In order to identify the effective proceedings in the ECS in the area of urban planning and design and also based on the literature review, the current study has addressed existing theories and frameworks of the abovementioned field. Additionally, through the analysis of the previous and related literature, the effective proceedings in the ECS has been elaborated.

The applied approach in the urrent study is to develop the framework that can deal with the utilisation of the effective proceedings in the ECS and its relevant indicators in urban planning and design. This methodology has been taken from the study which was conducted by Sowińska-Świerkosz and García (2021). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (Berghöfer et al. 2011) implies three types of assessment: quantitative, qualitative and financial. In the current study also, the indicators are categorised, based on this basis that reflects the following cases:

1. Qualitative indicators: Describe the importance and level of ecosystem quality and show the connections amongst ecosystems and economic and social flows on a spatial scale;
2. Quantitative indicators: Showing the increase/decrease in the ecosystem services proceedings that are expected to be derived from a specific policy and
3. Financial indicators: The financial value of the selected ecosystem services or the value of increase/elimination of specific services under different scenarios (Heink and Kowarik 2010).

An indicator in the ecology and environmental planning is a component or amount of the phenomena which is related to the environment that is used for elaboration or assessment of the environmental conditions or changes or determination of the environmental objectives (Heink and Kowarik 2010).The policy-makers can adjust their decisions based on the evidence, identification and prioritisation of the interventions, the path of progress towards the objectives and be informed about timely corrective actions using these indicators (Layke 2009). Additionally, these indicators can assist in order to supervise, assess and report the progress of implementation of the policy and the distance to objectives (Van Reeth 2013). The indicators have been extracted from the studies which are mentioned in Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12. Various studies have used these services under different titles in order to collect the indicators which are relevant to the aesthetic services. Therefore, titles such as “aesthetic services,” “aesthetic joy,” “aesthetic value” and “aesthetic perception of nature” are all included in this category. In addition, in some studies, it is discussions about the “functional traits” of living creatures in the ecosystem services (e.g. de Bello et al. 2010, Goodness et al. 2016) which have been considered as indicators in the current study. This is possible because the relationship between the functional traits and ecosystem services can be developed as indicators for research and management (Goodness et al. 2016). It should be noted that the considered indicators should not necessarily be the urban landscape indicators, but they have been either related to the natural ecosystems, urban green space, plant species of urban green sites, non-native species, non-native trees, vascular plants, bird species and urban ecosystems and landscapes or could not be allocated to a specific ecosystem. Since all the green and blue spaces in urban regions are urban ecosystems, in the current study, they have been considered with this assumption of indicators that can be transferred to the urban landscapes.

Figure 1.  

Aesthetic indicators relevant to the landscape elements (structure).

Figure 2.  

Aesthetic indicators relevant to the proceedings of geological features.

Figure 3.  

Aesthetic indicators related to time proceedings.

Figure 4.  

Aesthetic indicators related to history (past) proceedings.

Figure 5.  

Aesthetic indicators related to accessibility proceedings.

Figure 6.  

Aesthetic indicators related to distribution and dispersion proceedings.

Figure 7.  

Aesthetic indicators related to welfare infrastructure proceedings.

Figure 8.  

The proceedings effective on the ECSs in urban landscape design and planning.

Figure 9.  

Aesthetic indicators related to ecological infrastructure proceedings.

Figure 10.  

Framework of urban landscape design, based on the ECSs.

Figure 11.  

Aesthetic indicators related to policy-making options proceedings.

Figure 12.  

Aesthetic indicators related to dependent characteristics of the stakeholders proceedings.

Five assumptions were specified to be influential in developing the framework, based on the related literature in Table 2.

The results which are obtained from the analysis of the studies have led to the categorisation of the proceedings of the ECS into the following categories as shown in Fig. 8, each one of the categories having been investigated separately in Fig. 8,Table 2

