健康的生态系统服务和人居环境：泰国北部的机遇与挑战

Healthy Ecosystem Services and Healthy Human Settlements: Opportunities and Challenges in Northern Thailand

著：（泰）彭瑟刚·萨布卡特派桑（泰）维帕微·素琳桑（泰）朱拉叻·瓦尼查雅派实（泰）艾格猜·亚批蒙 译：徐琴Authors: (THA) Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn, (THA) Vipavee Surinseng, (THA) Chulalux Wanitchayapaisit,

(THA) Ekachai Yaipimol Translator: XU Qin摘要：健康的生态系统服务对于人类健康至关重要。设计师、规划师和学者们需要共同协作创造更具韧性的建成环境。然而，当前的研究成果仍然较难应用到具体的现实场景中。不管是在城市还是乡村，设计师、规划师和学者们都需要了解现状当中的问题，为提出解决方案而进行充分的调研和设计探讨。然而理论和实践的差距仍可能导致进度的滞后。从城市规划师、风景园林师和学者的角度审视泰国北部建成环境中的三大议题：环境公平、食物安全和空气质量。讨论设计师和学者们在解决上述问题过程中可合作努力的方向，涉及循证设计、研究方法和设计评估。最后提出了一个致力于改善健康生态系统和人居环境关系的新范式。关键词：风景园林；生态系统服务；森林恢复；城市规划；食物基础设施；基于设计的研究；泰国北部

Abstract: Healthy ecosystems are important for human health. There is a need for designers, planners, and researchers to collaborate in order to create the resilient built environments for both environmental and human well-being. However, the current research findings may be difficult to apply to specific context in actual settlements. In each settlement, urban or rural, designers, planners, and researchers need to understand the existing in contexts and issues to provide adequate research and design questions, which will lead to providing the solutions. These gaps between knowledge and implementation may result in the delay of progress. This study examined three built environment issues found in Northern Thailand via the perspectives of an urban planner, landscape architects, and researchers including environmental justice, food security, and clean air. The directions that such collaboration can move forward, involving evidence-based design, research methods, and design evaluation were then discussed. A new paradigm was proposed to improve the relationships between healthy ecosystem and healthy human settlements.

Keywords: landscape architecture; ecosystem service; forest restoration; urban planning; food infrastructure; research-by-design; northern Thailand

越来越多的迹象表明人居环境的可持续发展对于人类健康至关重要。人类从很多方面得益于健康的生态系统，包括食物供给、洁净的空气和[1-2]水、温度调节以及大自然均衡的授粉 。不仅如此，也有证据显示健康的生态系统对于我们的健康有更直接的益处，可使我们免遭身体和心理

2020/09

过多种途径影响人的身心健康。首先，人们需要通过一定的体力活动来维持健康。日常散步和慢跑能有效避免心血管疾病和病理性肥胖 [18-20]。其次，与自然的接触帮助减小压力和提升注意力[4]，因此使用公共绿地可以有效改善每个人的身心健康状况。现如今，世界各地的许多居民都由于各自城市设计的原因，拥有越来越少的户外空间使用机会。在大部分城市中，阻碍环境设计实现社会公平性的因素有如下3 点。

1）步行可达性。在许多大型城市中，步行通道常常被限制或干扰。这不仅减少了行人的步行舒适度，也剥夺了轮椅使用者的选择[20]。在向行道树和车行道让步的同时，步行可达性往往被忽视或者只考虑最低限度。

2 ）公共交通。虽然步行环境对于街区来说很重要，设计良好的公共交通系统也有助于提升户外活动，使居民更易到达公共绿地[21]。同时也能减少私人交通工具和汽油的使用，有利于生态环境。

3）安全感。如果某处空间让人感到不安全，即使是有阴凉的步行道和公共绿地可供选择，人们也不会使用，因此也不会从中获得身体和心理上的益处 [22-23]。空间的安全感可以通过植被设计、建造材料的选择和维护来营造 [24-25]。

为了解决以上这些问题，清迈的规划设计师在做决策时应考虑居住和步行环境，以提高居民健康和福祉。只有当城市变得更适宜居住，游客才会不断到访，维持城市的收入和经济增长。针对户外绿色空间可达性所做的周密规划能帮助提升城市的可持续性及环境公平，也只有这样才能促成更加健康的人居环境。

不同社会阶层的人们都需要食物。对食物的获取是人类生活最重要的环节之一。解决全世界的饥荒也被最新“可持续发展目标” （Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs）列为首要目标[26]。不仅如此，食物也是文化和经济的体现。从原材料收割、烹饪方式到多种多样的饮食习惯，都涉及大量的本土知识；反过来说，利用食物所创造的不同味道、元素和口感对于食物本身来说也是独一无二的。纵观历史，国际贸易、全球运输、城市化和科技的盛行共同造成了食物全球化。食物全球化使我们体验到了前所未有的丰富多样的食物，同时也极大地影响了人类与食物的互动方式。食用和烹饪行为的改变通过多种途径影响着本地食品系统，包括食物多样性、生产、消费、贸易、品质和人们摄入的营养元素[27]，这些改变都间接影响着人类的身心健康，例如长时间食用相同的食物易导致肥胖与营养不良 [28-29]。

食物全球化与快速的城市化共同作用于健康的生态系统。随着现有的农业用地被逐渐转化为城市用地，农学家们不得不选择忽略生态系统的重要性，转而开发天然土地来种植更多粮食，以满足日渐增长的食物需求[27]。

对食物的高需求也导致了大规模单一农作物的生产。单一作物的栽培促进其商品化和出口。尽管这在经济上与食物全球化的趋势并不矛盾，却减少了食物多样性并替代了本土美食文化[30]。这一现象会导致单调的饮食习惯，为了确保产品数量而使用的化学物质也因此越积越多。其中的一些农药残留容易引起食物中毒或者诸如癌症、神经损伤、激素和免疫类疾病以及新生儿健康问题等长期的健康隐患[31]。另一方面，源自不同文化的农耕方式原本应关注的是生存、季节性和对原始食材的使用，并以此在各地之间相互交易 [32-33]。

