wetlands Effectiveness for Detention/Retention
A topic of much concern within the area of wetland reclamation is whether they can successfully detain/retain the large
quantities of stormwater runoff from urban land uses. Constructed wetlands are often designed with the goal of managing stormwater in a sustainable fashion, but doubt that these sensitive
ecosystems can tolerate dramatic hydrologic fluctuations exists.
This topic was studied in 2009 by Millhollon et al. The researchers looked into a constructed wetland that aimed to detain
stormwater from a 162 hectare site consisting of cultivated cropland and pasture. Calculations were made to determine the
volumes of water that would have come off the land in its original forested state and this was used to size the constructed
wetland(The Soil Conservation Service [AKA Natural Resource Conservation Service] Curve Number method was used). Final size was
set at only 1.9% of the total site area (pg 2466). During the
study period Hurricane Rita dumped above-average rain fall unto
31

the site, and the constructed wetland was able to detain the water for 11 to 12 days after the event. The authors have determined this rate to be successful.(Millhollon et al. 2009)
Wetland Design Methodology
During this literature review, many interesting articles on
the topic of wetland design strategies were found that were
written by William J. Mitsch from Ohio State University.
Mitsch published a paper in 1994 that discussed a wetland
restoration project at a former missile base within the Great
Lakes Basin. The paper discusses 10 potential design approaches
and postulates the most appropriate technique, “evaluated for
their contribution to local ecology, research, education and
wildlife, ease of maintenance, and probability of success,” page
31 (Mitsch et al. 1994). Out of the many options, recommendations were given toward a design that restores the site back to
original conditions, with a wetland open to the adjacent Gibralter Bay because it will provide the most potential value to the
ecosystem. Mitsch also recommends passive recreational facilities on site to allow for human use and interest with the restoration project. Connecting the restored marsh to nearby existing
hydrologic systems is vital. The team suggested that diked wetlands designs not be used as they would isolate hydrologic functions(Mitsch et al 1994). This study is particularly important
32

to the topic of this thesis because it lies in close proximity
to the chosen project location, and exists under similar conditions. The site of the Mitsch study is now a member of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge (Domashevich, 2011).
In 1998 he published a study discussing the procedure and
effectiveness of self-design for creating and restoring wetlands
(Mitsch et al. 1998). Mitsch posits, “In the context of ecosystem restoration and creation, self-design means that if an ecosystem is open to allow “seeding,” through human or natural
means, of enough species’ propagules, the system itself will optimize its design by selecting for the assemblage of plants, microbes, and animals that is best adapted for existing conditions,” page 1020. This concept is quite different than traditional approaches used by designers to restore and create wetlands who tend to select for specific species and use them as an
evaluation of the project’s success(Mitsch et al. 1998). The research team investigated self-design within an experiment at two
1 ha wetland basin sites, one planted, one left unplanted after
construction. Results found that, “The planted and unplanted
wetlands apparently converged within 3 years in most of our indicators of ecosystem function,” page 1027. The researchers concluded that planting a wetland is not necessary, or even optimal, for restoring or creating a well-functioning wetland ecosys33

tem. If the system is connected to hydrologically open systems,
self-design will occur from the continual introduction of plant,
animal, and microbial species. (Mitsch et al. 1998)
In 2012 Mitsch and fellow researchers published a follow-up
study and the same wetland project to determine the long-term
effects of self-design. Results from the investigation found,
“Wetland plant richness increased from 13 originally planted
species to 116 species overall after 15 years, with most of the
increase occurring in the first 5 years,” page 237(Mitsch et al.
2012). The team also determined that the originally unplanted
wetland became the most productive ecosystem and provided the
most ecosystem services.
Nutrient Removal
Nitrogen and Phosphorus are two nutrients often studied in
relation to wetland reclamation due to the devastating impacts
they can have on ecosystems.
In 2010 a paper was published by Ardón et al. concerning
the Phosphorus export within restored wetlands in relation to
fluctuations in water levels. Researchers were concerned that
restoring wetlands in land that served formerly as agricultural
fields would result in the harmful release of legacy fertilizer
nutrients (Ardón et al. 2010). Their study did in fact find increased levels of soluble reactive phosphorus leaving the study
34

site after periods of increased flooding. They concluded that
this increased export of phosphorus could continue up to 16
years in this wetland restored on agricultural lands. As this
nutrient increase would affect downstream ecosystems, the researchers suggest that, ”timing of restoration and active management of water levels might help alleviate these problems in
future wetland restoration projects.” This recommendation could
create problems when placing wetland projects, and especially
for designers and developers that seek a simple, maintenance-free solution to deal with wetland requirements, nutrient
removal, and stormwater management. (Ardón et al. 2010)
Harrison et al. (2011) investigated denitrification processes in urban wetlands. Denitrification offers a permanent
method for removing nitrogen from water bodies. The study determined that within urban areas, “created oxbow wetlands have
been shown to be net sinks for N and P on an annual basis,” pg
640. They concluded that forested wetlands provide the greatest
opportunity for denitrification due to the abundance of leaf
litter that provides carbon required for the chemical reactions
of converting nitrogen. Water residence time was another factor
described by the study as a significant contributor to denitrification efficiency. Concerns often arise that denitrification
trades water quality for increased greenhouse gas pollution.
35

However, the authors of this study conclude that the urban wetlands studied, “could not be considered to be a significant
source of Nitrous Oxide in regional greenhouse gas inventories,”
pg 644. The authors suggest that urban stream management could
benefit from creating wetlands to remove nitrogen from urban watersheds year round (Harrison et al. 2011).
Wildlife Conservation
Wetland reclamation has been a proven means to wildlife
conservation; wetlands often host a diverse array of animal
life, and by reclaiming these ecosystems designers can protect
and even attract these important organisms (Kreuger 2001,
Petersen 2013, Rozas and Minello 2001).
Kreuger published a paper in 2001 describing wetland reclamation projects in Houston, TX. Material was dredged when a
port channel was widened and deepened, this material was used to
restore and create several wetland marshes and islands along the
channel. Designers of the project expect the islands to be homes
to over 15 species of important water birds. To insure longevity
of these islands, limestone blocks were arranged around their
perimeters to slow erosion from passing ship traffic. (Kreuger
2001)
Rozas and Minello published in 2001 a paper on the subject
of marsh terracing as a means to restore wetland fishery habitat
36

to sub-tidal/soft-bottom areas. Terracing uses dredged material
to create artificial marsh ponds within deeper water systems.
The study concluded that, “terrace fields support higher standing crops of most fishery species compared with shallow marsh
ponds of similar size,” (Rozas and Minello 327). The authors
posit that this terracing technique can be used to improve fishery populations in ares where natural marsh cannot easily establish. This is due to the discovery that, “terracing appears to
reduce fetch, wave energy, and shoreline erosion within coastal
water bodies,”(Rozas and Minello (340).
A paper on the bird use of wetlands near developed areas
was published in 2013 by Petersen et al. Wetland and their surrounding land cover were studied in several locations near Minneapolis/St. Paul Minnesota. The researchers found that, “bird
species richness and diversity in these suburban wetlands were
positively associated with the cover of trees and nontree vegetation within a few hundred meters of the wetland boundaries,
whereas richness, diversity and total detections were negatively
associated with human constructed aspects of land cover,”
(Petersen 224). Also determined by the study was that, “land
cover closest to the wetlands seemingly had less influence on
bird metrics than that within with 500-m buffer as a whole,”
(224). These two findings together demand that developments near
37

or seeking to create wetlands, minimize the presence of roads
and buildings not only on land adjacent to wetlands, but also
within the vital non-wetland vegetative land covers nearby
(Petersen 2013).
Pest Problems
One problem often associated with wetland reclamation within/near human settlements is the idea that such areas increase
the presence of pests. Mosquitos and other insects could create
problems in urban areas, if wetlands did in fact increase their
presence. Much research has been conducted to investigate possible eco-friendly techniques to limit this threat, and the resulting effects such as blood-transmitted diseases.
Chatterjee et al. 2007 investigated the use of a dragonfly
nymph introduction in wetlands as a bio-control agent. Results
found the nymph effective at reducing mosquito larvae populations, significantly more than previously used fish predators.
The authors declared that more research is needed to discern if
such introduction would have negative ecological impacts, but
the method seems promising. (Chatterjee et al. 2007)
A Swedish research team conducted a long term study on the
use of biological mosquito larvicide, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). They were worried that such a control mechanism
would have adverse effects on the ecosystem by decreasing popu38

lations of other insect species essential to the food-web (Lundström et al. 2009). However, their study concluded that, “the
Bti-based control of flood-water mosquitos does not cause any
major direct negative effects on chironomid production, and
therefore does not seem to induce any risk for indirect negative
effects on birds, bats or any other predators feeding on chironomids,” page 117. This discovery suggests that biological control agents have potential to control pests often associated
with wetlands and standing water, without harming ecosystems.
(Lundström et al. 2009)
Microbial Biomass
Wetland research has also often studied comparisons between
natural and constructed wetlands in terms of microbial biomass
conditions. Certain levels of microbial biomass are necessary
for wetlands to function. If constructed wetlands are unable to
meet similar levels of microbial biomass as natural wetlands,
the feasibility of such construction is bound to have limitations.
A study by Duncan and Groffman in 1994 investigated this
dilemma. Specifically they studied, “microbial biomass C, soil
respiration, denitrification enzyme activity (DEA), and potential net N mineralization and nitrification,” (Duncan 1994. pg
298). In the study they found that, “levels of these parameters
39

in the constructed wetlands fell within the range of variability
observed in the natural wetlands,” pg 298. It is important to
notice that the constructed wetlands they studied utilized soils
for construction that were high in organic substrates, allowing
for aggressive establishment of vegetation. When these wetlands
we constructed, sediments from a nearby pond dredging were mixed
in the soils used on site (pg 304). These results support the
idea that constructed wetlands can be used successfully to cycle
nutrients and treat water sources.
Methane and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
During this review of literature a common topic was found
concerning the potential negative effects of wetland creation,
methane gas and other greenhouse gas emissions. In a 2012 study,
Mitsch et al. Discovered that methane emissions were nearly
twice as high from self-design/natural/unplanted wetlands than
those that were created. However, when ratios of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions were compared, the researchers concluded that planted wetlands function as a sink of climate-radiative forcing, and the unplanted wetland functioned as
a source(Mitsch et al. 2012). This holds true with other reports
that suggest wetlands as one of the largest non-anthropogenic
sources of greenhouse gasses. Montzka et al. 2011 presented a
review of natural and anthropogenic sources of non CO2 green40

house gases. The review posits that anthropogenic sources are
responsible for the largest contribution of greenhouse gases,
likely 2 or 3 times more than wetland sources. The authors attribute this to the constantly increasing demand for energy and
food in human society (Montzka et al. 2011). For this reason, it
can be assumed that the creation of wetlands should not be
hindered by their potential to release harmful gasses, because,
when compared to human sources, wetland emission is negligent.
Mitigation techniques should instead be concentrated on anthropogenic sources, specifically energy and agriculture, a topic
not discussed within this thesis.

In summary, wetland reclamation offers many solutions to
mitigating the problems that arise from negligent development
techniques. Although, the process itself is not free of problems, through the continuing use and study of wetland reclamation insight can be gained on its true effectiveness and the
proper ways to install and manage these complex ecosystems.

Stormwater Management
Improper stormwater management procedures continue to deteriorate our most precious resource, water (Echols 2008, Hurley
and Forman 2011, Whitaker et al. 2002). Many fundamental differ41

ences exist between the currently used techniques and researched
philosophies. This dilemma results in much confusion, waste, and
the slow recovery of resources. For these reasons, many researchers have been conducting studies comparing both traditional and avant-garde methods to determine their effectiveness and
cost. Some of the popular topics in the realm of stormwater management include: treatment design shapes and forms, biofiltration, and low-impact design.
Treatment Design Shapes and Forms
In 1999, Civil Engineering published a short expose on the
potential use of meandering wetlands for stormwater runoff
treatment. The article claims that such a design would increase
pollutant uptake and decrease installation costs, when compared
to traditional management designs. “If we can support a more
dense area of vegetation, we can get the same nutrient removal
in a smaller area,” (Anonymous 1999). By meandering a stormwater
treatment stream the installations will require less land area.
This method could be particularly useful in areas with high land
prices, or limited amounts of available space for stormwater
treatment. Meandering a treatment channel allows for more flexibility in design implementation (Anonymous 1999).
Whitaker et al. 2002 wrote a piece describing an 8 acre
stormwater management system designed for a manufacturing facil42

ity. The design featured a combination of bioretention planting
strips, extended dry detention basins, and a mitigated wetland
connected in sequence. Flows off parking areas are first collected in catch basins to remove sediments, then enter the planting
strips that function to relieve water loads downstream and serve
as aesthetic vegetation. The article mentions that 65% of total
phosphorus was retained by these planting strips during initial
tests (77). The design also included ways to mitigated small and
large storms independently with small storms discharging through
perforated piping, and large storms onto vegetated spillways.
The authors posit that the most important aspect of the project
was the careful attention given to hydrograph reports to determine proper elevations for specific plant communities, and the
salvaging of organic topsoils vital to the success of plant
growth. (Whitaker et al. 2002)
An interesting topic in the design of stormwater management
systems is Split-flow theory (Echols 2008). This theory, “proposes to systematically split runoff into three volumes and
evaporate, infiltrate and discharge; and manage these volumes in
ways that emulate natural hydrological site processes, thereby
creating stormwater management systems that are more ecologically based,” (205). This theory offers solutions to the problems
that typically result from traditional methods of conveyance,
43