1. Elements (Structure) of Landscape: The landscape is made of environmental elements, such as water, soil, creatures and climate (Sheybani and Motalebi 2015) and when there are discussions about the landscape elements or structure, the mentioned cases are included in this category. Basically, the ECS can be provided in different spatial scales, such as a single tree (Blicharska et al. 2017). The type, abundance and variety of landscape elements are all amongst the variables that determine the quality of providing ECS. The main bases of the ecosystem services have been adapted and the landscape ecological features with the model that is provided in this study which is entitled “The Landscape Design Model, Values and Elements of the Landscape” and have found design strategies to improve the landscape of the Sefidrood River (Taghvaei et al. 2018). Jamali and Mosler (2014) have also used a framework that involves the basics of the ecosystem services approach in order to dynamically design the river landscapes. This framework indicates the relationship between the landscape elements, cultural services and design elements. Additionally, Yang and Dobbie (2019) evaluated five types of water-sensitive urban landscape design elements with the purpose of increasing the provision of the ECS so that they would be able to design and manage these elements. They have concluded that the size and scale of the water-sensitive urban landscape design elements are amongst the determinant factors in the provision of the ECS in the multipurpose landscapes and the public perception.
2. Geological features: Geological features, such as slope and topography, are different from the landscape structure and are related to the geographical environment. Hence, it can be divided into a separate category with a landscape approach. Basically, linking the ECS to physical landscape features is considered an efficient way to create an abstract concept in designs (Cheng et al. 2021).
3. Time: The landscape is a dynamic and ever-changing phenomenon (Mansouri 2020) that affects the provision of the ECSs. For example, the future developments may lead to disappearing or emergence of some ECSs over time (Blicharska et al. 2017) and/or the seasons and characteristics of plant phenology change over time and are in line with the cultural services they provide, which also affects the perception of the audience.
4. History (Past): The landscape is the product of the community’s interaction with history (Mansouri 2020). The rate of changes in the landscapes and uses is culturally and ecologically dependent on the flow of history/past or the quality of a landscape in the audience's mind with the changes that are made at present which can be derived from its quality in the past. If the use of history is carefully combined with the new function of the site, the new opportunities that are represented may assist us to produce many cultural benefits (Tandarić et al. 2020). For example, in a study by Jamali and Mosler (2014), the desired changes in the river landscapes have led to the creation of new identities and meanings in their function, structure and form over time. Thus, new definitions of the ECSs are required to support the citizens' welfare.
5. Accessibility: The rate of access or being close or far from (distance) the ECSs production source is amongst the effective proceedings. Accessibility can be examined from the physical, visual, auditory, olfactory and taste dimensions. For example, some studies have emphasised visual perception as a key factor in the determination of the vastness of the area in which the ECSs can be experienced by humans (Blicharska et al. 2017). On the other hand, the ECSs can rely on the functions, structures and processes of the ecosystem in a place, while they have been experienced somewhere else (Ibid). Xiao et al. (2017) have provided a framework that indicates to the audience the way of using specific cultural benefits even if he/she is not in the same place in which the cultural services are presented.
6. Distribution and Dispersion: The rate of dispersion or combination of the ECSs production sources is important because it leads to the increase or decrease in the presented benefits or, in another view, there are different spatial relationships between the services production context and the benefits of the context of the services (Fisher et al. 2009). The integration of different contexts is also influential in the final result of the audience's perception. The supply/demand patterns of the ECSs and their related proceedings can be used as a path for implementing inter-regional environmental management or, in other words, the landscape pattern can assist the provision of ecosystem services (Xiao et al. 2017).
7. Welfare Infrastructure: The presence of welfare infrastructures is amongst the factors that are effective in providing the ECSs. The number, quality and location are considered in the welfare infrastructure proceedings. As for instance, the number of facilities or the degree of cleanliness of urban green spaces can act as welfare facilities in order to attract the audience (Liu 2018). Additionally, weighting the factors that are related to the place, such as the location of the elements and buffering the surrounding processes, can affect the occurrence and intensity of production of cultural ecosystem disservices (Tandarić et al. 2020).
8. The Ecological Infrastructures: The ecological infrastructures are made of the landscape’s elements (structure). The urban ecological infrastructures play a basic role in the sustainable provision of the ecosystem services which are required by the citizens, such as leisure, educational and cultural needs (Li et al. 2017). As Taghvaei et al. (2018) have implied, the role of the leisure and cultural services in the improvement of urban rivers margins or multipurpose landscapes plays an important role in the provision of different benefits through ECSs for sustainable management of rainwater (Yang and Dobbie 2019). The integration of urban ecosystem services in urban planning is low; however, it is a promising progress in using innovative measures such as nature-based solutions (Romero-Duque et al. 2020). Therefore, it seems that the ecological infrastructures can be investigated as effective proceedings in providing the ECSs. Generally, the ECSs can be related to the biophysical environment through participatory mapping of specific places which are perceived as the providers of the ECS (Blicharska et al. 2017). As provided in the theoretical framework of the ECSs by Fish et al. (2016), the environmental spaces are mentioned that can include the places, regions and land and sea landscapes in which the people interact with each other and the natural environment. Moreover Burkhard mapping framework could be used to integrate related research regarding biotic characteristics (Burkhard et al. 2018).
9. Policy-making Options: Planning methods, landscape management budget and creating the necessary opportunities to provide cultural services can be considered variables related to policy-making options. For example, the active participation of the local authorities and experts is important because it would ensure that the urban green and blue spaces are properly distributed, planned and managed. They meet the needs of the urban population or not (Tandarić et al. 2020). It should be mentioned that the challenges of the urban green space management processes and how they are related to the area of the ecosystem services were investigated by Kabisch (2015). From another view, in a study that was conducted by Kandulu et al. (2014), it was revealed that a positive environmental effect has been made due to the water management in the provision of the ECSs which has been formerly investigated. Therefore, different investment options can play an important role in the effectiveness of the ECSs.
10. Dependent characteristics of the stakeholders: The demands and preferences of the stakeholders, characteristics such as age, socioeconomic status, the willingness to pay for the cultural services and the presence of the stakeholders that are introduced by indicators, such as the number of visitors, are amongst the proceedings on which the ECSs depend. Even if not clearly specified in the literature related to the ECSs, it is usually imagined that they are important for some people (Blicharska et al. 2017) since the use of urban green and blue spaces is highly influenced by the demographic characteristics of the users and personal factors (Tandarić et al. 2020). The stakeholders' participation is important in the determination of the perception and planning related to the concept of ecosystem services (Berghöfer et al. 2011). For example, Yang and Dobbie (2019) have used the Importance-Satisfaction Analysis (ISA) of the ECSs for water-sensitive urban design elements in different areas that can be used by the landscape architects and water and soil managers and planners. It is also helpful in the development of these landscapes. The concept of the ECSs can be an efficient framework to know the visitor’s perception and experiences (Ram and Smith 2019). However, these services might be evaluated quite differently by various people and under different socioeconomic conditions (Plieninger et al. 2015). This issue is amongst the challenges of landscape design and planning, especially in cities with a high density of stakeholders.