维持食物全球化带来的益处并降低成本的方法之一是构建本土食物基础设施。最基本的基础设施网络能满足市民们的生活所需并使他们享受到政府服务。通常来说，基础设施一般指道路、高速公路、公共交通、电力网络和市政用水等城市交通系统和公共设施[34]。然而，城市同时也应考虑如何将食物资源纳入城市整体环境当中。土地使用性质，尤其是农业用地，正在随着快速的全球化进程而改变[35]。农业用地一直以来都为人口提供所需食物。在较古老的城市模型中，每个城镇都能够自给自足，但随着人口密度的增加和农田的减少，大部分城市由于时间、空

间、工具、仓储和生活方式的限制不再能提供足够的食物。因此，大家不得不从其他地方购买原料和加工食品。虽然这样的生活方式在短期内显得实用，但当所有人口的食物都依赖于从外地运输而来时，这样的系统将会极度脆弱 [27, 36]。

往前看，风景园林师和城市规划师所构建的建成环境必须考虑规划和发展本地的粮食供应。这意味着充分考虑了潜在食物生产机会的土地使用规划，将会使城市和农村的居民们获取更加健康和多样的食物，同时也生活在一个更健康的生态系统中。这样的土地规划需要应用到土地使用管理中的“景观基础设施”概念，指景观需要为人类提供必要的基础设施，尤其是食物 [37]。

食物基础设施通过支持绿色空间网络和城市的发展，为生活在市区、郊区和农村地区的人们提供了更多选择 [32, 38]。也在农村地区的个体和社区层面上，进一步开发了生产地方特产的潜力，这要求我们更多地了解农村和自然地区的诸如野生草本植物这类更具地方性的食物种类。

清迈及泰国北部，与很多其他地方一样，都具有构建独特食物基础设施的潜力。Anderson[39] 记录了泰国北部山地部落使用的超过 1 000 种植物种类 [40]。Jacquat[41] 的研究显示了在泰国本地集市中发现的241 种植物，包括观赏植物、姜类、蘑菇类、棕榈植物和竹类。最新的一项研究在泰国北部的居住区花园中发现了丰富的树种资源，其中有能证实食品安全和效益的可食用叶子及果实等[42]。虽然类似的食用植物多样性可能存在于泰国北部或世界上任何地方，现有的这些研究并未讨论将理论与城市发展相结合并解决粮食短缺的可能性，而聚焦在本土粮食供应。

在最近的疫情背景下，城市地区的粮食供应问题变得格外严峻。随着国际贸易的中断，城市居民依然需要依赖于其他地方的食品生产。进一步完善和发展食品生产行业，帮助城市中较低阶层的人们在今后遇到类似的情况时幸存下来。

食物基础设施在不同环境下具有多种形式。泰国乡村的居住区花园便是家庭食物来

2020/09表 1 根据植物种类和用途分类的居住区花园植被数量

Tab. 1 Numbers of plants in residential garden by types of plants and uses[43]

3

2020/09当一个设计师或规划师对设计产生疑问时，他们可将其转化为研究问题，再在设计过程中引入调研、采访和设计实验等实证探索。最终结合研究结果而形成的设计方案便是循证设计。在设计完成之后，可在项目投入使用之前和之后再次进行使用及设计后评估。虽然不是所有项目都有足够的时间、预算和资源完成过程中的每个步骤，设计师、规划师和决策者们仍能在未来的环境设计实践中进一步探索和完善该模型。

景观和城市规划设计及研究对充满复杂难题的现实世界具有巨大影响。设计师、规划师和决策者们需要利用所有可行的方法和信息，充分发挥它们各自的作用，共同创造一个健康的生态系统和人居环境。

为了生态系统和人类的健康而建造、设计和改善我们的建成环境需要来自学术、规划和设计界的共同努力和合作。大量的实证研究表明人类的健康离不开健康的生态系统。然而，将理论知识应用到复杂现实世界的实践过程中还有数个未被攻克的难题。笔者探讨了泰国北部有关人居环境和生态系统的三大议题，并提出了一个围绕研究、设计和实践三者间关系的新范式，包括循证设计、基于设计的研究、使用及设计后评估。在充分考虑文化和物质环境背景的情况下，该视角可被应用到泰国北部之外的任何建成环境设计中，并有望在景观和城市规划领域的学术和实践方法间建立更强大的联系。参考文献 (References)：

[1] TZOULAS K, KORPELA K, VENN S, et al. Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 61(3): 11.

[2] COUTTS C, HAHN M. Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2015, 12(8): 9768-9798.

[3] OHLY H, WHITE M P, WHEELER B W, et al. Attention Restoration Theory: A Systematic Review of the Attention Restoration Potential of Exposure to Natural Environments[J]. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 2016, 19(7): 305-343. [4] SUPPAKITTPAISARN P, JIANG X, SULLIVAN W C. Green Infrastructure, Green Stormwater Infrastructure, and Human Health: A Review[J]. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, 2017, 2(4): 96-110.

[5] WHITMEE S, HAINES A, BEYRER C, et al. Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch: Report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health[J]. The Lancet, 2015, 386(10007): 1973-2028.

[6] SRIVANIT M, HOKAO K. Effects of Urban Development and Spatial Characteristics on Urban Thermal Environment in Chiang Mai Metropolitan, Thailand[J]. 2012, 14(2): 9-22. [7] POTHIRAT C, TOSUKHOWONG A, CHAIWONG W, et al. Effects of Seasonal Smog on Asthma and Copd Exacerbations Requiring Emergency Visits in Chiang Mai, Thailand[J]. Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and Immunology, 2016, 34(4): 284-289.