detention, and retention practices. Echols states that conveyance treatment, “speed runoff downstream, increase flood risk to
downstream properties, discharge first-flush pollution, increase
excess runoff frequency, and fail to emulate natural landscape
hydrology,” (206). Detention which is designed to slowly release
stormwater downstream, are effective for this purpose, but fail
to emulate natural hydrologic functions such as evapotranspiration and infiltration. Retention systems are often designed to
treat the flaws of detention, but according to Echols also fail
to address the diversity of stormwater events that may occur on
site. (Echols 2008)
Split-flow theory actually combines these methods in a way
that better emulates natural landscape hydrology, for a balanced
water management effect. The theory suggests use of, “a combination of retention facilities, overflow structures, proportional
flow splitters, and infiltration and discharge systems,” (207)
to divide stormwater into separate volumes that will evaporate,
infiltrate and discharge in proportions similar to natural settings (Echols 2008). Specifics of split-flow systems will not be
discussed here, but research shows it as a promising and feasible method for ecologically managing stormwater.
In 2011 Hurley and Forman published a paper that investigated the necessary sizing and configuration of stormwater sys44

tems to meet targeted nutrient removal levels. The authors found
that, “the target of 65% P-reduction was only achieved with
designs that treated 100% of urban land with a pond or bio-filter,” (Hurley and Forman 850). This requirement was met at the
200 acre study site with a single pond representing 5% of the
total land area, and with a multi-pond design ranging from 5%10% of coverage. They conclude that a combination of these two
methods could provide for adequate treatment of stormwater from
100% of developed urban landscapes with relatively low land allocation for stormwater systems. (Hurley and Forman 2011)
Biofiltration
The ability of stormwater management techniques to filter
out harmful pollutants is one of the approaches most beneficial
mechanisms. Much research in the field has concerned the effectiveness of biofiltration in different settings and circumstances.
Pollutant removal efficacy was studied in 2002 by Mallin et
al. Three wet detention ponds were investigated, and of the
three one, “Achieved significant reductions in total nitrogen,
nitrate, ammonium, total phosphorous, orthophosphate, and fecal
coliform bacterial counts,”(Mallin et al. 654). The researchers
believe that this is due largely to this pond’s high length to
width ratio, the fact that most of the input water was into the
45

upper area of the pond, and that it contained a diverse community of aquatic macrophyte vegetation. Such a design allows
for maximized contact between pollutants, sediments and plants.
The study also advises use of forebays to increase primary settling in the bioretention system, and construction of a shallow
shelf at the edge of the ponds to encourage rooted macrophyte
growth.

(Mallin et al. 2002)

McNett and Hunt (2011) evaluated the toxicity of forebay
sediments in stormwater wetlands. Forebays are often installed
to encourage sedimentation so that pollutants can be captured
before entering wetlands in mass quantities. Forebays alleviate
the difficult task of removing sediments for larger, more vegetated ponds (McNeyy and Hunt 2001). The study found that routine
forebay sediment removal was necessary to meet aquatic health
standards. However, due to the low toxicity of metals tested in
the sediment, they determined that forebay spoils could be
safely applied to adjacent land as a cost-effective disposal
method. Moreover, the authors, “recommend that forebay sediments
be tested, near time of excavation and prior to land application, for bioavailable nitrogen, phosphorous, calcium, and potassium, to ensure adequate plant growth, and thus prevent
erosion of sediments and associated contaminants,” (537). The
findings from this study provide a method of ensuring that
46

stormwater wetlands operate effectively and can be managed ecologically. (McNeyy and Hunt 2001)
A study by Dietz on the subject found that bioretention
systems were able to significantly reduce levels of nutrients
such as copper, lead, zinc, Kjeldahl-nitrogen, and ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrate-nitrogen was not well contained, and total
phosphorus export from the bioretention systems was a problem,
however. The author suggests a design to combat phosphorus export, to only use underdrains when soil in the bioretention system drains poorly, and to direct the outfall of this drain into
a grassy or wooded area. To address the nitrate concentrations,
the author encourages experimentation with raised drains, to
create a saturation area in retention basins that would allow
for denitrification reactions to occur.

(Dietz. 2007)

A study in 2011 by Blecken et al. posited that while
biofilters, “can remove up to 80%, or 90% of total metals found
in stormwater,”(303), winter operation has been a concern.

Des-

pite concerns, however, their findings report that, “Temperature
did not affect Cc, Pb, and Zn removals in general, but Cu removals increased with decreasing temperatures,” (303). These
findings support the notion that biofilters can indeed be implemented in regions with significant periods of low temperatures,
and still serve the purposed of sequestering harmful environ47

mental metals. (Blecken et al. 2011)
A study published by Hogan and Walbridge in 2007 wrote on
the topic of nutrient retention from urban stormwater. In the
article stormwater detention basin best management practice
(SDB-BMP) were compared to the more traditional stormwater detention basing flood control (SDB-FC) technique. SDB-BMPs are
designed not only to detain stormwater, but to function ecologically and ameliorate the negative downstream affects of stormwater. Results from the study suggest that SDB-BMPs result in
greater soil phosphorus removal than SDB-FCs and operate at
levels similar to natural riparian wetlands. These results were
identified to be dependent on SDB-BMP’s ability to retain sediments with nutrients that increase phosphorus sorption capacity
(such as iron and aluminum). SDB-BMPs also, “direct inflow waters across the entire basin, increasing retention time and maximizing contact between urban runoff and soils,” (392). Designing to include these factors of SDB-BMPs would prove useful in
urban stormwater management practices. (Hogan and Walbridge
2007)
Low-Impact Design
Stormwater management techniques have been a mandatory requirement for most development projects for many years now (Dietz 2007). However, the methods utilized in traditional stormwa48

ter management is arguably not the most sustainable. For this
reason, researchers and designers have been experimenting with
new techniques to improve the sustainable aspects of stormwater
management. One such methodology is known as Low-Impact Design
(LID). The primary goal of LID, “is to preserve as much of the
site in an undisturbed condition, and where disturbance is necessary, reduce the impact to the soils, vegetation, and aquatic
systems on site,”(Dietz 352). Winter function was also supported
by the Dietz study (354).
LID has been experimenting with many new technologies often
overlooked by traditional stormwater management. These methods
include, bioretention, green roofs, and permeable pavements. LID
uses cluster layouts of vegetated swales, rain gardens and
bioretention areas to intercept and treat stormwater volumes
created by development and impervious surfaces. This study posits that green roofs can intercept 60-70% of stormwater (Dietz
356) and suggests the use of this method in areas where space is
limited or current sewer systems are often overloaded. LID prescribes the use of many permeable surface materials including,
concrete blocks and grids, plastic grids, pervious asphalt, and
pervious concrete. Each material offers its own benefits and
concerns, but all have proven as promising alternatives to traditional surfaces. (Dietz 2007)
49

In summary, there are many different potential applications
for stormwater management, each with their own benefits and pitfalls. Conducting more tests that combine and compare these
various techniques will bring the scientific community and
design professions one step closer to eliminating practices that
offer more harm than good, and also improve efficiency and our
ability to protect vital water resources.
Visual Quality/Environmental Preference
For several decades the topic of environmental preference
has been an intriguing research field for scientists and designers alike. Many researchers have conducted work with an attempt
to discern what characteristics within the physical environment
appeal to the human mind, and the reasons behind these preferences (Aks and Sprott 1996, Burley 1997, Burley et al. 2011,
Hagerhall et al. 2004, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Steinitz 2000,
Taylor et al. 2005).
Carl Steinitz summarized the general beliefs for current
evaluation models in a short essay written in 2000. He claims
that most, “are normally attributed to landscapes within some
combination of less ‘development’, more distant views, more varied terrain, the presence of water, and a more engaging (‘mysterious’) sense of involvement,” (Steinitz 283). However, disagreement arrises between most researchers in which of these
50

factors is most influential (Steinitz 2000).
Key to an understanding of environmental preference is the
work of Rachel and Stephen Kaplan. One study taken from their
vast array of work within the field was published in 1989 and
investigates particular variables of the physical environment
thought to correlate with preference. The four domains they
chose were, landcover, informational, perceptual, and physical
variables, with 20 independent variables divided among those domains. Results from the study showed some surprising relationships, “Smoothness” was the strongest positive predictor, and
“Mystery” also had strong effect. While “Openness”, “Weedy
Fields”, and “Scrubland” correlated negatively with preference.
The Kaplans concluded from this study that environmental predictors are a complex field of study, and have inspired an
alarming number of subsequent studies. (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989)
One such study was published in 1996 by researchers at the
University of Wisconsin, Aks and Sprott. They attempted to
quantify the preference humans have for chaotic patterns. They
discovered how,“aesthetic preferences correlate with the fractal
dimension (F) and the Lyapunov exponent (L) of the
patterns,”(Aks and Sprott 1). The researchers defined F as, “the
extent that space is filled,” within an image of a scene and L
as, “the unpredictability of the dynamical process that produced
51

the pattern,” (2). Their results showed that participants preferred images with F and L values that were very close to the
values shared by many natural objects and forms (1.26 and 0.37
respectively) such as coastlines, clouds and mountain ranges.
Another interesting finding from the study was the correlation
between F and L preference and self-reported declarations of
participant creativity. They found results suggesting, “that
self-reported creative individuals have a marginally greater
preference for high F patterns and self-reported scientific individuals preferred high L patterns,” (1).

This discovery is

interesting because it suggests that generalization of human
preference is limited to the personal characteristics of individuals. (Aks and Sprott 1996)
In 2004 Hagerhall et al. investigated the idea of fractal
geometry’s correlation with preference. The researchers decided
to study the fractal dimension of silhouette outlines of landscape scenes and test it against user preference. Results from
the study suggest that fractal geometry may be a large part of
the basis for visual preference, and could explain the correlation between preference and “naturalness” as “natural” patterns
are often fractal in form. It is interesting to note that images
with water bodies or hilly topography were removed from the results of this study due to confounding effects in the comparison
52

between silhouette and preference. (Hagerhall et al. 2004)
Fractal geometry as a factor for preference was investigated again by Taylor et al. in 2005. This specific study analyzed the paintings of Jackson Pollock alongside the fractal dimension of natural shapes, forms and patterns. The researchers
discovered results similar to early studies, that “participants
in visual perception tests display preference for fractals with
mid-range fractal dimensions,” (Taylor et al. 1). The most preferred fractals (whether natural images, paintings or computer-generated images) range from 1.3-1.5 (page 6). Interestingly, the study found that an artistic interpretation of a savannah scene (1.4 fractal dimension) reduced psychological
stress of observers more so than a photograph of a forest scene
(1.6 fractal dimension). This finding suggests that “natural”
features may not always be the most preferred, while simplified
(mid-range fractal) versions could be.(Taylor et al. 2005)
In 1997 Burley conducted a study to develop a, “perceptionbased visual quality predictive equation,” that could be used by
planners and designers to evaluate natural and designed scenes.
The study tested many natural and human landscape variables for
their predictive power that resulted in a predictive model capable of explaining 67% of the variance in participant preference
for visual images of scenes. Burley discovered certain variables
53

that had a greater power than others, such as: perimeter of
foreground vegetation, area of distant non-vegetation, vehicles,
humans, wildlife, utilities, openness and mystery. A predictive
model such as this could prove useful when determined how to
build more attractive physical environments. (Burley 1997)
Another study on the topic of Visual Quality mentions that
observers, “prefer environments with animals, plants, and geological features; most man-made features are not preferred,” (Burley et al. 50). This particular study investigated the Visual
Quality of an adapted Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Broadacre City” (a
low density living environment, mixed with agriculture and preserved natural spaces) against images from Detroit, MI during
it’s most prosperous times. Results show that the FLW plan
proved to be the more visually appealing of the two designs and
supports the notion that incorporation of natural elements within urban fabrics as a way to increase the attractiveness of the
urban environment. (Burley et al. 2011)
Further insight into Visual Quality was gained with a study
conducted by Mo et al. in 2011. The formula developed by Burley
(1997), was tested by Mo et al. to determine its effectiveness
within French, Portuguese and

Chinese populations. The article

makes many astute conclusions about the topic of visual quality,
one being, “Aesthetics, ecology, function, economics, and cul54

ture are not separate issues in the view of the respondents.
When the landscape is observed and evaluated, the respondents
utilize all of these values in the evaluation of landscape,” (Mo
et al. 550).” However, the most profound result from the study
was that, “the Chinese response is quite different than equations that explain Western landscape preference where the equations can predict much more of the variance,” (549). This finding suggests that there is likely no general set of features
that most humans prefer in the physical environment, but rather
Visual Quality is influenced by different cultural perceptions
(Mo et al. 2011).
Another paper published in 2009 by Chen et al. studied the
aesthetic quality of urban green spaces. In the author’s investigation of related studies Chen et al. found that, “landscape
aesthetic perception is a product of multi-sensory stimuli, the
integration of other senses like olfactory, auditory, and tactile to visual aspect of perception...” (76). This led them to
incorporate testing of these factors in their own study. Standardization of photos taken from their chosen Hangzhou Flower
Garden in China was key to the study, which attempted to devise
a method for scientifically evaluating an environment based on
photographs. The study found that olfactory factors were a
strong predictor of environmental preference with, “natural fra55

grance from flowers, leaves and rivers were held highly among
respondents,” (80). They also found that urban green spaces have
the ability to mask unpreferred sounds while conserving preferred sounds for positive results, which concurs with other
studies researched by Chen et al 2009. This article on the study
did not explain how photos were rated, provide the photos along
with their scores, or explain what visual variables led to higher or lower scores (although they did claim to have analyzed
photos for “viable open sky, water, canopy/vegetative cover and
paved area,” pg 79).
In summary, Visual Quality and Environmental Preference are
complex, multi-variable phenomena. Although much is still unknown about the topic, the techniques discussed above offer the
design professions great tools for quantifying the success of
their designs. By designing with these approaches in mind development will be able to distance itself from subject dogma and
progress further into a realm of applied science.