The framework which is provided includes three main stages: (1) Determination of the related goals and services, (2) The first stage of the solution selection and (3) Analysis of the primary solutions by the suggested questions as shown in Fig. 10.

Stage 1 plays the main role in the selection of the indicators. Meeting the existing challenge, the design scale and different dimensions of human welfare are the factors considered in this stage (e.g. the revitalisation project in the scale of River A to obtain the physical and psychological dimensions of the human welfare). Later, the main objective was determined, the specific objectives were separately divided into three categories as economic, ecological and socioeconomic valuation (the objectives may not be necessarily separable in all three categories). For example, the soft landscape increase (ecological dimension), the increase in interaction between man and the river (cultural dimension) and promotion of employment through the possibility of fishing (economic dimension). Determination and prioritisation of the challenge-related cultural services can be specified by policy-making plans or participation of the experts and stakeholders as shown in Fig. 10.

In stage two, the categorised specific objectives are filtered by the factors which are effective on the urban landscape planning in a way that the solutions that lack the desired requirements would be eliminated. These factors include the following: (1) Prioritisation of the interventions (Layke 2009) (e.g. regarding the urban management policies, development of the city gardens is a priority for the organisation), (2) Factors that are required for planning and management: (e.g. presence of the manpower and expert managers for advancement of the goals/presence of infrastructures, basic needs and infrastructure facilities (Hashemzadeh Ghalejough et al. 2020), (3) Technology and sciences: (e.g. the solution that is proposed leads to creation of new opportunities, transformation of the urban management system and affects the productivity and innovation) (Ibid), (4) Measures related to financing (availability of the financial credits) (Ibid) (e.g. the existing budget prefers the cost-effective solutions), (5) The environmental factors (Ibid) (e.g. the solution proposed is not consistent with the existing climate and environmental problems) and (6) Demographic-social factors (Ibid) (e.g. the community’s requirement of the time is the existence of walking trails).

In the third stage, first, the suggested questions have arisen, based on the proceedings effective on the ECSs to form the basis for the final solutions. Each concept covers two questions as shown in Fig. 13.

Figure 13.  

Relationship between the proceedings effective on the ECSs and the suggested questions.

In the next step, the indicator selection should be considered in a way that it is related to the objectives of the “SMART” policy” (specified, measurable, accepted, realistic, time-specific) as the permanent link between the management and supervision of the policies advancement (Van Reeth 2013). The SMART objectives and/or indicators play an important role in results-based management or responsiveness. In addition, the indicators should be objectively approvable, i.e. various researchers should be able to obtain similar information while using the same indicator (Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013). Additionally, the selected indicators should be scientifically meaningful and easily perceivable by the target audience and should have a correct and practical process that leads to quantitative measures (even if they are based on the qualitative data). In addition, there should be a short interval between the state and condition of the mentioned measures and the indicator’s accessibility. In addition, the indicators should have the potential for supervising the changes and evaluating the progress over time, helping with the decision-making through being effective and cost-effective (Tratalos et al. 2016). The stakeholders' participation can also play an important role in the selection of the indicators.

The calculation of the indicators, as shown in Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, has not been amongst the objectives of the current study because the indicators that are listed in the figures have been selected from studies which have barely specified the assessment methods and have only been implicitly introduced, such as the indicators of: Qualitatively or quantitatively measurable indicators or mapping capability (Moshari et al. 2020), services mapping capability (Egoh et al. 2012), financial or non-financial indicators (Sánchez et al. 2020) or those used with no titles.

Finally, The solutions can be compared, based on the three valuation dimensions: economic, ecological and socio-cultural. This stage helps the policy-makers to categorise each solution according to valuation dimensions to show which ones are more likely to be explored, evaluated and implemented. It also facilitates planning to provide the necessary proceedings for implementing solutions Figs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12.