[8] CHAROENLERTTHANAKIT N, WANITCHAYAPAISIT C, YAIPIMOL E, et al. Landscape Planning for an Agricultural Research Center: A Research-by-Design Case Study in Chiang Mai, Thailand[J]. Land, 2020, 9(5): 149.

[9] SELMAN P. Sustainable Landscape Planning: The Reconnection Agenda[M]. London: Routledge, 2012.

[10] PANYA T. King Mang Rai of Lanna Kingdom (in Thai)[M]. Bangkok: Bangkok Book, 2012.

[11] DMR. Geology of Thailand[EB/OL]. [2020-05-30]. http://www.dmr.go.th/n_more_news_en.php?nid=109504. [12] VIRIYACHAIWONG B. Process of City Development in Chiang Mai-Lampoon Valley in Mung Rai Dynasty During 1800᱋2030 BE (in Thai)[D]. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University, 1996.

[13] NOONAN D S. Evidence of Environmental Justice: A Critical Perspective on the Practice of Ej Research and Lessons for Policy Design[J]. Social Science Quarterly, 2008, 89(5): 1153-1174.

[14] NSO. Infographic for Chiang Mai Tourism (in Thai)[M]. Bangkok: The National Statistics Organization, 2020.

[15] POOMPUANG A. Population Data in the Geographer’s Dimensions of Space and Time[EB/OL]. (2016)[2020-0530]. https://www.geo2gis.com/index.php/2016-01-29-0555-21/2016-02-10-05-57-33/328-cm-pop2.

[16] S’pore to Become Beautiful, Clean City within Three Years[N]. The Straits Times, 1967-05-12.

[17] BOARD N L. “Garden City” Vision Introduced[M]. Singapore: National Library Board, 1967.

[18] BOOTH K M P, MEGAN M. POSTON, WALKER CARLOS. Obesity and the Built Environment[J]. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005, 105(5): 110-117. [19] JOHANSSON M, HARTIG T, STAATS H. Psychological Benefits of Walking: Moderation by Company and Outdoor Environment[J]. Applied Psychology: Health and WellBeing, 2011, 3(3): 261-280.

[20] PIKORA T, GILES-CORTI B, BULL F, et al. Developing a Framework for Assessment of the Environmental Determinants of Walking and Cycling[J]. Social Science and Medicine, 2003, 56(8): 1693-1703.

[21] LEYDEN K M. Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods[J]. American Journal of Public Health, 2003, 93(9): 1546-1551.

[22] KUO F E, BACAICOA M, SULLIVAN W C. Transforming Inner-City Landscapes Trees, Sense of Safety, and Preference[J]. Environment and Behavior, 1998, 30(1): 28-59. [23] CHONG S, LOBB E, KHAN R, et al. Neighbourhood

Safety and Area Deprivation Modify the Associations Between Parkland and Psychological Distress in Sydney, Australia[J]. BMC Public Health, 2013, 13(1): 422.

[24] NASSAUER J I. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames[J]. Landscape Journal, 1995, 14(2): 161-170.

[25] JIANG B, MAK C N S, LARSEN L, et al. Minimizing the Gender Difference in Perceived Safety: Comparing the Effects of Urban Back Alley Interventions[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2017, 51: 117-131.

[26] WHO. Health in 2015: From Mdgs, Millennium Development Goals to Sdgs, Sustainable Development Goals[M]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2015.

[27] KENNEDY G, NANTEL G, SHETTY P. Globalization of Food Systems in Developing Countries: Impact on Food Security and Nutrition[EB/OL]. (2004)[2020-05-30]. http:// www.fao.org/3/a-y5736e.pdf.

[28] SUPPAKITTPAISARN P, LEE S. Design Elements and Applications to Solving Obesity: The Behavioral Responses in the University of Georgia Lunchscapes[M]. Austin: Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture, 2013.

[29] KIM J-H, LEE C, SOHN W. Urban Natural Environments, Obesity, and Health-Related Quality of Life among Hispanic Children Living in Inner-City Neighborhoods[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2016, 13(1): 121.

[30] JACQUES P J, JACQUES J R. Monocropping Cultures into Ruin: The Loss of Food Varieties and Cultural Diversity[J]. Sustainability, 2012, 4(11): 2970-2997.

[31] EYHORN F, RONER T, SPECKING H. Reducing Pesticide Use and Risks-What Action is Needed?[M]. Helvetas: Briefing paper, Intercooperation, 2015.

[32] POE M R, MCLAIN R J, EMERY M, et al. Urban Forest Justice and the Rights to Wild Foods, Medicines, and Materials in the City[J]. Human Ecology, 2013, 41(3): 409422.

[33] NATSUPA C. Ecomony of Thai Villages in the Past[M]. Bangkok: Sang San Publishing Company, 1997.

[34] AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION. Planning and Urban Design Standards[M]. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2006.

[35] JONES G W. Urbanization Trends in Asia: The Conceptual and Definitional Challenges[M]// HUGO G. New Forms of Urbanization. London: Routledge, 2017: 113-131. [36] HOLDREN J P, EHRLICH P R. Human Population and the Global Environment: Population Growth, Rising Per Capita Material Consumption, and Disruptive Technologies Have Made Civilization a Global Ecological Force[J]. American Scientist, 1974, 62(3): 282-292.

[37] AUSTIN G. Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning: Integrating Human and Natural Systems[M]. London: Routledge, 2014.

[38] LOHR V I. Greening the Human Environment: The Untold Benefits[J]. Acta Horticulturae, 2011, 916(916): 159170.

[39] ANDERSON E F. Plants and People of the Golden Triangle: Ethnobotany of the Hill Tribes of Northern Thailand[M]. Portland: Timber Press, 2009.

[40] CRUZ-GARCIA G S, PRICE L L. Ethnobotanical Investigation of ‘wild’ food Plants Used by Rice Farmers in Kalasin, Northeast Thailand[J]. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2011, 7(1): 33.