Summary of Literature
Each of the researched fields of study, and their respective texts have provided a valuable database of information with
potential for application within holistic environmental design.
Through synthesis, individual findings from urban revitaliza56

tion, stormwater management, wetland reclamation and visual
quality studies can be combined to develop particular treatment
strategies for particular design problems. This process will be
described in detail within the subsequent chapters of this thesis.

57

METHODS

58

Research Design
This study will utilize a mixed methods approach, to combine the qualities of both qualitative and quantitative research
in procedure and analysis. A mixed methods approach will allow
for exploration of the problem through qualitative inquiry, to
be built upon later by quantitative investigation. The process
of developing an ecologically sensitive master plan for the city
of River Rouge, Mi is a complex dynamic, and requires the synthesis of both methods for a proper and complete understanding
(Creswell 2003, Tashakkori & Teddie 2003).
A sequential exploratory strategy will be conducted for
this study. The first stage of inquiry will consist of secondary
research methods of both qualitative and quantitative nature.
This stage will involve synthesis of empirical information discovered within the aforementioned literature review, and the application of design techniques found in similar projects. The
second stage of this study will be to generate a comprehensive
hypothetical master plan to address the problems faced at River
Rouge. Design decisions in this stage shall be justified by the
initial research. The third and final stage of this study will
be the truest form of quantitative data gathering. The

hypo-

thetical master plan will be evaluated for success by means of
Visual Quality analysis as conducted by Burley 1997, comparing
59

images from the hypothetical design to actual images of the current site conditions. Through this strategy potentially biased
design decisions and qualitative findings can be analyzed and
supported by more concrete empirical evidence.
Stage 1 Qualitative data collection and analysis
As mentioned before, this stage of research is mostly represented within the Review of Literature chapter of this thesis.
Specific applications of the secondary research findings will be
referenced within the Design chapter.
Stage 2 The design process
The design methodology used in this thesis is based upon
stages 1 through 4 of the eight-stage site planning cycle outlined by Kevin Lynch in 1986. The cycle itself finds its roots
in the scientific method. The stages of his model used are:
1. Defining the problem
2. Programming and the analysis of site and user
3. Schematic design and the preliminary cost estimate
4. Developed design and detailed costing
(Lynch 1986)
These stages have been modified to suit the needs of a hypothetical master plan. Summary of these steps and their
products are presented in the Design chapter of this thesis. Explicit procedures of each design stage will not be given in this
60

narrative.
Stage 3 Quantitative data collection and analysis
This stage of research is the most scientific of all approaches and strives to objectively evaluate the hypothetical
solution to the focus problem with a simple test, to test the
attractiveness of the created design through Visual Quality analysis as described by Burley 1997.
Please recall the hypothesis, “If the selected site of
River Rouge, MI is treated through applied Biophilic design,
then the resulting product will display lower(more attractive)
Visual Quality scores.” A testable null hypothesis would be, “If
the selected site of River Rouge, MI is treated through applied
Biophilic design, then the resulting product’s Visual Quality
scores will not differ significantly from scores of the existing
site.”
The first step to applying Burley’s Visual Quality test is
to apply a 6.35 mm by 6.35 mm grid of 30 rows and 38 columns to
each image that is to be tested. This was done using an overlay
layer in Adobe Photoshop CS6 and importing each image in beneath. Next, each image is evaluated for the presence and quantity(in units of grid squares) of the independent variables/landscape components as defined in Table 1 (note: Burley identified
many more variables in his 1997 paper, but only those included
61

in his predictive equation have been presented). These values
were recorded using an Apache Open Office 3 spreadsheet.
Variable Description
Health
Table 2
X1
perimeter Immediate vegetation
X2
perimeter Intermediate non-vegetation
X3
perimeter distant vegetation
X4
area of intermediate vegetation
X6
area of distant non-vegetation
X7
area of pavement
X8
area of building
X9
area of vehicle
X10
area of humans
X14
area of wildflowers in foreground
X15
area of utilities
X16
area of boats
X17
area of dead foreground vegetation
X19
area of wildlife
X30
open landscapes: X2+X4+(2*(X3+X6))
X31
closed landscapes: X2+X4+(2*(X1+X17))
X32
openness:= X30-X31
X34
mystery:=X30*X1*X7/1140
X52
Noosphericness: = X7+X8+X9+X15+X16
Table 1. Independent Variables
The Health score for each image must be determined before
all the independent variable scores can be inserted into the
predictive formula. This health score is found by tallying qualities found in Table 2. Once found, these values can be used
within the following equation to determine the Visual Quality
score for each image:

62

Y = 68.30-(1.878*HEALTH)-(0.131*X1)-(0.064*X6) +(0.02*X9)
+(0.036*X10)+(0.129*X15)-(0.129*X19)-(0.006*X32)
+(0.00003*X34)+(0.032*X52)+(0.0008*X1*X1)+(0.00006*X6*X6)(0.0003*X15*X15)+(0.0002*X19*X19)-(0.0009*X2*X14)(0.00003*X52*X52)-(0.0000001*X52*X34)
Interpretation of the resulting scores is straightforward;
Burley (1997) states that,“scores in the forties indicate images
with exceptional scenic beauty. Scores in the nineties and hundreds indicate exceptional nonscenic images,” (56).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N

purifies air
purifies water
builds soil resources
promotes human cultural diversity
preserves natural resources
limits use of fossil fuel
minimizes radioactive contamination
promotes biological diversity
provides food
ameliorates wind
prevents soil erosion
provides shade
presents pleasant smells
presents pleasant sounds
does not contributed to global
O
warming
P
contributes to the world economy
Q
accommodates recycling
R
accommodates multiple use
S
accommodates low maintenance
T
visually pleasing
Total Score
Table 2. Environmental Quality Index

63

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

+1

0

-1

+1
+1
+1
+1
+1

0
0
0
0
0

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

Scores for each image tested, and the statistical findings of
the data are reported in the Results chapter of this thesis.
Validity approaches
To ensure validity within the third stage of research several preventative actions will be taken. Sample populations will
be selected to represent a normal distribution. Photographs
taken from the existing site, and scenes created to represent
the end product will both aim to show the full variety of landscape scenes found across site. Although a large sample collected and analyzed by multiple researchers would prove the most
accurate method, time and resource limitations have prevented
this. Photographs used will be standardized to some degree because they were taken on the same day, during the same time of
day, with the same camera and settings, and by the same photographer. Scenes created have also been made to the same size and
resolution, by the same designer, using the same computer programs.
Sampling size is limited by time constraints, to capture
and test every possible view within the untreated and treated
site would be nearly impossible. The results of this study could
potentially be unrepresentative of the actual conditions occurring on site. Diversity in representation is therefore imperative. Additional experiments must be conducted to confirm any
64

findings. Constant repetition of similar studies are required to
maintain validity of any findings when applied to future locations.
Though time will pass during the course of this study, and
external events could influence end results, it is unlikely to
significantly affect the validity of this project. It is assumed
that the information presented in the review of literature is
the most current, and accurate, thus best for application within
the design phase. Although developments in the researched fields
are evolving constantly, this has not been considered by the author. Maturation is unlikely to be a threat in this study because no human or nonhuman participants will be studied. Only
the maturation of the author/researcher could affect the results, but this cannot be avoided.
Accuracy in determining the visual quality score of each
image poses the strongest threat to validity. This is due to error that may arise during the variable quantity/counting process, and also the actual input of values into the test equation. However, all evaluations were conducted using the same
method, and by the author and therefore any error should be
standardized. Use of a spreadsheet to record values, calculate
partial sums, and the final score will also reduce threats to
validity.
65

DESIGN

66

Introduction
The following narrative describes the design approach employed to address the problems facing River Rouge, MI. The
chapter begins with fact-finding background research, then
schematic master plan designs, and finishes with site details in
the form of perspective scenes. Unless otherwise stated, all images were created by the author with the aid of Adobe Photoshop
CS6 and Google Sketchup 8.
Assumptions
It has been assumed for the sake of this project that the
industrial land currently occupied on site is free for redevelopment.
There is also no defined time-frame for the beginning or end of
this project. Significant time and money would be required to
transform much of the chosen site to a state suitable for development, however this phase of preparation is not outlined,
therefore it is assumed to have been completed prior to installation of this master plan.

Inventory & Analysis
Site Selection:
The site selected for this project is River Rouge,
Michigan. The site also happens to be located along one of the
67

world’s largest freshwater coastal marshes, the Lake St. Clair
and Lake Erie system. According to a published master plan developed by United States Steel (a current landowner of much of
the study site) in 2010, much of this important ecosystem was
destroyed by human settlements and agriculture via cut and fill,
with the last fill taking place in the 1930s or 1940s (Nativescape 2010).
The Rouge River is the largest watershed in Southeastern
Michigan, and makes this site an excellent location to study the
effects of urban stormwater management techniques. The fact that
this river connects to the Detroit River and Lake Erie
strengthens the locations importance to ecology. Size was another determining factor of site selection. To accomplish successful restoration of a coastal wetland, significant land area is
necessary. A large area is also necessary to implement the
stormwater management techniques used in this study. This site
is approximately 1,000 acres in size. The City of Detroit and
its suburbs are in drastic need of revitalization projects to
retain and attract residents, especially River Rouge. Projects
of a similar nature have been occurring recently along the Detroit River, making this project ideal for creating habitat corridor linkages. Lastly, this location was chosen based upon its
convenience for the researcher as the area is very familiar.
68

Figure 1. Selected site location. FlashEarth/Bing Maps/Microsoft
Corporation. Annotations by Rory Hyde 2013.
For interpretation of the references to color in this and all
other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic
version of this thesis.

Figure 1 was taken from Flash Earth and shows the site location in relation to the state of Michigan, and also Metropolitan Detroit. Figure 2 is a plan view image of the entire site
69

prior to treatment. The image was taken from Flash Earth on
March 23, 2013 and therefore represents site conditions existing
at that date with the assumption that nothing has changed since
the time the photographs were taken and the access date.

70

Figure 2. Selected site of River Rouge, MI along Detroit River.
FlashEarth/Bing Maps/Microsoft Corporation.
71

Inventory:
Prior to human settlement the site was located within a
coastal wetland, specifically a shrub swamp/emergent marsh
(shown in Figure 3) ecosystems adjacent to the site were an OakHickory Forest (light pink) and a Beech-Sugar Maple Forest (dull
pink)(Albert 2008). These ecosystems will be important to understanding how to restore an indigenous landscape on site. The majority of plant species used within the new development will be
taken from plant lists from one of these ecosystems assuming actual implementation of this project, however none have been specified in this thesis.
Currently the site is located entirely within active industrial land uses. Adjacent to the site are the cities of River
Rouge and Ecorse, mostly composed of single family residential
parcels with scattered commercial enterprises and a main commercial corridor along W. Jefferson Avenue. Many studies have been
conducted targeting specific corporations located here for their
environmental and human health concerns(Hawk 2012).
The current city layout does not agree with many of the
founding principles of sustainable urban design practices (Beatley 2000). For example, there is little variety in housing
stock, poor accessibility to commercial districts and park/recreational space, and development is auto-oriented opposed to
72

Figure 3. Prior Landcover on site, circa 19th century. Scale not
given. Albert 2008.
73

people-oriented.
Topography on site is rather flat, as the natural floodplain has been filled to allow for development.
There has been a decline in population and housing occupation within the city over recent years. Between the 2000 and
2010 census there was a 20.3 percent decrease in population.
Also, the 2010 census found that only 77.6% of houses were occupied (U.S. Census Bureau).
Design Inspiration
Shanghai’s Houtan Park:
This park design was chosen as a model for several key elements of the River Rouge site. Houtan Park uses artificial wetland terraces to clean 634,000 gallons of water daily.
Specific features include:
16-100 ft. wide
1 mile long
650 ft. waterfall
850 ft. to trap heavy metals
820 ft. for nutrient removal
820 ft. cascades for aeration
980 ft. sand filtration
18 ft. grade change
[Turenscape 2007]
74

Concept
To guide the forms and design decisions of this development
on overarching concept has been selected, Patterns in Nature:
Fractal Geometry and Fluid Evolution. Nestled shapes and the
gradual growth of forms from simple toward complex is the driving force of this design. Connections to nature will foster the
evolution of this urban community from human-centered into a
sustainable habitat.
Fractal geometry, as mentioned before, is found in the
principles of Biophilia. Fractal geometry has potential to cater
to mankind’s in-born affinity toward patterns found in nature.
Nestling shapes and evolving patterns of forms add coherent complexity to the environment. This bio-mimicry will aid in the integration of man-made and natural elements within the landscape.
Simple rules will be applied to the division of spaces and decoration of elements.

