Conference PaperPDF Available

Developing a sustainability indicator set for measuring green infrastructure performance

Authors:
  • Department of Planning and Environment

Abstract and Figures

An urban ecosystem is a dynamic system. Therefore, regular monitoring through the use of measurable indicators will enable an assessment of performance and effectiveness. This paper presents a conceptual framework to facilitate the development of an inclusive model for the sustainability assessment of green infrastructure. The framework focuses on key interactions between human health, ecosystem services and ecosystem health. This study reviews existing models for assessing green infrastructure performance and evaluates these models via a range of selection criteria proposed by the authors based on literature review and interviews with stakeholders. This enables derivation of a novel conceptual framework that identifies and brings together the criteria and key indicators. This integrated framework may then be applied to develop a composite indicator-based assessment model to measure and monitor performance of green infrastructure projects and support future studies.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of IEREK, International experts for Research Enrichment and Knowledge Exchange.
Urban Planning and Architecture Design for Sustainable Development, UPADSD 14- 16 October
2015
Developing a sustainability indicator set for measuring green
infrastructure performance
Parisa Pakzada, Paul Osmonda*
aFaculty of Built Environm ent, UNSW, Sydney 2033, Australia
Abstract
An urban ecosystem is a dynamic system. Therefore, regular monitoring through the use of measurable indicators will enable an
assessment of performance and effectiveness. This paper presents a conceptual framework to facilitate the development of an
inclusive model for the sustainability assessment of green infrastructure. The framework focuses on key interactions between
human health, ecosystem services and ecosystem health. This study reviews existing models for assessing green infrastructure
performance and evaluates these models via a range of selection criteria proposed by the authors based on literature review and
interviews with stakeholders. This enables derivation of a novel conceptual framework that identifies and brings together the
criteria and key indicators. This integrated framework may then be applied to develop a composite indicator-based assessment
model to measure and monitor performance of green infrastructure projects and support future studies.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of IEREK, International experts for Research Enrichment and Knowledge Exchange.
Keywords: sustainable development; green infrastructure; urban ecosystem; sustainability indicators; conceptual framework
1. Introduction
Urbanization is a dominant demographic trend and an important component of global land transformation. It is
predicted by the United Nations that cities will be saturated from the forecast population growth expected over the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-4 22 891 804.
E-mail address: p.pakzad@unsw.edu.au
2 Parisa Pakzad/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
next four decades (U.N., 2012). This will impose a tremendous ecological burden both locally and globally. The rate
of urbanization is directly correlated with increased production and consumption of goods, services and
infrastructure. This leads to greater land consumption, landscape fragmentation, biodiversity loss, the creation of
urban heat islands, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the destruction of sensitive ecosystems. The outcomes
are a decrease in human health and well-being among other negative impacts on society, which interact with and are
exacerbated by climate change ( Tzoulas et al., 2007).
As a remedy to some of these negative consequences of urbanization, the installation of green infrastructure as
opposed to grey infrastructure is identified as an alternative nature-based and cost-effective solution for improving
the sustainability of the urban development. Grey or technical infrastructure refers to the facilities that support social
and economic production such as roads, sewerage treatment, water treatment systems, and electricity supply
networks (Van de pol, 2010, pp 17). Green infrastructure is described as an integrated network of natural and semi-
natural areas and features which deliver a variety of benefits to humans (Naumann et al., 2011). Green infrastructure
has become increasingly valued in a wide variety of settings from water purification to climate change adaptation
and mitigation. Green infrastructure potentially has lower capital, maintenance and operational costs, has fewer
negative impacts on the environment and it significantly reduces carbon emissions compared to grey infrastructure
(Benedict & McMahon, 2006; Lafortezza et al., 2013). Where grey infrastructure tends to be designed to perform
only single functions, green infrastructure networks serve multiple functions and provide a wide range of
engineering, environ mental and hu man services, known as ‘ecosystem services’ (Ely & P itman, 2014) . Ecosystem
services are defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystem s’ (MEA, 2005). In this context, integrated
networks of green spaces at city scale, or green infrastructure, are seen increasingly as fundamental to the delivery
of ecosystem services for human and environmental health.
The ability to assess and regulate the sustainability performance of the built and natural environments, based on
measurable criteria at a variety of temporal and spatial scales is critical for sustainable urban development. A range
of models that assess the performance of specific aspects and elements specially related to green infrastructure have
been developed in response. However, there is no consensus on a model that is comprehensive and integrative
across all types and aspects of green infrastructure and ecosystem services.
The purpose of this study is to critically examine the existing frameworks for urban sustainability indicators and
to compare the existing green infrastructure conceptual models. This will lead to an outcome that proposes a new
framework to facilitate the process of selecting green infrastructure performance indicators to best reflect the
comprehensive and integrated function of green infrastructure.
2. Existing frameworks for assessing urban sustainability
Since the concept of sustainable development first became a major concern, a number of methods, frameworks
and tools have been developed to assess the state of, or changes to, urban areas in relation to sustainability
performance. The method mainly used to assess sustainability is indicator-based assessment, which has been applied
to many scientific fields from socio-economic science to environmental sciences. Comprehensive lists of urban
sustainability indicators have been developed by international and regional organizations, such as the European