[41] JACQUAT C, BERTOSSA G. Plants from the Markets of

Thailand[M]. Bangkok: Editions Duang Kamol, 1990.

[42] PANYADEE P, BALSLEV H, WANGPAKAPATTANAWONG P, et al. Woody Plant Diversity in Urban Homegardens in Northern Thailand[J]. Economic Botany, 2016, 70(3): 285302.

[43] LATTIRASUVAN T, TANAKA S, NAKAMOTO K, et al. Ecological Characteristics of Home Gardens in Northern Thailand[J]. Tropics, 2010, 18(4): 171-184.

[44] YAIPIMOL E, THAITAKOO D. Ecosystem Services of Home Gardens for Household Food System: A Case Study in Ban Nonsa-Ard, Changwat Khon Kaen (in Thai)[J]. Sarasat, 2018, 1(3): 556-570.

[45] SUTEETHORN K. Urban Agriculture: Ecological Functions for Urban Landscape[EB/OL]. (2009) [2020-05-30]. http://www.land.arch.chula.ac.th/data/ file_20091118100206.pdf.

[46] WAN N-F, CAI Y-M, SHEN Y-J, et al. Increasing Plant Diversity with Border Crops Reduces Insecticide Use and Increases Crop Yield in Urban Agriculture[J]. Elife, 2018, 7: e35103.

[47] ISBELL F, ADLER P R, EISENHAUER N, et al. Benefits of Increasing Plant Diversity in Sustainable Agroecosystems[J]. Journal of Ecology, 2017, 105(4): 871-879.

[48] BAIMAI V. Biodiversity in Thailand[J]. The Journal of Royal Institute of Thailand, 2010, 2: 107-114.

[49] VAN SETERS A. Forest Based Medicines in Traditional and Cosmopolitan[J]. Medicinal Plants for Forest Conservation and Health Care, 1997, 92: 5.

[50] BRADSHAW C J, SODHI N S, PEH K S H, et al. Global Evidence That Deforestation Amplifies Flood Risk and Severity in the Developing World[J]. Global Change Biology, 2007, 13(11): 2379-2395.

[51] THOMAS D E, WEYERHAEUSER H, SAPATHONG P. Improved Tools for Managing Agroforestry Landscapes in Northern Thailand: Pilot Application of Spatial Analysis and Negotiation Support Systems[C]//Symposium on MMSEA. Lijiang: Yunnan Science and Technology Press, 2003.

[52] BRANDON K. Ecosystem Services from Tropical Forests: Review of Current Science[EB/OL]. (2014)[202005-30]. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/184673/CGD_Forest_ Climate_Series_7_Brandon_Ecosystem_Services_0.pdf. [53] ONEP. Forest Resources (in Thai) [EB/OL]. (2019) [2020-05-30]. https://web.ku.ac.th/schoolnet/snet6/envi2/ forest/forestn.htm.

[54] PASUKPHUN N. Environmental Health Burden of Open Burning in Northern Thailand: A Review[J]. Journal of Science and Technology, 2018, 3(3): 11-28.

[55] BUATONG T. Smog: Chiang Mai, Smog Crisis, the National Issue Unsolved for 12 Years (in Thai)[EB/ OL]. (2019)[2020-05-30]. https://www.bbc.com/thai/ thailand-47550696.

[56] Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning. Master Plan of Mae-Hia Agricultural Research, Demonstrative, and Training Center (in Thai)[EB/OL]. [202005-30]. https://www.dpt.go.th/en/2017-02-10-08-36-04/97en-content/about-us.html.

[57] YUE H, HE C, HUANG Q, et al. Stronger Policy Required to Substantially Reduce Deaths from PM2.5 Pollution in China[J]. Nature communications, 2020, 11(1): 1-10.

[58] FLANNIGAN M D, STOCKS B J, WOTTON B M. Climate Change and Forest Fires[J]. Science of the Total

Environment, 2000, 262(3): 221-229.

[59] DELANG C O. The Political Ecology of Deforestation in Thailand[J]. Geography, 2005, 90(3): 225-237.

[60] DELANG C O. Deforestation in Northern Thailand: The Result of Hmong Farming Practices or Thai Development Strategies?[J]. Society and Natural Resources, 2002, 15(6): 483-501.

[61] BECU N, SANGKAPITUX C, NEEF A, et al. Participatory Simulation Sessions to Support Collective Decision: The Case of Water Allocation between a Thai and a Hmong Village in Northern Thailand[C]//Towards Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystems in Moutainous Regions. Chiang Mai: National Research Council of Thailand, 2006. [62] VENNIX J A. Group Model Building: Tackling Messy Problems[J]. The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 1999, 15(4): 379-401.

[63] DYBALL R, NEWELL B. Understanding Human Ecology: A Systems Approach to Sustainability[M]. London: Routledge, 2014.

[64] FISCHER J, DYBALL R, FAZEY I, et al. Human Behavior and Sustainability[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2012, 10(3): 153-160.

[65] SUPPAKITTPAISARN P, WANICHYAPAISIT C, DYBALL R. Landscape-Human Health Research & Sustainability Policies: A Conceptual Framework[C]//The National Kasetsart University Kamphaeng Saen Conference. Bangkok: Nakhon pathom, 2018.

[66] CHAREONLERTTHANAKIT N, SAENKHAM J K, JANJIRA, SUPPAKITTPAISARN P. Using Research-byDesign Methods for Agricultural Extension: Two Case Studies in Northern Thailand[J]. KaenKaset, 2018, Special(1): 218-225.

[67] WARD T C, TRAVLOU P. Open Space: People Space[M]. Catharine Ward Thompson and Penny Travlou. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2007.

[68] GOLIČNIK B, THOMPSON C, WARD. Emerging Relationships between Design and Use of Urban Park Spaces[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2010, 94: 3853.