Figure 4. Generation of a fractal snowflake. Rory Hyde 2013.

75

Program
A project of this magnitude would require an extensive program. Therefore the scope of this work was kept at a rather conceptual and schematic level. The program elements for the River
Rouge site include:
Restore natural qualities to riverfront regions
Create artificial wetlands both diked and open to river
Develop terraced treatment channels
Designate ares for multiple settling tanks and ponds
Orient building stock to maximize passive and active solar
use
Orient building stock to maximize exposure to views of natural areas
Develop a river-adjacent mixed use corridor
Develop marshes for freshwater fish hatchery
Provide areas for public scenic outlooks
Develop non-motorized trails across site
Designate an area for Great Blue Heron Rookery
Utilize Fractal-like patterns throughout the design, at
various scales

76

Functional Relationships
Before program elements were placed on site a study of
functional relationships was conducted. It was important to generate model for the ideal way to organize necessary elements.
Figure 5 shows relationships between the proposed developments,
stormwater treatment stages, and proposed wetlands. This model
was used to assist decision-making as the design transformed
from ideal, to site-specific.

Figure 5. Schematic Functional Use Diagram. Rory Hyde 2013.
77

Figure 6. Schematic Functional Use Diagram #2. Rory Hyde 2013.
To further evolve the schematic functional use of the new
elements on site, Figure 6 was made. Here the ideal building
blocks were stacked to develop a rudimentary neighborhood pattern. However, the result at this stage was still too linear,
78

and not natural. To meet the requirements of Biophilic design,
the coastline must integrate with residential areas, protect
wetlands, and incorporate fractal forms.

Figure 7. Schematic Functional Use Diagram #3. Rory Hyde 2013.
To address this issue, Figure 7 was created. This image
represents a rough schematic of how to better integrate the hu79

man and non-human interfaces,

maximize residential exposure to

wetlands, all the while protecting them from river currents and
traffic.

Figure 8. Schematic Fractal Coastline. Rory Hyde 2013.
Finally, a plan view, site-specific schematic of the proposed coastline was drawn, shown by Figure 8. A basic shape was
applied to the current coastline and repeated with augmentation.
This figure, in conjunction with the previous schematics, formed
the basis for the final master plan.
80

Master Plan
Figure 9 shows the final master plan for the River Rouge
site. At this Landscape Scale, it is important to notice how the
original coastline was transformed to create a repetitive, and
evolving series of inlets. This fractal coastline was essential
in restoring the wetlands that once existed on site, and protecting them from rough river conditions(as recommended by
Mitsch 1994). The decision to shape the coast in this manner
also remedies part of the problem of the post-industrial soil.
By removing large quantities from the existing earth, contaminants can be prevented from causing further harm to residents and
the ecosystem.
The new housing blocks were developed within the peninsulas
created near the coastline to maximize human exposure to the indigenous landscape character. These blocks are oriented in an
east-west manner to take advantage of passive solar effects. The
northern portion of the site has been devoted to an alternative,
green energy, bio-fuel facility(C in figure 9), to supply the
surrounding area with an ecologically sensitive replacement for
the current power options. Specific considerations for this facility will not be given, but would feature high-yield crops
such as flax, safflower, sunflower, wheat, hemp (pending legalization) and algae. This facility also has potential for wind
81

power generation within crop fields. At the southern end of the
site is a large coastal wetland preservation (G in Figure 9),
designed to remain undeveloped to engender establishment of a
complete ecosystem with highly-fluctuating water levels. In contrast to current condition, there is no longer an industrial
presence on site in its place is new river-adjacent green zone.

82

Figure 9. Proposed Master Plan, Landscape Scale. Rory Hyde 2013.
83

Building Use:
Figure 10 illustrates the existing and proposed uses within
the final design. Decisions for this arrangement was a synthesis
of recommendations from New Urbanism, Green Urbanism, Sustainable and Biophilic Design. Proposed residential uses (purple)
were kept along the river. Pure commercial buildings (red) have
been located on the western edge of the site. A mixed-use corridor was developed in the space between(blue-green). This
gradient serves to transition the existing neighborhood into the
new. Building forms also follow this gradient, transitioning
from rectilinear on the western edge, into circular/organic
nestled forms (also see later 3D figures). Residential buildings
shall easily meet a minimum of 7 dwelling-units per acre (if not
more), as prescribed by Berke et al. 2003. Core parking structures (yellow), as well as on-street parking will service the
proposed mixed-use and commercial areas, instead of traditional
surface lots.

84

Figure 10. Proposed building use. Rory Hyde 2013.
Local Connections:
River Rouge already has great potential for connectivity.
W. Jefferson Avenue and the Fisher Freeway connect the city with
Downtown Detroit and other communities downriver. Coolidge Highway leads west toward Dearborn. This design caters to this connectivity by creating access points along the existing grid (as
shown by the red arrows in Figure 11). Rail lines (grey dotted
line) also exist in this area, and with redevelopment River
85

Rouge could become an excellent location for transit-oriented-design. With the aid of light-rail, efficient bus routes,
car-shares, and bike-shares, River Rouge could take advantage of
the local connections and attract a significant population increase. This design will also serve as a green corridor, connecting with the green spaces to the south (delineated by the
green arrow).

Figure 11. Proposed neighborhood connectivity. Rory Hyde 2013.
Hydrology:
Significant earthwork is required to execute the goals of
this project. Existing land must be removed to create the river
inlets. Earth from this procedure will be used to raise the pen86

insulas above grade. A slight incline will slowly direct stormwater from the peninsulas toward the mainland through terraced
filtration channels. As the water travels it will be treated before its release into the wetlands and the river. Stormwater
from the existing city infrastructure, the proposed development,
and land upstream will also be directed through filtration channels and into the wetlands.
In periods of low-rain, water from the either of the rivers
could be taken up and used to fill the treatment channels which
are intended to serve both functional and aesthetic purposes.
Filtration channels are depicted in a linear fashion in Hydrology Schematic (Figure 12), however developing the network into
a series of meandering streams could be a potential design alternative(see Civil Engineering's article Anonymous. 1999). This
consideration would enhance the design’s Biophilic properties as
well as increase the time stormwater remains on site and thus
can be treated. Pursuit of this concept would be vital to the
project development phases, if this master plan were actualized.

87

Figure 12. Hydrology schematic. Rory Hyde 2013.

Neighborhood Scale Land Use:
Figure 13 takes a closer look at how land uses relate at
the neighborhood level. Both the residential and mixed-use areas
are bounded by green spaces of significant size. The mixed-use
area contains vegetation of traditional urban nature, as seen by
the tree-lined streets. While, the residential areas feature
planting patterns designed to mimic natural processes.
The proposed road network seeks to reduce automobile use
across site. Roads connect to the existing grid pattern, but the
88

depicted linear fashion shown in the figures is not the only option. Streets with a slight meandering character could enhance
the scenic quality of the new development, create a variety of
spatial shapes, and also slow vehicular speeds. However, such a
design must not decrease the walkable nature of any road network.
To maximize walkability, pedestrian orientation, and reduce
run-off, greenways have been developed between housing blocks,
and along the filtration channels. These highly vegetated paths
are lined with trails paved with pervious materials. These greenways alienate block length/intersection distance problems
without creating unnecessary paved roads. In most cases, distances between intersections within the new design range from
150-400ft, falling well below the limits described by Farr 2008.
Non-motorized trails run throughout the site, connecting residential areas with the greenspaces (shown in yellow).(Berke et
al. 2003)
The orange stars represent ideal locations to create wildlife viewing areas for non-residents. These would be in the form
of traditional road-side pull-offs and a brief walk to a disguised/minimally-destructive observation areas, that aim to limit the human-centered appearance of the intended use. Non-motorized trails also link to these points of interest.
89

Figure 13. Neighborhood scale Proposed Land Use. Rory Hyde 2013.

Site Details
The following series of images depict three-dimensional
views of the proposed site. Figure 14 is an image of an aerial
view looking from the terminus of one of the residential peninsulas toward the mixed used area. It is important to notice how
the orientation of the housing units maximizes southern exposure. To incorporate the Fractal concept at this scale, dwellings
are self-similar in form, and stacked to allow for ample views
90

of the surrounding environment. This decision also provides an
interesting street frontage with a variety of spaces to incorporate plantings, gardens, courtyards and patios.

Figure 14. Aerial view of proposed residential peninsula. Rory
Hyde 2013.

Figure 15. Aerial view of Riverview Plaza. Rory Hyde 2013.
91

A heavily forested park stands at the terminus of this feature, to provide residents with space for recreation and relaxation, while also creating habitat for upland species.
Both roads and the centralized filtration channel terminate at
the large Riverview Plaza(Figure 15). This public space features
a large fountain serving to emphasize the use of water on site,
and is built using fractal designs. Residents and visitors alike
may use the plaza for what its name implies: to gain perspective
of the Detroit River and the new wetland environment created by
this design.
A perspective of Riverview Plaza is shown in Figure 16.
This perspective looks out from the filtration channel centered
within the residential area. Sitting within or strolling between
the residential blocks users will be exposed to the stormwater
treatment process through a sequence of artificial wetlands.
This image only shows a few of the treatment stages: settling
(in tanks below ground), water cascades for aeration, and a wetland of plants selected to remove heavy-metals. The remainder of
the stages, (as used in Houtan Park's design) exist further
downstream.

92

Figure 16. Riverview Plaza perspective. Rory Hyde 2013.

Figure 17 depicts another perspective within the filtration
channel. This image shows how the channel and adjacent non-motorized path continue throughout the residential blocks. Once
again in the foreground the terrace for heavy-metal removal is
shown, followed by the pathogen removal terraces. The mid-ground
of this figure shows where the greenway connecting the perimeter
roads transverses the channel. It is important to notice the
spaces created adjacent to the channel. These semi-public areas
provide opportunities to create spaces of partial enclosure
ideal for picnic/BBQ areas, community gardens, or even small
playgrounds.

93

Figure 17. Residential interior treatment channel. Rory Hyde
2013.

Figure 18 is a perspective of the treatment channel again,
this time shown looking out from a window of one of the residential towers. Residents taking in this view may will enjoy
watching wildlife and passersby within the shady, vegetated corridor. The design shown here is reminiscent of the canals of
European cities, such as Amsterdam. However, scale has been
slightly modified: building heights average 45-60ft while right
of way is ~130ft, creating a 1:2 ratio, while the canals of Amsterdam are closer to 1:4(estimated with Google Earth). Once
again, the spaces along the treatment channel provide opportunities to be further designed, thus increasing the appeal of the
residential views.
94

Figure 18. Residential interior treatment channel seen from
apartment window. Rory Hyde 2013.

The perspective shown by Figure 19 is of the greenway that
cuts across the treatment channel to connect the perimeter
roads. Here non-motorized transit may cross the cross the channel. This feature is essential to maintain the walkability/connectivity of the neighborhood. The bridge shown in the figure is
intended to resemble the forms of tree-trunks within an inundated marsh and is to be constructed with reclaimed logs of various sizes. This decision seeks to emphasize the natural quality
of the greenway through bio-mimicry.

95

Figure 19. Greenway traversing residential blocks. Rory Hyde
2013.

Figure 20 illustrates a perspective looking out from a residential unit window toward one of the wetland inlets found
between the residential peninsulas. The foreground of the image
exhibits the rooftop of one of the shorter towers. Greenroofs
have been installed on all residential towers to assist in
stormwater management, energy savings, roof protection, and aesthetic appeal/biophilic response (Dietz 2007, Kellert et al.
2008). These spaces have opportunity to be designed as intensive
or extensive greenroofs and thus could allow resident use for
small gardens, patios, and viewing platforms.
The mid-ground of the figure shows how residents would be
looking out over a canopy of trees lining their street. These
96

trees will be planted based upon fractal patterns, or natural
growth models instead of arbitrary geometric constraints.
The background of this figure shows the distant mixed-use
area (blue-green buildings) and also the public wetland park.

Figure 20. Exterior view of residential peninsula from apartment
window. Rory Hyde 2013.

Figure 21 shows an aerial view of the mixed-use corridor. A
variety of building forms have been utilized. Those nearest the
existing neighborhood are traditional in form, while those
nearest the new neighborhoods will be designed with Biophilia
and Fractals in mind. Parking in this area is either on-street
or within core parking structures (shown in yellow), (not surface lots) allowing for maximized building frontage, as well as
97

internal space for pedestrian plazas, stormwater treatment pools
and greenspaces. A linear pattern was used for this part of the
design, however trees could be planted with a slight meander to
add appeal and variety to the streetscape. Plantings are intended to be more humanistic and structured than residential and
natural areas.

Figure 21. Aerial view of proposed Mixed-Use corridor. Rory Hyde
2013.

Figure 22 portrays an eye-level perspective example of a
streetscape found within the mixed-use corridor. At this intersection the self-similar forms of the buildings can be seen.
Facades of these buildings are designed to maximize visibility
of building contents, especially on the ground level. The high
density of street trees creates a shaded pedestrian corridor.
98

Streets are wide enough to allow two lanes of traffic and onstreet parking, but not affect the ideal minimum building-height: street width ratio (1:3). The streetscape would benefit from further design to include vegetated tree lawns, rain
gardens, lighting, signage, and other amenities, but has not
been developed in this project.

