With an increasing world population and accelerated urbanization, the development of landscape sustainability remains a challenge for scientists, designers, and multiple stakeholders. Landscape sustainability science (LSS) studies dynamic relationships among landscape pattern, ecosystem services, and human well-being with spatially explicit methods. The design of a sustainable landscape needs both landscape sustainability–related disciplines and digital technologies that have been rapidly developing. GeoDesign is a new design method based on a new generation of information technology, especially spatial information technology, to design land systems. This paper discusses the suitability of GeoDesign for LSS to help design sustainable landscapes. Building on a review of LSS and GeoDesign, we conclude that LSS can utilize GeoDesign as a research method and the designed landscape as a research object to enrich and empower the spatially explicit methodology of LSS. To move forward, we suggest to integrate GeoDesign with LSS from six perspectives: strong/weak sustainability, multiple scales, ecosystem services, sustainability indicators, big data application, and the sense of place. Toward this end, we propose a LSS-based GeoDesign framework that links the six perspectives. We expect that this integration between GeoDesign and LSS will help advance the science and practice of sustainability and bring together many disciplines across natural, social, and design sciences.

The perspective of strong/weak sustainability has a great impact on sustainability assessment. In this study, two most widely used indices, Ecological Footprint (EF) and Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for strong and weak sustainability assessment, were employed to evaluate the sustainability of China’s ten megacities between 1978 and 2015. The results showed that the ecological footprint had been enlarged in the past twenty years; while the genuine economic welfare started to increase since 2005. The cities of Xi’an, Chengdu, Chongqing, and Shanghai met the threshold of below 2.5 global hectares for EF/capita, and over 3000 dollars/capita (in 2010 US$) for GPI/capita. By analyzing and comparing the characteristics, the processes and results, and the complementary features of evaluation methods of EF and GPI, the research suggested that: (1) Strong and weak sustainability indicators, with their own pros/cons in sustainability assessment, should be used carefully; (2) Weak sustainability indicators could be analyzed from the perspective of strong sustainability; (3) Strong sustainability indicators need to be developed urgently. The results in this study could guide the selection of sustainability indicators, and help interpret the results of sustainability assessment.