[69] DEMING M E, SWAFFIELD S. Landscape Architectural Research: Inquiry, Strategy, Design[M]. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

[70] CRANZ G, LINDSAY G, MORHAYIM L. Teaching through Doing: Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Berkeley’s David Brower Center[J]. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2016, 33(1): 1-17.

[71] WOODALL C, OSWALT C, WESTFALL J, et al. An Indicator of Tree Migration in Forests of the Eastern United States[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, 257(5): 1434-1444.

[72] RINCHUMPOO D. Energy-Environmental Analysis of Alternative Transport Scenarios: Case of Greater Bangkok Region[M]. Pathumthani: Asian Institute of Technology, 2005.

[73] RINCHUMPHU D, EVES C, SUSILAWATI C. Brand Value of Property in Bangkok Metropolitan Region (Bmr), Thailand[J]. International Real Estate Review, 2013, 16(3): 296-322.

[74] BROWNING M H, MIMNAUGH K J, VAN RIPER C J, et al. Can Simulated Nature Support Mental Health? Comparing Short, Single-Doses of 360-Degree Nature Videos in Virtual Reality with the Outdoors[J/OL].

Frontiers in Psychology, 2019. https://www.frontiersin.org/ articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667/full.图表来源：

图 1由作者改绘自参考文献[15]；图 2由作者拍摄；图3由作者改绘自参考文献[63]；表 1由作者绘制。

（编辑 /王亚莺）

Authors: (THA) Pongsakorn Suppakittpaisarn, (THA) Vipavee Surinseng, (THA) Chulalux Wanitchayapaisit, (THA) Ekachai Yaipimol

0 Introduction

Growing evidence shows that sustainable development for human settlements are important to human well-being. Humans benefit from healthy ecosystem in many ways, such as food provision, clean air, clean water, temperature regulation, and even pollination[1-2]. Furthermore, evidence suggests that healthy ecosystem may provide us with direct health benefits, preventing us from physical and mental morbidity and improve our executive functioning[3-4]. Thus, designers, planners, and researchers must work together to create human settlements that foster healthy ecosystem services which will in turn positively affect human health and well-being. This fact is recognized by several international organizations including Planetary Health Initiative, which agree that good planning for health and ecosystem can increase resilience from the changes in the environment, mitigate harsh environmental conditions, while promoting human health[5].

While the fields of landscape architecture and urban planning provide plenty of evidence to create such healthy settlement environments, many cities still face challenges and opportunities in its improvement[6-7]. Current knowledge in environmental design and health are still developing and filling several research gaps, and some of those gaps needed to be filled for more effective design applications[4]. Cultural and environmental contexts may dictate how designers can apply the knowledge and how effective design decisions can become. The lack of clear direction of how such collaboration may take place risks the failure in execution or delays in the progress to create healthy built environment[8]. Deliberative planning and designs need all stakeholders to be involved in such process[9], and the road map of those ideas need to start with existing issues within the built environment.

Northern Thailand can be an example of the confluence between opportunities and challenges. Once occupied by Lanna Empire centered in Chiang Mai, the region connects culturally with Southern China, Myanmar, and Laos[10]. The geography of the region consists of ridges, valleys, and fan-shaped plains. It is filled with headwater forests and fertile soils and is the homes of many hilltribes and cities[11]. Due to its rich history, diversity, and natural resources, Northern Thailand can become a great case study for the relationships between ecosystems and human settlements.

In this paper, three aspects of environmental and human health issues in Northern Thailand are examined. The purpose of this examination is to propose ways in which designers and researchers can collaborate to create a paradigm of landscape architecture and urban planning that create healthy ecosystems and healthy human settlements. The perspectives from this paper may shine lights on the existing gaps of knowledge in designing and planning implementation and propose the ways to continue developing the field of landscape architecture and urban planning.

1 Livable City and Environmental Justice

Built environment have direct impact on human health and well-being, urban environments even more so. The city of Chiang Mai has been designed for centuries, considering the ancient principles of planning[10, 12]. However, the recent changes from the expansion in tourism, increase in population, and new technological requirements may impact the livability of the city. While the city continues to prosper, some of the residents

Translator: XU Qin may have been left behind[13]. Such story happens repeatedly in different cities across the world and needed to be addressed so that we can continue to create cities in which all humans and ecosystems can healthily coexist.

Chiang Mai has been a unique world-famous tourist destination with the balance of urban and natural elements. The city, especially within the city moat was built for mixed use development and contain many mature trees. Because of this, many people come to the city to live, invest, and visit and these investors, new residents, and visitors, brought the economic prosperity[14]. However, the city has its capacity, and overdevelopment has threatened the well-being of its citizen and may reduce the historical value of the city. During the year 2006—2016, the economy of the city of Chiang Mai had expanded exponentially, but with only the entrepreneur who recently moved in. By 2016, Chiang Mai had approximately 9 million tourists each year[14]. The city was densely populated with the Mueang District having 1,541 population per square kilometer, and the growth rate continued consistently[15] (Fig. 1). The growth resulted in the increase of commercial districts, vendors, and the need for vehicular transportation. Public transportation, pavement, infrastructure, and green spaces are overused and overcrowded, and the city had not planned for the rapid expansion. When planners do not plan for such occurrence, the city might no longer fit the needs of its users. This affects health and well-being of the citizens.

Chiang Mai can still move forward from this point, taking the examples from model cities across the world. One of the examples is Singapore, which was introduced by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1967 as “the city with the densest green

space.” Singapore was planned with the idea that cities with green spaces and clean environment can improve citizens well-being and invite visitors. Later, Singapore had developed into an ideal “Garden City” vision, cooperating green spaces into everyone’s daily lives[16-17]. Compared to where Singapore had started, the city of Chiang Mai has large areas for public green spaces. Planners and landscape architects of Chiang Mai must consider conserving, increasing access, and improving such green spaces for the well-being.