Figure 22. Streetscape of proposed Mixed-Use area. Rory Hyde
2013.

Figure 23 depicts how one of the interior spaces within a
mixed use block could be designed. New Center Square will serve
the community’s many need. Visitors will have a place to gather,
preform, socialize, relax and dine. All the while they will be
experiencing sustainable stormwater management techniques, and
99

also aesthetic plantings of vegetation that echo back to the
area’s indigenous landscape. Water collected in these pools
comes from the surrounding paved surfaces, and also from intercepted storm sewers on and off site. These pools form a network
across the mixed-used areas aimed at capturing 100% for urban
stormwater, and then directing it toward the filtration channels
before entering adjacent wetlands and the Detroit River proper.

Figure 23. New Center Square. Rory Hyde 2013.

100

Figure 24. New Center Square cafe perspective. Rory Hyde 2013.

Figure 24 portrays another view of New Center Square, featuring a small cafe located beneath the awning of a mixed-use
building. Raised planting beds are used to further divide space
between buildings, facilitate movement across site, and provide
for easy maintenance.
Close to New Center Square is another block interior demonstrating the character of this new mixed-use development, shown
by Figure 25. Here an indoor-outdoor space has been created using tensile fabric overhangs between buildings. This feature
creates a shaded corridor between buildings, but also allows for
the use of vegetation. Such design will encourage pedestrian
traffic into and through the block interiors.
101

Figure 25. Alleyway with fabric canopy. Rory Hyde 2013.

An interior perspective of this covered corridor is displayed in Figure 26. The design concept for this area is an
idealized Savannah oasis. Shallow circular pools fill the space
with aquatic plants and white noise while detaining stormwater.
Trees have been scattered across the site to divide up the
spaces and cater to the biophilic response of users. This manicured space allows for all-weather use by retail shoppers, office employees, and other daily visitors.

102

Figure 26. Interior view of covered alleyway. Rory Hyde 2013.

Figure 27 is a perspective of this site’s primary wetland
park located between the residential peninsulas, and adjacent to
the mixed-use corridor. Trails coming from other locations will
connect users with this restored indigenous landscape and allow
for passive recreational uses. This park is where all stormwater
collected by the various filtration channels is emptied before
being released directly into the river. The flow of water is
controlled to create an emergent marsh with many islands of vegetation bisected by meandering fractal-like streams. This particular image shows how a trail can span one of the streams atop
a levy to allow for controlled release of water. Here design potential exists to allow for fish hatcheries, but is not explicit
in this project.
103

Figure 27. Wetland Park. Rory Hyde 2013.

Another example of large-scale recreational land use found
within this design is that of the Utility Park (Figure 28).
Centrally located on the North end of the site, this park stands
where large petroleum storage tanks are currently held. However,
the new design has transformed these structures into skeletons
of their former selves, with the intent to allow for landscape
art installation. A portion of the site’s prior character remains within this design, but now serves a different purpose.
The white walls of the tanks have been transformed into murals
and/or blank canvases for graffiti-style art, while the insides
have been refitted to house sculptures and other art forms that
would not fair as well in the park grounds. Inspiration for this
design came from actual murals and children’s cartoon characters
104

that were found on the neighborhood-facing side of the concrete
walls enclosing the existing site. Instead of a foreboding,
private parcel, this park now invites residents and guests to
play, wander, and investigate an outdoor art-gallery housed inside a recreated upland forest. It is essential to note that the
green terrain shown in these figures does not always represent
turf-grass, but groundcover vegetation in general.

Figure 28. Utility Park. Rory Hyde 2013.

The final image of this series depicts one of the bird
rookeries proposed (Figure 29). This feature is located within
the larger of the created river inlets to provide space that
buffers sensitive species from human disturbance. Construction
of the rookery consists of reclaimed trees and nesting platforms
fixed within a raised island. The rookery is essential to
105

providing space to house a full spectrum of species and aid in
development of a complete food-web for the coastal wetland ecosystem. This feature will also create an interesting wildlife
viewing opportunity for residents and visitors.

Figure 29. Proposed bird rookery. Rory Hyde 2013.

Reflection/Summary
While maintaining a focus on ecological restoration and
stormwater management, sustainable urban revitalization of River
Rouge, MI was possible. In place of a hazardous and unattractive
industrial complex, proposed is an appealing riverfront community framed by a new landscape founded on fostering man’s inborn affinity toward nature.
The proposed plan managed to address all of the initial
106

program elements. The natural quality of the riverfront parcels
were restored using indigenous vegetation within a non-linear
formation. Closed artificial wetlands were created in close
proximity to residential and mixed use areas (e.g. Wetland
Park), and have the potential to serve as essential fish
hatcheries/habitats. Wetlands open to river were also devised
within the river inlets. Terraced treatment channels were developed within residential and mixed-use corridors to manage
stormwater on site, with settling tanks below ground, and many
surface ponds of aesthetic and functional nature. The building
stock on site was oriented to maximize passive and active solar
use as also maximize exposure to views of natural areas. The
river-adjacent mixed use corridor will encourage public interest
of the restored landscape character, and also provide opportunities for economic resurgence. Non-motorized trails and public
scenic outlooks have also been established across site to allow
for low-impact interaction with the wetland ecosystem. The
largest two river inlets afforded the installation of

Great

Blue Heron Rookeries, essential to the food-chain goals of the
project. Lastly, Fractal-like patterns were implemented throughout the design, at the landscape, neighborhood, and site scales.
To truly accomplish the goals of this project, extensive
research and planning would be necessary. This design only
107

strived to demonstrate the potential applications of the hypothesis discussed. LEED-ND or a similar evaluation method should
be used to determine the sustainable nature of this design. Computer models could be run to determine the exact sizes, formations, and function of stormwater installations necessary to
achieve water treatment goals. Once that is complete, this
design could be assessed for success. The same could be done to
determine ecological value. Models of ecosystem/habitat restoration could be used to determine if this design will in fact promote and protect biodiversity, and connect ecosystems and habitats. This design certainly increased the urban density of the
area, but success of the revitalization project is impossible to
determine at this stage. Studies must be conducted concerning
this design’s ability to attract residents. Focus groups or
design charettes must be conducted to gain resident input on refining this design. Architecture across site must also be developed further. Although even at this schematic level, architectural layout will have a direct influence on the property
value of lots(Thorsnes 2002), their desirability(Baldwin et al.
2010), and their ability to expose residents to the therapeutic
effects of viewing nature (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Molthrop
2011), further attention should be given to ensure and maximize
these effects. For example, the fractal nature of building and
108

streetscape silhouettes could be studied in a manner similar to
the Hagerhall et al. 2004 study, to determine if current arrangements rank as more attractive than traditional city views.
Transit-Oriented-Development is vital to the success of this
design. Locations of transit centers, stops, and routes must be
further refined with the aid of transportation planners.
Despite the room for improvement, this design is bound to
inspire evolution of a conscious land ethic within the surrounding community; transitioning from human-centered development to
one of harmony with habitat.

109

RESULTS

110

Results
This chapter presents a summary and brief analysis of the
third and final stage of study. Resulting data from the Visual
Quality analysis of both pre-test existing photographs and posttest created scenes are presented in Table 3 (rounded to the
fourth decimal place). To view these images refer to Appendix A.

Image Number
Existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Table 3. Visual Quality Scores

Created
89.9251
88.4687
78.4775
104.9569
65.7812
83.3501
54.3923
51.6525
46.2751
42.7517
52.8279
78.3410
75.9868
78.6558
77.0124

47.4307
46.1186
49.8697
45.7644
25.3915
65.3177
36.5401
49.8853
39.1209
36.3944
33.6186
42.4850
41.2927
N/A
N/A

To determine whether the resulting scores were statistically significant or not an unpaired t-test was conducted using
the computer program GraphPad Prism 6. This test was chosen because analyzing the mean of the existing and created image visual quality scores is an appropriate method of testing the hypothesis. The mean score of each data set represents the expected
111

score of any random image taken on site and if the mean of the
created scenes is statistically different from the mean score of
the existing photographs then the null hypothesis (that design
treatment will have no effect on the Visual Quality of the
sample/the means will not change significantly) can be rejected.
This finding would also support the experimental hypothesis
that: If the selected site of River Rouge, MI is treated through
applied design, then the resulting product will display
lower(more attractive) Visual Quality scores.
Before a t-test could be run on the data, first a normality
test was conducted to determine if the data represented a normal
or Gaussian distribution. A D’Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test was used for this purpose and the results are reported in Table 4. The test showed that the data was normally distributed and thus would be appropriate for a t-test.
An unpaired t-test was used because the two sets of scores,
existing and created, are exclusive. Image 1 of set A does not
correspond to image 1 of set B. Welch’s correction was used during this unpaired t-test to account for the lack of identical
standard deviations between the two groups. While a one-tailed P
value could have been used for this test (treatment is expected
to have a one-directional, positive influence on the mean
score), a two-tailed P value was chosen as they are more conser112

vative in nature, and help offset errors made during statistical
analysis. (GraphPad Software Inc, 2013)
GraphPad posits that their two-tailed P value answers the
question, “Assuming the null hypothesis is true, what is the
chance that randomly selected samples would have means as far
apart as (or further than) you observed in this experiment with
either group having the larger mean?” (GraphPad Software Inc,
2013)
According to this t-test, the P value was found to be less
than 0.0001, a very small value. This result can be interpreted
to mean that: Random sampling from identical populations would
lead to a difference smaller than observed in 99.99% of experiments, and larger than observed in 0.01% of experiments. It
should be concluded that the difference between the means of the
existing and created images should not be attributed to chance,
but rather effect of the treatment (Biophilic Design).
This same conclusion can be drawn from simple comparison of
the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the data. According to
GraphPad, “It is correct to say that there is a 95% chance that
the confidence interval you calculated contains the true population mean.” Therefore the true population mean of the existing
site is likely to be between 61.18 and 81.21, while the created
mean lies within 37.15 and 48.89. This means that even at the
113

most similar end of the intervals, the two means would still
differ by 12.29, thus suggesting that treatment results in the
minimum improvement of 12.29 Visual Quality points for any randomly selected image found within the design. However, assuming
that the calculated mean is true, this adjustment would be
closer to -28.18 ± 5.392.

Number of values
Minimum
"25% Percentile"
Median
"75% Percentile"
Maximum
Mean
"Std. Deviation"
"Std. Error of
Mean"
"Lower 95% CI of
mean"
"Upper 95% CI of
mean"

Statistical Distribution
Existing (A)
Created (B)
15
13
42.75
25.39
52.83
36.47
77.01
42.49
83.35
48.65
105.0
65.32
71.20
43.02
18.09
9.710
4.671

2.693

61.18

37.15

81.21

48.89

"D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality
test"
K2
0.5044
2.674
"P value"
0.7771
0.2626
"Passed normality
Yes
Yes
test (alpha=0.05)?"
"P value summary"
ns
ns
Table 4. Statistical Analysis

114

Table 4. (continued)
"Unpaired t-test with Welch's correction"
Existing (A) vs. Created (B)
"P value"
"< 0.0001"
"P value summary"
****
"Significantly different? (P
Yes
< 0.05)"
"One- or two-tailed P value?" Two-tailed
"Welch-corrected t, df"
"t=5.227 df=22.02"
"How big is the difference?"
"Mean ± SEM of column A"
"71.20 ± 4.671 N=15"
"Mean ± SEM of column B"
"43.02 ± 2.693 N=13"
"Difference between means"
"-28.18 ± 5.392"
"95% confidence interval"
"-39.36 to -17.00"
"R squared"
0.5537
"F test to compare variances"
"F,DFn, Dfd"
"3.471, 14, 12"
"P value"
0.0370
"P value summary"
*
"Significantly different? (P
Yes
< 0.05)"

Results from these tests suggest statistical and scientific
significance for the studied sample. This can be interpreted to
mean that, in fact, design techniques utilized within this thesis have a measurable and actual improvement effect on the visual
quality and attractiveness of environments previous developed
through other methods.

115

DISCUSSION

116

Limitations
Some limitations exist within this study, within the research, design, and test stages. Most of these issues are situations of potential human error, and time and budgetary constraints. Firstly, It was assumed that the author/researcher accurately interpreted and applied the findings discovered in the
initial stage of secondary research. No other persons were asked
to include their own suggestions of how findings should or could
be applied during the second phase of this project. The author
did not meet with city officials, local residents, or other designers or planners to gain insight on current site conditions
and future recommendations. Therefore, only information from
published sources, online databases, and personal site visits
were considered. Information from the researched articles and
texts if misinterpreted and misapplied could surely limit the
studied effects of such application within this design, and other related projects. Secondly,the non-random selection of River
Rouge as the test site could potentially have skewed results as
the site might have certain preexisting conditions that predispose it to result in a particular outcome. This study did not
test multiple selections, therefore validly is a concern when
extrapolating results to similar and dissimilar potential treatment locations.