Even with the cities that contain beautiful parks and street trees, such green infrastructure may not be equally accessible to the locals and visitors alike. The concept of equity requires that if a city is to provide opportunities of good health and wellbeing, then every citizen should be able to access them as needed[13]. In recent collaboration between Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University and the University of Hong Kong, students examined the lived spaces along the city moat area and tried to understand the changes, movements, and invisibility of people of all classes. They found that there are several faces of Chiang Mai city moat, and people do not equally gain the benefits from the moat, such as walking, biking, or using green spaces in the area as much as the others.

Limited access to green spaces and outdoor walking opportunities affect health and well-being in several ways. First, people need physical activities to remain healthy. Daily walking, jogging, and running can help prevent cardiovascular disease and morbid obesity[18-20]. Secondly, contact with nature can help reduce stress and increase attention capacity[4], thus being able to use public green spaces can improve people health and well-being for everyone. Currently, many people across the world have less opportunities to spend time outdoors due to the design of the city in which they live. Some of the obstacles toward the social equity of environmental design in most cities include the following.

1) Pedestrian accessibility: in many large cities, pedestrian access is limited or interrupted. This reduces the walkability of people who are ablebodied and removes the options for people with wheelchairs altogether[20]. In compromising street trees and traffic lanes, sometimes pedestrian access is overlooked or offered minimally.

2) Public transportation: while walkability can be helpful in a neighborhood, well-designed public transportation system may help increase physical activities and allow people to visit green spaces better[21]. It may also reduce the use of personal vehicles and the use of gasoline, helping the ecosystem.

3) Perception of safety: even if shaded pedestrians and public green spaces are available, if the spaces feel unsafe, people will not use nor gain physical and mental benefits from them[22-23]. Perception of safety can be planned and design by plant and construction material selections, maintenance, and cues of care[24-25].

To resolve these issues, designers and planners of Chiang Mai must make decisions towards livability and walkability of the city to improve health and well-being for its citizens. It is only when the city is livable that visitors would keep revisiting, sustaining the city’s income and economic growth. Careful planning with local and commercial stakeholders and accessibility to outdoor green spaces can help create the city with environmental sustainability and justice. And only such city will foster healthy people and settlement.

2 Urban Landscapes, Agricultural Landscapes, and Food Infrastructure

People across socio-economic statuses need food. Food accessibility is one of the most important aspects of human well-being. Among the most recent Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ending world hunger is the first[26]. Furthermore, food can represent culture and economy. It involves the indigenous knowledge in harvesting materials, cooking methods, creating diverse eating habits, and in turn, creating the recipes in various flavors, components, and textures that become unique to its origin. Throughout the history, the international trade, global transportation, urbanization, and the flourishing of technology had created food globalization. While food globalization helps us experience variety and abundance of food that had never been accessible in the past, it greatly affects the ways in which people interact with food. These changes in eating and cooking behaviors affect the local food systems in various ways including food diversity, production, consumption, trade, access, quality, and nutrition of the food consumed by the population[27]. These changes may impact human health and well-being. For example, eating the same food for a long time can lead to obesity and malnutrition[28-29].

Food globalization, coupled with rapid urbanization, also impacts healthy ecosystems. The transformation of the existing agricultural areas into urban areas and the high demands of food demands agriculturalists to move to natural lands to produce more food crops, ignoring the importance of the ecosystems and natural limitation[27].

High food demands also lead to grand scale monocultural agriculture. Monoculture focuses on producing large quantities of food for commercialization and exports. While it makes sense economically and collaborates well with food globalization, it reduces food diversity and alters local food cultures[30]. This leads to monotonous food habits and may cause the accumulation of chemicals used to ensure the quantity of products. Some of the agricultural chemicals can lead to food toxicity or long-term health impacts such as cancer, neural damage, hormonal and immunity morbidity, and natal health issues[31]. On the other hand, indigenous agricultural practices from different cultures focus on survival, seasonal food, using natural food sources, and trade between different loci[32-33].

One way to keep the benefits of food globalization but mitigate the costs is by providing some local food infrastructure. Basic infrastructure is an important network that help citizens access the required living needs and governmental services. Usually, basic infrastructure refers to the urban

2020/09 transportation systems and utilities, such as roads and highways, public transportation, electricity grid, or municipal water[34]. However, a city must consider how food availability fits into the urban environment. With rapid globalization, the land use had changed, especially for agricultural lands[35]. Agricultural lands have provided food for the population. In the older models, every cities and towns feed themselves, but with the increased population density and the reduction of farmlands, most cities cannot sufficiently produce their own food due to limitations including time, space, available tools, storage, and lifestyles. This leads to getting the ingredients shipped from other places or buying processed food. While such lifestyle is practical in a short run, it creates a fragile system in which an entire population depends on food transportation from other lands[27, 36].

Moving forward, landscape and urban planners must implement the built environment that considers, plans, and develops for local food availability and access. This means the land use planning that considers the potential in food production opportunity and options, which will lead to how the citizens, urban and rural, reach healthier, more diverse food and live in the healthier ecosystem. The planning involved requires the perspective from land use management applied from the concept of “landscape infrastructure” that suggests that landscape should provide infrastructure for human well-being, especially food[37].

Food infrastructure provides options for people in urban, suburban, and rural areas by supporting the development of green space network along with urban development[32, 38]. It also focuses on developing the potential of producing unique, local, and diverse food in the rural area in the individual and community scale. To do so, one must focus on the endemic and local food species in the rural and natural areas such as wild and herbal plants.

Chiang Mai and Northern Thailand, among other places, have the potential to create unique food infrastructure. Anderson[39] recorded more than 1,000 species utilized by the hill tribes from Northern Thailand[40]. Other work from Jacquat[41] explained the discovery of 241 species of plants including ornamental plants, ginger plants, mushrooms, palms, and bamboos from Thai local markets. A recent study also found diverse tree species in the residential gardens of Northern Thailand which contain edible leaves and fruits and can support food security and income[42]. While similar food plant diversity can also be found in Northern Thailand and any other places in the world, these studies focus on local food availability, and do not discuss the opportunity to combine the knowledge with urban development and the solutions to food scarcity.

Urban food availability issues became clearer recently considering the recent pandemic situation. With international trades cutoff, urban citizens still need to rely on food production from elsewhere. Future development of food production may help people, especially ones in lower socio-economic status, to survive if there are similar situations in the future.

Food infrastructure can appear in several contexts. In Thailand, residential garden can be an example of household food source, especially in the countryside. Most plants grew in rural residential gardens are edible. For example, Lattirasuvan has surveyed a residential harden in Phrae, a province of Northern Thailand, and found that the garden contained herbs, medicine, fruits, and starches[43] (Tab. 1). In the community level, Yaipimol studied a community food source in Northeastern Thailand and found that community forests and headwater forests are parts of rural food infrastructure that provide leafy vegetables, fish, and shellfish[44].

In urban scale, the areas that can provide agricultural opportunities include productive street trees and open spaces, institutional urban agriculture such as temple, school, or governmental offices. One case study might be a roof top garden at the Laksi Municipality Office, Bangkok, in which the officers can grow vegetables and can take the seeds back to their home[45]. For those with lower socio-economic statuses, community gardens and temple gardens can offer food options that fit with the cultural contexts.

There are several possibilities in designing food infrastructure. Understanding the importance of food production can lead to food infrastructure development.

Thus, landscape and urban planners must consider creating food infrastructure in the urban environment, in which we provide local, diverse food. Such development should examine possible policies, planning, and design for food infrastructure along with other infrastructure. This concept is important for urban food security, provides food options and accesses to the city’s population, and improves urban ecosystem[46]. This will in turn promote sustainable urban development, diverse cultural experience for residents and visitors, and enhance the ecosystem services toward everyone in the built environment[47].

3 Forest Landscapes, Air Pollution, and Water Safety

While most of human settlements are in the urban and suburban areas, the relationships between humans and forests can have large impact towards ecosystem and human health alike. The forests in Northern Thailand are important to the well-being of humans and animals across the country. Its ecosystem service provides rich and diverse food source, medicinal plants, and timber for habitat and fuel[48-49]. Furthermore, Thai forests help mitigate flood and landslide for the settlements of the lower regions[50]. Furthermore, headwater forests provide essential clean water for everyone from the hilltribes to the coastal cities of Central Thailand[51]. In addition, these diverse forests regulate humidity, carbon sequestration, and airborne particulate matters[52]. Thus, aside from their intrinsic values, Northern Thai forests and its health have direct health and well-being impacts for its entire nation.

However, Thai forests are at risks. The mountainous ecosystem commonly found in Northern Thai forests is the most fragile due to steep

slopes, global climate changes, and recent human activities and settlements[53]. While deforestation had slowed in recent years[53], the missing forests still left great impacts toward the ecological well-being of the region. Designers and planners must work together to restore it to its original stage.

Northern Thai forests are parts of the complex problem most known to Chiang Mai and neighboring regions regarding ecosystem and human settlements: the air pollution[54]. During its haze season, Chiang Mai had the highest rate of measured PM2.5 in the world[55]. PM2.5 is the dust particle smaller than 2.5 nanometer in diameter. While the rate of PM2.5 had only been measured for the past few years, the air pollution had been recorded since 1987 and began to intensify greatly in recent years[8, 56].

High PM2.5 level risk million deaths and morbidity regarding respiratory and circulatory systems for people of Northern Thailand[54], especially for the vulnerable population such as pregnant women, elderly, and children. Exposure to these particulate matters might cause coughing and wheezing in short term, asthma and lung cancer in longer terms, and finally, fatality[7, 57].

The PM2.5 issues came from several reasons. However, one of the main causes is forest fires. Forest fires in Northern Thailand are seasonal and common[53]. However, its growing issues come from the interaction between human settlements and the environment. Climate change, both natural and man-made had contributed to the dryer dry seasons which can create longer, more intense flames[58]. Forest managements can also impact the intensity and the spread of the fire[59]. Finally, the interaction between local lowlanders and folks from the hill tribes contribute to the issue via burning to hunt, collect mushrooms, and to farm. These practices, when done in small scale, were parts of the human ecology and caused little effects[59-60]. However, with the growing demands of agricultural goods and by products, the scale of forest fire had led to the intensity of air pollution Northern Thailand is facing and the dramatic deforestation which exacerbate the issue further[59].

Another issue emerges from deforestation: water scarcity. Human health and well-being depend on the access to clean water. Deforestation of the Northern Thailand forest may impact the availability of the water resources in the lower regions of Thailand. Clean water is needed to help balance temperature and maintain bodily function. Furthermore, agriculturalists need water to produce food[61]. Without the most important headwater resources, most people would face great well-being risks, economically and medically.

In the past, Thailand had made progress in reducing deforestation and agricultural malpractice. Many settlements were moved from headwater highlands to the less ecologically fragile lowlands. Some agricultural practices were added to mitigate deforestation[60]. However, many sensitive problems remain, such as settlements in headwater forests, the investments in industrial agriculture, and the overcapacity of tourism[59]. These problems needed to be closely examined from all sides and the solutions must be generated in the ways that improve the wellbeing of all stakeholders[9].