Thirdly, certain design decisions fall within
117

realms outside the author’s personal expertise and therefore may
be limited in the accuracy and appropriateness of techniques.
These limitations could include, but are not limited to: exact
sizes and forms of architectural elements; sizes and forms of
stormwater management installations, including the actual output
volumes from city storm sewers, and precipitation and runoff
volumes as they were only estimated; feasibility of earthwork
and soil treatment; infrastructure and utility requirements;
precise demographic, resident occupancy, and building
stock/quality analysis; and also environmental engineering requirements to meet the needs of the desired design. Lastly, and
arguably the most significant limitation is that of money and
time. As this study was academic in nature, it was intended to
be completed at virtually no cost, and in a relatively short
period of time. An actual project of this magnitude certainly
requires a much larger investment of time and money than one researcher/designer could provide. This limitation may be most
evident in the test stage of this study. Only a small sample of
existing and created images were tested and may not actually
represent the two populations. Also, only the author performed
the visual quality calculations, and could have made mistakes,
preventable if others were hired to assist and corroborate
data.
118

Recommendations
To fully understand if the city of River Rouge was influenced by this design, and whether or not the hypothesis stated
holds any prescriptive power, more tests are required. Biophilic
design, and sustainable design in general, aims to influence
much more than just the attractiveness/visual quality of an environment. The proposed design has potential to meet these
goals, but was not tested empirically by this study.
As one of the primary goals of this study was to lend support to ecologically sensitive design techniques, tests to determine the effects of the chosen design on non-human ecology is
imperative, with specific regard for biodiversity, biological
health, and habitat creation and conservation. This would require fairly complicated modeling, the creation of experimental
plots in an outdoor laboratory, or even a longitudinal study of
actual application on site. Baldwin et a. 2011 provides an introduction on how to approach designing for non-human and human
habitats simultaneously. This idea should be discussed with ecological and urban planners. A simple application of the ShannonWiener index on chosen plant lists, introduced species, and species targeted through habitat restoration, could give preliminary results on biodiversity.
More tests would be necessary to determine if the proposed
119

master plan actually managed to promote sustainability development techniques. A LEED and LEED-ND scoring system could meet
this requirement, however, as mentioned in the literature review
these methods do not necessarily account for a true measure of
sustainability. Alternatives to consider include: Green Globes
by the Green Building Initiative, or SITES by the Sustainable
Sites Initiative. The use of such a system as a guide when
designing the more detailed aspects of architecture and neighborhood layouts would be an excellent way to ensure that sustainability requirements are met. Developing a plan for construction material recycling and sourcing would be a way to ensure sustainable practices. Recommendations for amending local
laws to make room for green ordinances and rezoning considerations, that could be given to city officials is strongly suggested to make certain that the sustainability goals of this project are maintained and promoted during occupation.
Conducting focus groups, or design charrettes to understand
and meet the needs of current and potential residents is
strongly suggested. Testing for the marketability of the proposed design, and any subsequent more detailed designs, would
provide a great deal of information on the effectiveness of the
design methodology and hypothesis.
Testing to determine if the design succeeds in providing
120

clean water resources is another recommendation. The master plan
intends to treat stormwater, and has the potential to assist in
river decontamination as well. Soil, water, and biomass toxicity
and quality tests should be conducted on existing and posttreatment conditions to analyze and make adjustments for improvement goals.
The only aspect of the hypothesis that was tested, attractiveness, would also benefit from additional testing. Additional
experiments must be conducted to confirm the findings of this
study. Constant repetition of similar studies is required to
maintain validity of any findings when applied to future locations. This did not test multiple locations, therefore validly
is a concern when extrapolating results to similar and dissimilar potential treatment locations. Applying the design techniques
used in this study on other sites, and then testing them for attractiveness would provide useful information. (One example of a
project that does test a design with multiple metrics was the
2012 MSU thesis by Yun Wang,"Context Sensitive Design: A NonTransportation Example in Michigan.")
Most importantly, for a project of this nature, significant
collaboration between design disciplines and research fields is
necessary to ensure accuracy, efficiency, and thoroughness of
development and management techniques. If able, future studies
121

should work with professionals from a multiple of sciences to
address the challenges of large-scale site planning and environmental design.
The techniques used in this design have potential for use
in other areas across the country. Many other former wetland
sites could benefit from indigenous landscape restoration, and
sustainable Biophilic design. Examples elsewhere in the Great
Lakes region include: Maumee River, Saginaw River, Grand River
and the Muskegon River. Each of these areas feature large watersheds emptying into the Great Lakes basin via existing or
formerly existing wetland marshes adjacent to urban development
(Albert 2008, MNFI 2013). Salt water estuaries include San Francisco Bay, Long Island Sound, Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay,
Mississippi Delta, and the Hudson River. Many of these locations
are currently being improved through aid of the National Estuary
Program (NEP 2012). The nature of these locations differ dramatically from the site selected in this thesis, but general treatment theories could be applied successfully with adjustment for
large, tidal, wetland ecosystems.

122

Conclusions and Significance
Despite the aforementioned limitations and recommendations
for improvement, this study itself holds strong merit as an example of applied science exploration within the field of environmental design. This thesis has demonstrated how human and nonhuman environments can be combined effectively through thoughtful design, in a manner that does not sacrifice aesthetics for
environmentalism. In fact, results from the post-treatment test
suggest that design of this nature enhances the attractiveness
of a development. Many potential design solutions from varying
professional disciplines were explored within this study, some
based upon tested real-life precedent projects and others based
on theoretic philosophies, resulting in a unique synthesis of
holistic design. This project has strong potential to be extrapolated as a potential solution to other areas across the country (and potentially the world) suffering from similar problems.
Placed in the hands of a well-rounded, multi-discipline design
and planning team, this schematic design would serve as an excellent guide for addressing the complexity of struggling urban
areas and their mutualistic relationships with non-human ecosystems.

123

APPENDICES

124

APPENDIX A: Tested Images
All Images © Rory Quentin Hyde 2013 Used by Permission

Figure 30. NE corner of
Marion Industrial Hwy,
looking South.

Figure 31. NE corner of
Marion Industrial Hwy,
looking East.

Figure 32. NE corner of
Marion Industrial Hwy,
looking Northeast.

Figure 33. NE corner of
Marion Industrial Hwy,
looking West.

125

Figure 34. Belanger Park, at
river looking North.

Figure 35. Belanger Park,
looking North.

Figure 36. Belanger Park,
playground looking.
NorthwestFigure 37. Belanger
Park, looking South

Figure 37. Belanger Park,
looking South.

Figure 38. John Dingell Park,
looking North.

Figure 39. John Dingell Park,
looking East at Mud Island.

126

Figure 40. John Dingell Park,
looking South.

Figure 41. Abbott Street,
looking West.

Figure 42. Walnut and
Genessee, looking East.

Figure 43. Walnut and
Genessee , looking West.

Figure 44. Jefferson Ave and
Henry St, looking Southeast.

Figure 45. Riverview Plaza,
looking East from housing
block.
127

Figure 46. Housing block near
Riverview Plaza, looking
West.

Figure 47. Housing block near
Riverview Plaza, looking West
from Apartment window.

Figure 48. Greenway
traversing residential block,
looking North.

Figure 49. Exterior view of
residential peninsula,
looking Northwest.

Figure 50. Mixed use
streetscape, looking North.

Figure 51. New Center Square,
looking Northeast from office
window.
128

Figure 52. New Center Square
cafe, looking West.

Figure 53. Covered alleyway,
looking West.

Figure 54. Covered Alley
interior, looking Southwest.

Figure 55. Wetland Park,
looking Southeast.

Figure 57. Utility Park,
looking South.

Figure 56. Bird rookery,
looking East.

129

APPENDIX B: Glossary
All definitions taken directly from Merriam-Webster online, unless otherwise stated. Accessed May 7, 2013.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/>.
“*” denotes the author’s interpretation of terms, assembled from
multiple sources and personal use.
Aeration - n. from Aerate - v. to supply or impregnate (as the
soil or a liquid) with air.
Aesthetic - adj. responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - n. management practices and
procedures used to prevent or reduce the pollution of surface waters (EHS 2012).
Biodiversity - n. The variety of life, at all levels of organization, classified both by evolutionary (phylogenetic) and
ecological (functional) criteria(Colwell 2009). See also:
Species Diversity
Bio-filtration - n. the act of absorbing, removing, breaking
down, or sequestering contaminants and pollutants from
stormwater and soil using plants. See: Phytoremediation,
Rain Garden, Sequestration. *
Biomass - n. 1. the amount of living matter (as in a unit area
or volume of habitat); 2. plant materials and animal waste
used especially as a source of fuel.
Bio-mimicry - n. the close resemblance of a design or process to
130

an actual organism or ecological process. *
Biophilia - n. a hypothetical human tendency to interact or be
closely associated with other forms of life in nature.
Bio-retention - n. the act of retaining stormwater with the assistance of plants. See: Rain Garden, Retention, Retention
Basin. *
Block - n. a usually rectangular space (as in a city) enclosed
by streets and occupied by or intended for buildings; the
distance along one of the sides of such a block.
Blueway - n. A linear water body/waterway; a corridor composed
of water. Blueways can be used to create connected networks
of water that include natural and artificial water bodies;
may feature access points for non-motorized water transit.
See: Greenway *
Brownfield - n. A site that is underutilized or not in active
use, on land that is either(Farr 2008); a tract of land
that has been developed for industrial purposes, polluted,
and then abandoned. Contrast: Greenfield.
Buffer - n.

something that serves as a protective barrier.

Charrette - n. a period of intense design, usually collaborative
and schematic, may involve design professionals, lay persons and clients working together to generate ideas and
solutions. *
131

Cognitive dissonance – n. psychological conflict resulting from
simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a
fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful)
Community - n. a group of people with a common characteristic or
interest living together within a larger society. Contrast:
Ecological Community.
Connectivity - n. measure of connectedness (Stangl, Paul, and
Jeffery M. Guinn 2011)
Conservation - n.

a careful preservation and protection of

something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
Conveyance - n. the act of moving stormwater from an impervious
surface directly into a natural waterbody, via drains or
pipes * from Convey - v. to bear from one place to another;
especially : to move in a continuous stream or mass. Contrast: Detention, Retention.
Core Parking - n. off-street parking for automobiles, usually a
parking garage/structure; located within dense urban developments; may be hidden/disguised with intention to reduce
the perceived presence of automobiles in the area or actual
horizontal space required for said vehicles. *
Deep ecology – n. an ecology guided by a deep sense of normative
philosophical values. e.g. a sense of self indistinguish132

able from and united with the natural world (Thayer 1994).
Denitrification - n.

the loss or removal of nitrogen or nitro-

gen compounds; specifically : reduction of nitrates or nitrites commonly by bacteria (as in soil) that usually results in the escape of nitrogen into the air.
Detention - n. the act or fact of detaining or holding back;a
period of temporary custody. See Detention Basin. Contrast:
Retention.
Detention Basin/Pond - n. an area surrounded by an
embankment. . .designed to temporarily hold stormwater long
enough to allow solids to settle. It reduces local and
downstream flooding (Farr 2008).
Development - n. a developed tract of land; especially : one
with houses built on it.
Discharge - n. a measure of the amount of water flow at a particular point, e.g. the flow of water in a stream or in a
pipe (EHS 2012). v - to release stormwater downstream. *
Discipline - n.

a field of study.

Dwelling Unit - n. from Household - n.

a social unit composed

of those living together in the same dwelling.
Eco-friendly - adj. not environmentally harmful.
Ecological - adj. from Ecology - n.

a branch of science con-

cerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their
133

environments.
Ecological Community - n. an interacting population of various
kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location.
Contrast: Community.
Ecoregion – n. areas of the environment defined principally by
topography, hydrology, flora, fauna and other natural
boundaries, rather than political. e.g. a watershed that
crosses multiple state lines (Mason 2011).
Ecosystem - n. the complex of a community of organisms and its
environment functioning as an ecological unit.
Ecosystem Fragmentation - n. see Habitat Fragmentation.
Environment - n. the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic
factors (as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon
an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival.
Environmental Attitude – n. The beliefs and ideas a person, or
group of persons have concerning their environment and
their role within it. * (Thompson 2004)
Environmental Behavior – n. The actions of a person, or group of
persons that have direct influence on their environment,
specifically the ecological health. * (Thompson 2004)
Environmental Design - n. the ordering of the large-scale aspects of the environment by means of architecture, engin134

eering, landscape architecture, urban planning, regional
planning, etc., usually in combination (Dictionary.com)
Environmental guilt – n. guilt about what technological development has done to the landscape, to “nature,” and to the
earth (Thayer 1994).
Environmentalism - n. advocacy of the preservation, restoration,
or improvement of the natural environment; especially : the
movement to control pollution.
Exurban - adj. from Exurb - n.

a region or settlement that lies

outside a city and usually beyond its suburbs and that often is inhabited chiefly by well-to-do families.
Eutrophication - n. the process by which a body of water becomes
enriched in dissolved nutrients (as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life usually resulting in
the depletion of dissolved oxygen.
Evapotranspiration - n. loss of water from the soil both by
evaporation and by transpiration from the plants growing
thereon.
First-flush - n. the initial volume of stormwater during a
stormwater event, consisting of higher concentrations of
contaminants (taken from impervious surfaces). * See: Impervious surface.
Food Chain - n. an arrangement of the organisms of an ecological
135

community according to the order of predation in which each
uses the next usually lower member as a food source. See:
Ecological Community.
Food-web - n.

the totality of interacting food chains in an

ecological community. See: Food Chain.
Fractal - n. any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes
for which any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a
given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to
the same size.
Gaia hypothesis – n. Earth's climate and surface environment are
controlled by the plants, animals, and microorganisms that
inhabit it. . .the planet behaves not as an inanimate
sphere of rock and soil. . .but as a biological superorganism. . .that adjusts and regulates itself (Thayer 1994).
Grade - n. the degree of inclination of a road or slope; a datum
or reference level; especially : ground level.
Green Building - n. Building design that yields environmental
benefits, such as savings in energy, building materials,
and water consumption, or reduced waste generation (Farr
2008).
Greenhouse Effect - n.

warming of the surface and lower atmo-

sphere of a planet that is caused by conversion of solar
radiation into heat in a process involving selective trans136

mission of short wave solar radiation by the atmosphere,
its absorption by the planet's surface, and reradiation as
infrared which is absorbed and partly reradiated back to
the surface by atmospheric gases.
Greenfield - n. Newly developed real estate on what was previously undeveloped open space (Farr 2008);

land not previ-

ously developed or polluted. Contrast: Brownfield.
Greenhouse Gas - n. any of the gases whose absorption of solar
radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, including carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and the fluorocarbons
(Dictionary.com). See: Greenhouse Effect.
Green Roof - n. a roof covered with vegetation, designed for its
aesthetic value and to optimize energy conservation
(Dictionary.com). May be Extensive (shallow soil, supports
light plant/weights, only accessed for maintenance) or Intensive (deeper soil, supports heavy plants, even trees,
allows for regular access). *
Green Space - n. a plot of undeveloped land separating or surrounding areas of intensive residential or industrial use
that is maintained for recreational enjoyment. (Kaplan
2004)
Green Urbanism - n. ...”emphasizes that our old approaches to
urbanism. . .are incomplete and must be substantially ex137

panded to incorporate ecology and more ecologically responsible forms of living and settlement.” (Beatley 2000).
Greenway/Green Corridor - n. A linear open space; a corridor
composed of natural vegetation. Greenways can be used to
create connected networks of open space that include traditional parks and natural areas (Farr 2008); may feature
non-motorized trails, blueways and water bodies. See: Blueway. *
Habitat - n. the place or environment where a plant or animal
naturally or normally lives and grows.
Habitat Fragmentation - n. The division of large tracts of natural habitat into smaller, disjunct parcels (Farr 2008).
Heavy Metal - n. any metal with a specific gravity of 5.0 or
greater, especially one that is toxic to organisms, as
lead, mercury, copper, and cadmium (Dictionary.com)
Hydrograph - n. a graph of the water level or rate of flow of a
body of water as a function of time, showing the seasonal
change (Dictionary.com).
Hydrologic - adj. from Hydrology - n.

a science dealing with

the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on
and below the earth's surface and in the atmosphere.
Hypothesis - n. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out
and test its logical or empirical consequences.
138

Immobilization - n. from Immobilize - v. to convert into organic
form. Contrast: Mineralization.
Impervious Surface - n. from Impervious Cover - n. Anything that
stops rainwater from soaking into the ground, including
roads, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, swimming pools,
and buildings (Farr 2008). Contrast: Pervious Surface.
Infill - n. the planned conversion of empty lots, underused or
rundown buildings, and other available space in densely
built-up urban and suburban areas for use as sites for commercial buildings and housing, frequently as an alternative
to overdevelopment of rural areas (Dictionary.com). Contrast: Urban Sprawl.
Infiltration - n. from Infiltrate - v. to cause (as a liquid) to
permeate something by penetrating its pores or interstices.
See: Interstices, Pervious Surface.
Infrastructure - n. the system of public works of a country,
state, or region; also : the resources (as personnel,
buildings, or equipment) required for an activity.
Interstices - n. a space that intervenes between things; especially : one between closely spaced things.
Land Ethic - n. A person's or group of persons' impression of
connection to the land/environment/nature that they are a
part of, whether or not they feel obligated and/or inclined
139

to protect it. (Thompson 2004)

see Environmental Attitude

Landscape Architecture - n. from Landscape Architect - n. a person who develops land for human use and enjoyment through
effective placement of structures, vehicular and pedestrian
ways, and plantings.
Landscape Design - n. he development and decorative planting of
gardens, yards, grounds, parks, and other types of areas.
Gardening and landscape design is used to enhance the settings for buildings and public areas and in recreational
areas and parks. It is one of the decorative arts and is
allied to architecture, city planning, and horticulture
(Dictionary.com).
Landscape guilt – n. see Environmental guilt.
LEED/L.E.E.D. - n. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven program that
provides third-party verification of green buildings (USGBC).
LEED-ND - n. LEED for Neighborhood Development integrates the
principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building
into the first national system for neighborhood design(USGBC).
Low-density - adj. having low concentration (Dictionary.com)
Macrophyte - n.

a member of the macroscopic plant life espe140

cially of a body of water. See: Macroscopic.
Macroscopic - adj.

observable by the naked eye.

Master Plan - n. to develop or improve (land, a community, a
building complex, or the like) through a long-range plan
that balances and harmonizes all elements (Dictionary.com).
Mineralization - n. from Mineralize - v. to convert into mineral
or inorganic form. Contrast: Immobilization.
Mixed-Use (MU) - adj. used or suitable for several different
functions. n. A development that combines residential, commercial, retail, and/or office uses, either in a vertical
fashion (in a single building) or a horizontal fashion (adjacent buildings); A neighborhood urban center that allows
a variety of residential types (condos, apartments, townhouses) and commercial, and retail uses clustered together
in a development of less than 40 acres (Farr 2008).
Natural - adj. having or constituting a classification based on
features existing in nature. See also: Non-human.
New Urbanism - n. Neighborhood design trend used to promote community and livability. Characteristics include narrow
streets, wide sidewalks, porches, and homes located closer
together than typical suburban designs (Farr 2008).
Non-human - adj. classification based on features not related to
or created by man. *
141

Open space - n. undeveloped land that is protected from development by legislation (Dictionary.com). (Kaplan 2004)
Outfall- n. the point where a sewer or drainage discharges into
a receiving waterway (EHS 2012).
Pathogen - n. a specific causative agent (as a bacterium or virus) of disease.
Pervious Surface - n. anything that allows rainwater to soak
into the ground through its pores or Interstices. See: Infiltration. *
Phytoremediation - n. a process of decontaminating soil or water
by using plants and trees to absorb or break down pollutants (Dictionary.com). See: Bio-filtration.
Plan-view - n. a drawing made to scale to represent the top
view. . . of a structure or a machine, as a floor layout of
a building (Dictionary.com).
Plaza - n. a public square in a city or town; an open area usually located near urban buildings and often featuring walkways, trees and shrubs, places to sit, and sometimes shops.
Preservation - n. to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction.
Private Sector - n. the area of the nation's economy under
private rather than governmental control (Dictionary.com).
See Public Sector.
142

Program - n. a brief. . .outline of . . . the features to be
presented; a plan or system under which action may be taken
toward a goal.
Progressive - adj. making use of or interested in new ideas,
findings, or opportunities.
Public Sector - n. the area of the nation's affairs under governmental rather than private control (Dictionary.com).
Rain Garden - n. a garden with functional purpose to detain, or
retain stormwater, may or may not use bio-filtration as
well; not necessarily an aesthetic/ornamental garden, but
rain gardens may serve this purpose as well as their functional roles. *
Reclamation – n. the act or process of Reclaiming - v. to rescue
from an undesirable state; also : to restore to a previous
natural state; to make available for human use by changing
natural conditions.
Retention - n. from Retain - v. to hold secure or intact. See
Retention Pond. Contrast: Detention.
Retention Basin/Pond - n. a storage site similar to a detention
basin but the water in storage is permanently obstructed
from flowing downstream (Dictionary.com).
Revitalization - n. from Revitalize - v. to give new life or
vigor to
143

Runoff - n. the water that flows off the surface of the land,
ultimately into streams and bodies of water, without being
absorbed into the soil (Farr 2008).
Sediment - n. the matter that settles to the bottom of a liquid.
Sequestration - n. the combining of metallic ions with a suitable reagent into a stable, soluble complex in order to
prevent the ions from combining with a substance with which
they would otherwise have formed an insoluble precipitate,
from causing interference in a particular reaction, or from
acting as undesirable catalysts (Dictionary.com).
Species Diversity - n. A measure composed of both Species Richness and Species Evenness (Colwell 2009).
Species Evenness - n. A measure of the homogeneity of abundances
in a sample or a community (Colwell 2009).
Species Richness - n. The number of species in a community, in a
landscape or marinescape, or in a region (Colwell 2009).
Streetscape - n. the appearance or view of a street.
Stormwater - n. an abnormal amount of surface water due to a
heavy rain or snowstorm (Dictonary.com). see also Runoff
Stormwater management - n. anything associated with the planning, maintenance, and regulation of facilities which collect, store, or convey stormwater(EHS/University of Virginia 2012).
144

Substrate - n.

the base on which an organism lives.

Suburban - adj. from Suburb - n. a smaller community adjacent to
or within commuting distance of a city.
Sustainable Regionalism - n. A design/planning philosophy that,
“seeks to create, revitalize, and restore the ecological
region in metropolitan areas through the physical design
and planning of neighborhoods, villages, and cities within
a region from a regionally-based sustainable perspective.”
(Ndubisi 2008)
Sustainability - n. from Sustainable - adj. of, relating to, or
being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that
the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.
Swale - n. a low-lying or depressed and often wet stretch of
land.
Technophilia – n. the hard-wired human predisposition to invent
tools and use them creatively to solve problems (Thayer
1994).
Technophobia – n. the suspicion, fear, and aversion to certain
technologies and their physical manifestations (Thayer
1994).
Tensile - adj. of, relating to, or involving tension; taut.
Theory - n. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle or body of principles offered to explain phenom145

ena.
Topophilia – n. the affective bond between people and place or
setting. (Thayer 1994)
Transit-Oriented-Development/Design (TOD) - n. A form of development that emphasizes alternative forms of transportation
other than automobile – such as walking, cycling, and mass
transit – as part of its design. TOD locates retail and office space around a transit stop. This activity center is
located adjacent to a residential area with a variety of
housing options. . .(Farr 2008).
Urban - adj. of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting
a city.
Urban Compaction - n. act of restricting development to a certain area (usually within existing city limits); intended
to utilize existing infrastructure and reduce urban sprawl.
See: Infill. Contrast: Urban Sprawl.*(Paulete & Golding)
Urban Ecology - n. from Urbanology - n. a study dealing with
specialized problems of cities (as planning, education, sociology, and politics).
Urban Planning - n. the activity or profession of determining
the future physical arrangement and condition of a community, involving an appraisal of the present condition, a
forecast of future requirements, a plan for the fulfillment
146

of these requirements, and proposals for constructional,
legal, and financial programs to implement the plan
(Dictionary.com).
Urban Sprawl - n. the spreading of urban developments (as houses
and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a city. Patterns of urban growth that include large acreage of lowdensity residential development, rigid separation between
residential and commercial uses, leapfrog development in
rural areas away from urban centers, minimal support for
non-motorized transportation methods, and a lack of integrated transportation and land use planning (Farr 2008).
Contrast: Infill, Green Urbanism, New Urbanism, TOD
Walkability - n. the components that make up a place and by its
overall look and feel (Farr 2008). from Walkable - adj.
capable of being traveled, crossed, or covered by walking
(Dicitonary.com); often used a measurement of design quality and desirability of a development. *
Wetland - n. land where part of the surface is covered with water or the soil is completely saturated with water for a
large majority of the year. . .provide an important habitat
for many different types of plant and animal species. .
.natural stormwater control areas. . .(EHS 2012).