Landscape architects and urban planners can have direct impact on these issues. Analysis of land use and active planning can help develop low impact settlements to reduce the negative interactions between humans and nature[9]. The collaboration between lowlanders, hill tribes, policy makers, and landscape practitioners must be done to create the solution that respect the lifestyles of the locals while mitigate the effects of forest fires[60-61]. Safe and resilient indigenous landscape practices need to be introduced and integrated back into the practice of those settlements in the forests, while the demands of the agricultural goods may needed to be focused based on seasonality and locality to reduce agricultural malpractices. These solutions may need deliberative planning, both at policy and landscape levels[9]. Agroforestry, growing coffee or undergrowth under the forest layers, and multiple crops productions are some ways that can be used to forest burning[51], such as an example from Baan Doi Ngam community in Chiang Rai, Thailand (Fig. 2). With these applications, the forests can remain to protect the health and well-being from both urban and rural people across Thailand.

4 Research and Design for Healthy Ecosystem and Healthy Settlements

As presented in previous sections, Chiang Mai, like every settlement, has some issues in the relationship between human and environment. Many experienced designers, planners, or researchers already know these issues and are working towards solving the problems. However, these issues are usually difficult to solves due to their complexity. Real world problems, such as equity in urban design, food security, and deforestation are what designers call “messy problems”[62]. They are the problems that are made of overlayered webs of smaller problems that tangle together, affecting one another. Because they are messy problems, they are very messy to solve, but these problems are what matter in the real and complex world[9].

In the Human Ecology Theory, Dyball & Newman argues that trying to solve problems like these may lead to “Complexity Dilemma” which may lead to researchers or designers trying to focus on small chains of issues and ignore the overall picture. When that happens, factors outside of the issues we are trying to solve would interrupt the research findings or design interventions, causing the solutions to be less effective, or at times, fail[63-64]. They suggest that researchers and designers use the feedback-guided analysis to place how smaller issues are linked to the main problems and plan to address them accordingly[63].

A study had used conceptual framework development method to resolve such issues in designing healthy and healthful urban environment. Using the ideas from scholars in landscape architecture, urban planning, and landscape psychologists to place the relationships between human health, sustainability, and importance of

2020/09 nature (Fig. 3)[65]. The strongest positive links in this feedback loop are the links between human health indicators, global understanding of the link between ecosystem and human health, and designs and policies regarding the ecosystem.

This means that to move towards creating healthy ecosystems and healthy human settlements, more links between environmental design and human health needs to be established and communicated. To do so, the relationships between design and research needs to be examined. In the traditional relationships between research and design, research provides design theories to designers and planners[66]. Such relationship is one sided and can lead to stale research which may not be applied in design at all, or the research findings fail to be executed when the designs are implemented due to outside factors not shown during the research environment.

A paradigm shift of research and design relationships is on its way, but proposals need to be made to link scholarly research and real world designs: a two way relationship in which research and design demands and inform each other in dynamic ways. For example, designers must identify research questions found in their design issues, and researchers must seek to evaluate the effectiveness of design solutions. Such new dynamic may manifest in several ways, including the following.

1) Evidence-Based-Design: designers and planners must be encouraged to engage in design based on empirical evidence. In the current world, there are many research results already available that can be applied to design[67-69]. In this new paradigm, it is also researcher’s responsibility to suggest how their research findings may apply to the design solutions, and where the limitations on the implementation may apply. Both designers and researchers must communicate clear and strong links between each other.

2) Research-by-Design Methods: researchers can engage in project developments and use design project as research questions. While each project has unique and specific design and research questions, the methods in finding out those solutions and the interpretation of some findings may inform other design inquiries. Research by design methods generate clear research questions in three steps: database collection, design inquiry, and evaluation. The processes of these methods must be recorded and communicated clearly, along with their physical and cultural contexts and limitations[8, 69-70].

3) Post Occupancy Evaluation and Post-Design Evaluation: This step is most important when designing for health of ecosystem and humans. How do designers know that the designs they had done in the past are effective? Designers and researchers could design the studies that test the effectiveness of the designs for both physical and cultural outcomes. Landscape performance, ecological restoration, and human perceptions and well-being must be tested for the completed and operating projects to the better understanding of research and design[71-72]. Furthermore, recent technology may allow us to test the effectiveness of a design before it was built. By modeling the environment and test them via machine learning or mathematical models, designers and researchers can predict environmental outcomes of the design[73-74]. Cultural outcomes can also be tested by virtual technology[75]. However, the effectiveness of post-design evaluation depends greatly on the effectiveness of tools, methods, and existing database available and must be investigated further as a grand-scale effort.

These tools work together in an integrative way. For example, once a designer or planner has a design inquiry, they can turn the inquiry into research questions. They can then combine empirical explorations, such as surveys, interviews, and design experiments within the design process. Combined with previous research findings, the design decisions derive are evidence-based design. After the design is finished, it can be tested again before and after the implementation and uses for the post-design evaluation and post occupancy evaluation. While not all design projects can be conducted in this completed process due to time, budget, or resource limitations, the model is worth exploring and improvising as designers, planners, and decision makers progress into the future of environmental design.

Landscape design and urban planning research and designs make strong impact to the real world, and the real world is a complex place filled with complex issues. It is important for designers, planners, and decision makers, to utilize the available tools and information and apply them accordingly to create healthy ecosystems and healthy settlements.

5 Conclusion

Building, designing, and improving the built environment for the health of ecosystems and humans need collaboration between research, planning, and design. Large body of empirical evidence connects healthy ecosystems with healthy people. However, several questions remain in implementing the knowledge into the real world’s complexity. Three issues regarding the relationships between humans, settlements, and ecosystems in Northern Thailand had been examined, and a new paradigm for the relationships between research, design, and implementation had been proposed including the emphasis on evidence-based design, research-by design methods, and post-occupancy or post-design evaluations. The new perspective may be used to apply in any design of the built environments outside of Northern Thailand, considering the cultural and environmental contexts and may results in the stronger relationship between the scholastic and practical approaches of landscape architecture and urban planning.

Sources of Figures and Table:

Fig. 1 modified from reference [15] by the authors; Fig. 2 © the authors; Fig. 3 modified from reference [63] by the authors; Tab. 1 © the authors. (Editor / WANG Yaying)