147

REFERENCES

148

REFERENCES

Anonymous. “Meandering Wetlands Offer Improved Runoff Treatment.” Civil Engineering 68:7 Jul 1999: 20.
Aks, Deborah J., and Julien C. Sprott. “Quantifying Aesthetic
Preference for Chaotic Patterns.” Empirical Studies of the
Arts 14:1 1996: 1-16.
Albert, Dennis A., Patrick J. Comer, and Helen Enander. Atlas of
early Michigan's forests, grasslands, and wetlands: an interpretation of the 1816-1856 General Land Office surveys.
East Lansing, Mich: Michigan State University Press. 2008.
Alberti, Marina. “Urban Patterns and Environmental Performance:
What Do We Know?” Journal of Collegiate Schools of Planning
19 1999: 151-163.
Ardon, Marcelo, Shaena Montanari, Jennifer L. Morse, Martin W.
Doyle, and Emily S. Bernhardt. “Phosphorus Export From a
Restored Wetland Ecosystem in Response to Natural and Experimental Hydrologic Fluctuations.” Journal of Geophysical
Research 115 2010: 1-12.
Baldwin, Robert F., Robert B. Powell, Stephen R. Kellert. “Habitat as Architecture: Integrating Conservation Planning and
Humans Health.” AMBIO 40:3 2011: 322-327.
Beatley, Timothy. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities.
Washington DC and Covelo, California: Island Press. 2000.
Print.
Berke, Philip R., Joe Macdonald, Nancy White, Michael Holmes,
Dan Line, Kat Oury, and Rhonda Ryznar. “Greening Development to Protect Watersheds: Does New Urbanism Make a Difference?” Journal of American Planning Association 69:4
2003: 397-413.
Blecken, Godecke-Tobias, Jiri Marsalek, and Maria Viklander.
“Laboratory Study of Stormwater Biofiltration in Low Temperatures: Total and Dissolved Metal Removals and Fates.”
Water Air Soil Pollut 219 2011: 303-317.
149

Brook, Virginia. “Sustainability Speak: Discourse and Practice
Paradigms in Subdivision Design.” Local Environment 10:6
2005: 613-627.
Burley, Jon. “Visual and Ecological Environmental Quality Model
for Transportation Planning and Design.” Transportation Research Record 1549 1997: 54-60.
Burley, Jon, Gina Deyoung, Shawn Partin, and Jason Rokos. “Reinventing Detroit: Reclaiming Grayfields–New Metrics in Evaluating Urban Environments.” Challenges 2 2011: 45-54.
Chatterjee, S N., A. Ghosh, and G. Chandra. “Eco-Friendly Control of Mosquito Larvae by Brachytron pratense Nymph.”
Journal of Environmental Health 69:8 2007: 44-48.
Chen, Bo, Ochieng A. Adimo, and Zhiyi Bao. “Assessment of Aesthetic Quality and Multiple Functions of Urban Green Space
from the Users’ Perspective: The Case of Hangzhou Flower
Garden, China.” Landscape and Urban Planning 93 2009: 7682.
Colwell, Robert K. “Biodiversity: Concepts, Patterns, and Measurement.” The Princeton Guide to Ecology. 2009: 257-263.
Conway, Tenley M., “Can Broad Land Use Policies Maintain Connections Between Protected Green Spaces in an Urbanizing Landscape?” Landscape Journal 25:2 2006: 218-227.
Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches. Third Edition. Los Angeles:
SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009.
Dictionary.com. “Dictionary.com.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC. 2013. Web. May 7, 2013.
<http://dictionary.reference.com>.
Dietz, Michael E. “Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of
Current Research and Recommendations for Future Directions.” Water Air Soil Pollut 186 2007: 351-363.
Domashevich,Jenn. "Corps project added to international wildlife
refuge.” U.S. Army. Nov. 15, 2010. Web. March 26, 2013.
<http://www.army.mil/article/48115/corps-project-added-to-international-wildlife-refuge/>.
150

Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, & Robert Alminana. The
New Civic Art: Elements of Town Planning. New York: Rizzoli
Publications. 2003. Print.
Duncan, Colin P., and Peter M. Groffman. “Comparing Microbial
Parameters in Natural and Constructed Wetlands.” J. Environ. Qual. 23:2 1994: 298-305.
Echols, Stuart. “Split-Flow Theory: Stormwater Design to Emulate
Natural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 85 2008:
205-214.
Environmental Health and Safety (EHS). “Stormwater Management.”
Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. September 11, 2012. Web. May 7, 2013.
<http://ehs.virginia.edu/ehs/ehs.stormwater/stormwater.defi
nitions.html>.
Farr, Douglas. Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2008.
Gillem, Mark, and Lanbin Ren. “The Downtown Park: Integrating
Open Space, Urban Infill, and Economic Development.” EDRA
41 2010: 58-66.
Göçmen, Z. Asligül. “Relationships Between Residential Development and the Environment: Examining Resident Perspectives.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 29 2009: 54-66.
Hagerhall, Caroline M., Terry Purcell, and Richard Taylor.
“Fractal Dimension of Landscape Silhouette Outlines as a
Predictor of Landscape Preference.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 2004: 247-255.
Hardie, Ian, Erik Lichtenberg, and Cynthia J. Nickerson. “Regulation, Open SPace, and the Value of Land Undergoing Residential Subdivision.” Land Economics 83:4 2007: 458-474.
Harrison, Melanie D., Peter M. Groffman, Paul M. Mayer, Sujay S.
Kaushal, and Tamara A. Newcomer. “Denitrification in Alluvial Wetlands in an Urban Landscape.” J. Environ. Qual. 40
2011: 634-646.
Hawk, Steve. "The Cost of Coal.” Sierra. Sierra Club, November,
2012. Web. May 7, 2013. <
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/costofcoal/michigan/de151

fault.aspx>.
Hogan, Dianna M., and Mark R. Walbridge. “Best Management Practices for Nutrient and Sedimental Retention in Urban Stormwater Runoff.” J. Environ. Qual. 36:2 2007: 386-395.
Hurley, Stephanie E., and Richard T.T. Forman. “Stormwater Ponds
and Biofilters for Large Urban Sites: Modeled Arrangements
That Achieve the Phosphorus Reduction Target for Boston’s
Charles River, USA.” Ecological Engineering 37 2011: 850863.
Joye, Yannick. “Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture.” Review of General Psychology 11:4 2007: 305-328.
Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan, and Terry Brown. “Environmental
Preference a Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors.” Environment and Behavior 21:5 1989: 509-530.
Kaplan, Rachel, Maureen E. Austin, and Stephen Kaplan. “Open
Space Communities: Resident Perceptions, Nature Beliefs,
and Problems with Terminology.” Journal of American Planning Association 70:3 2004: 300-312.
Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1993. Print.
Kellert, S.R., J.H. Heerwagen, and M.L. Mador (eds.). 2008. Biophilic Design: The Theory Science, and Practice of Bringing
Buildings to Life. New York: Wiley. 2008.
Krueger, Dalton. “Dual Benefits.” Civil Engineering 71:9 2001:
40-45.
Lovejoy, Kristin, Susan Handy, and Patricia Mokhtarian. “Neighborhood Satisfaction in Suburban Verses Traditional Environments: An Evaluation of Contributing Characteristics in
Eight California Neighborhoods.” Landscape and Urban Planning 97 2010: 37-48.
Lundström, J.O., M.L. Schäfer, E. Peterson, T.Z. Persson Vinnersten, J. Landin, and Y. Brodin. “Production of Wetland
Chironomidae (Diptera) and the Effects of Using Bacillus
thuringiensis israelensis for Mosquito Control.” Bulletin
of Entomological Research 100 2010: 117-125.
152

Lynch, Kevin, and Gary Hack.
The MIT Press, 1986.

Site Planning.

Cambridge, Mass.:

Mallin, Michael A., Scott H. Ensign, Tracey L. Wheeler, and David B. Mayes. “Pollutant Removal Efficacy of Three Wet Detention Ponds.” J. Environ. Qual. 31:2 2002: 654-660.
Mason, Roibert J. “Ecoregional Planning: Retreat or
Reinvention?” Journal of Planning Literature 26(4) 2011:
405-419.
McNett, Jacquelyn K., and William F. Hunt. “An Evaluation of the
Toxicity of Accumulated Sediments in Forebays of Stormwater
Wetlands and Wetponds.” Water Air Soil Pollut 218 2011:
529-538.
McWilliam, Wendy, Paul Eagles, Mark Seasons, and Robert Brown.
“The Housing-Forest Interface: Testing Structural Approaches for Protecting Suburban Natural Systems Following
Development.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 9 2010:
149-159.
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2013. Web. Accessed May 7, 2013
<http://www.merriam-webster.com>.
Millhollon, Eddie P., Paul B. Rodrigue, James L. Rabb, Danny F.
Martin, Russell A. Anderson, and Darinda R. Dans. “Designing a Constructed Wetland for the Detention of Agricultural
Runoff for Water Quality Improvement.” J. Environ. Qual.
38:6 2009: 2458-2467.
Mitsch, William J., Xinyuan Wu, Robert W. Nairn, Paul E. Weihe,
Naiming Wang, Robert Deal, and Charles E. Boucher. “Creating and Restoring Wetlands.” Bioscience 48:12 1998: 10191030.
Mitsch, William J., Li Zhang, Kay C. Stefanik, Amanda M. Nahlik,
Christopher J. Anderson, Blanca Bernal, Maria Hernandez,
and Keunyea Song. “Creating Wetlands: Primary Succession,
Water Quality Changes, and Self-Design Over 15 Years.”
Bioscience 62:3 2012: 237-250.
Mitsch, William J., Arnold van der Valk, Eugene Jaworski. “Wetland Restoration at a Former Nike Missile Base in the Great
153

Lakes Basin.” Restoration Ecology 2:1 1994: 31-42.
MNFI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Land Cover Change
1800-1978. Michigan State University Extension. 2013. Web.
Accessed November 15, 2013.
‹http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/data/veg1800.cfm›.
Molthrop, Elizabeth. “Biophilic Design: A Review of Principle
and Practice.” DUJS Spring 2011: 37-39.
Montzka, S. A., E. J. Dlugokencky, and J. H. Butler. “Non-CO2
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.” Nature 476 2011: 4350.
Nativescape. United States Steel Great Lakes Works Ecological
Master Plan. 2010. Web. Accessed November 11, 2013
<http://www.detroitriver.org/fdr-pdf/GLRI/Ecological%20Restoration%20Master%20Plan.pdf>.
Ndubisi, Forster. “Sustainable Regionalism: Evolutionary Framework and Prospects for Managing Metropolitan Lanscapes.”
Landscape Journal 27:1 2008: 51-68.
NEP. National Estuary Program. Estuaries and Coastal Watersheds.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. March 6,
2012. Web. Accessed November 15, 2013. <http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep>.
Pauleit, Stephan, and Yvonne Golding. “The Spatial Impact of
Urban Compaction.” The Town Planning Review 76:2 2005: 143166.
Petersen, Kenneth L., and Amy S. Westmark. “Bird Use of Wetlands
in a Midwestern Metropolitan Area in Relation to Adjacent
Land Cover.” The American Midland Naturalist 169:1 2013:
221-228.
Rozas, Lawrence P., and Thomas J. Minello. “Marsh Terracing as a
Wetland Restoration Tool for Creating Fishery Habitat.”
Wetlands 21:3 2001: 327-341.
[Prior Landcover on site, circa 19th century][map]. Scale not
given. In: Albert, Dennis A., Patrick J. Comer, and Helen
Enander. Atlas of early Michigan's forests, grasslands, and
wetlands: an interpretation of the 1816-1856 General Land
Office surveys. East Lansing, Mich: Michigan State Univer154

sity Press. 2008. page 18.
[Selected Site] [map]. 2013. Scales not given; R. Quentin Hyde;
using “FlashEarth”. <http://www.flashearth.com/> (March 23,
2013).
[Selected Site of River Rouge, MI] [map]. 2013. Scale not given;
R. Quentin Hyde; using “FlashEarth”. <http://www.flashearth.com/> (March 23, 2013).
Shang, Haidong, and I.D. Bishop. “Visual Threshold for Detection, Recognition and Visual Impact in Landscape Settings.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 200: 125-140.
Stangl, Paul, and Jeffery M. Guinn. “Neighborhood Design, Connectivity Assessment and Obstruction.” Urban Design International 16:4 2011: 285-296.
Steiner, Frederick. Design For a Vulnerable Planet. Austin: University of Texas PRess. 2011.
Steinitz, Carl. “Visual Evaluation Models: Some Complicating
Questions Regarding Memorable Scenes.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 54 2001: 283-287.
Taylor, R.P., B. Spehar, J.A. Wise, C.W.G. Clifford, B.R.
Newell, and T.P. Martin. “Perceptual and Physiological Responses to the Visual Complexity of Pollock’s Dripped
Fractal Patterns.” Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci. 9:1
2005: 89-114.
Thayer, Robert L. Gray World, Green Heart Technology, Nature,
and the Sustainable Landscape. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1993. Print.
Thompson, Robert H. “Overcoming Barriers to Ecologically Sensitive Land Management: Conservation Subdivisions, Green Developments, and the Development of a Land Ethic.” Journal
of Planning, Education and Research 24:2 2004: 141-153.
Thorsnes, Paul. “The Value of Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimate
from Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots.” Land Economics 78 2002: 426-440.
Turenscape. “Shanghai Houtan Park.” Turenscape. Turenscape.
2007. Web. May 7, 2013.
155

<http://www.turenscape.com/english/projects/project.php?
id=443>.
U.S. Census Bureau. United States Department of Commerce. Web.
Accessed March, 23 2013. <http://www.census.gov>.
U.S. Green Building Council, Inc (USGBC). “LEED.” USGBC. 2013.
Web. May 7, 2013. <http://www.usgbc.org/leed>.
U.S. Green Building Council, Inc. LEED 2009 For Neighborhood Development. Washington, DC. U.S. Green Building Council,
Inc. 2009.
Wang, Yun. "Context Sensitive Design: A Non-Transportation Example in Michigan." Order No. 1518157 Michigan State University, 2012. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 5 Aug. 2013.
Weller, Richard. “Landscape (Sub)Urbanism in Theory and Practice.” Landscape Journal 27:2 2008: 247-267.
Wener, Richard. an Hannah Carmalt. “Environmental psychology
and sustainability in high-rise structures.” Technology in
Society 28 2006: 157–167.
Wheeler, Stephen. “Regions, Megaregions, and Sustainability.”
Regional Studies 43:6 2009:863-876.
Whitaker, David, Dave Elkin, Roger Pearson, Steve Mader, and
Mike Faha. “Natural Progression.” Civil Engineering 72:10
2002: 74-79.
Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press. 1984
Wu, Jianguo. “Making the Case for Landscape Ecology: An Effective Approach to Urban Sustainability.” Landscape Journal
27:1 2008: 41-50.

156