Foundation (1998), the European Commission on Science, Research and Development (2000), the UN Hab itat
(2004), the European Commission on Energy Environment and Sustainable Development (2004), the United
Nations (2007) and the World Bank (2008).
In addition a number of composite sustainability indices have been developed more recently such as the
Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), the Environmental
Vulnerability Index (EVI), the Rio to Johannesburg Dashboard of Sustainability and the Wellbeing of Nations and
National Footprint Accounts (Ecological Footprint and Bio-capacity) (SEDAC, 2007).
The development and selection of urban sustainability indicators is a complex process. The most common
frameworks for selecting indicators is the Causal Network (CN) method. The CN framework is a combination of a
series of causal loops and feedback loops, such as the pressurestateresponse (PSR) framework and its
transformations: the driving forcestateresponse (DSR) and the driving forcepressurestateimpactresponse
Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000 3
(DPSIR) (Niemeijer and Groot, 2008). The PSR was proposed by OECD (1993) and is based on the pressure
indicators that explain the problems caused by human activities, state indicators that monitor the physical, chemical
and biological quality of environment and response indicators that indicate how society responds to environmental
changes and concerns (Segnestam, 2002).
The European Environ ment Agency (EEA) extended the PSR frame wor k to ‘Driving force -Pressure-State-
Impact-Response’ (DPSIR) which is now the most internationally recognized framework. The ‘Driving force’
indicators underlie the causes (economic sectors and human activities) through ‘Press ures (waste, e missions) to
‘States ’ (physical, chemica l and biological), and ‘Impactindicators which expres s the level of environmental harm
to human health, ecosystem health and functionality. Ultimately, the setting of indicators, targets and prioritizations
are politica l ‘respons es’ to these environmental proble ms. These causal networks exp lain the balanced interaction
between human activities and natural resources which demonstrate the sustainability level of urban development.
Sustainability assessment provides a fundamental approach to the efficient use of natural resources while adapting to
human activities and demands hence provides an essential tool to understand the physical and natural characteristics
of urban area and settlements activities in terms of their potential, weaknesses and risks in the urban planning
process (Lein, 2003).
Implementing the green infrastructure concept into the urban planning process has important influence s. It can
increase the resilience of ecosystems, contribute to biodiversity conservation and habitat enhancement and relieve
pressures on the environment such as land use change and intensification, fragmentation and climate change
resulting from human activities. Figure 1 demonstrates the DPSIR framework of the linkages between human
activities and green infrastructure performance. This framework helps to clarify the complex relationship between
cause and effect variables as well as understanding the issues that change the performance of green infrastructure
and identifying potential solutions. For example, connectivity is a key principle of green infrastructure. Any human
activities such as deforestation and land degradation that change the structure of GI will result in increasing the
percentage of impervious surfaces and consequently disturbing ecosystem functions and the overall impact on the
heath of ecosystem and human.
Figure 1 DPSIR framework of linkage between human activities and green infrastructure performance (Source author).
4 Parisa Pakzad/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
3. Existing green infrastructure conceptual models
Numerous social science research models address the environmental effects on human mental and physical health
(Table 1). The clear consensus is that green open space and biodiversity contribute positively to improving mental
and physical health for urban residents.
Pickett et al. (1997; 2001) proposed an integrated human ecosystem framework for analyzing urban systems in
relation to their social, biological and physical aspects. The two interconnected parts of this framework are: (1) The
human-social system, which includes social institutions and cycles; (2) The resource system, wh ich consists of
cultural and socio-economic resources, and ecosystem structure and processes. Grimm et al. (2000) revised Pickett’s
human ecosystem framework based on outcomes of land use and land cover changes on the interactions between
social and ecological systems. Even though these two models help to explain the concept of green infrastructure in
general, they do not clearly address the relationships between ecosystems and public health (Tzoulas et al., 2007).
Another integrated frame wor k na med the “arch of health” was developed by the W orld Health Organisation
(WHO, 1998). This model illustrates the environmental, cultural, socio-economic, working and living conditions,
community, lifestyle and hereditary factors of public health. Paton et al. (2005) comb ined the “arch of health” model
with developmental principles (social, environmental, organisational and personal factors) and systems theory to
enhance application within organizations.
In 2003, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment body established a framework for assessing global ecosystem
changes and their impacts on human and ecosystem health. This framework links ecosystem services and human
wellbeing through socio-economic factors. Ecosystem services were classified into four categories: provisioning,
regulating, supporting and cultural; and human well-being was classified into five categories: security, access to
basic resources, health, good social relations and freedom of choice (MEA, 2003,pp 78). Even though this
framework is very broad and includes many parameters, it does not explicitly distinguish between the biological,
psychological and epidemiological aspects of health (Tzoulas et al., 2007, pp 21).
A comprehensive and complex model developed by Van Kamp et al (2003) synthesized various factors that
affect the quality of life including personal, social, cultural, co mmunity, natural environment and built environment
as well as economic factors. However, the interrelationships between these factors were not clear. Tzoulas et al.
(2007) proposed a framework for green infrastructure in urban areas that provided the ground for linking ecological
concepts such as ecosystem health to social concepts such as individual or community health. On this basis,
Lafortezza et al. (2013) described a framework for green infrastructure planning with five interlinked conceptual
components: (1) ecosystem services; (2) biodiversity; (3) social and territorial cohesion; (4) sustainable
development, and (5) human well-being. In 2010 Abraham et al. conducted a scoping study reviewing over 120
studies examining the health-promoting aspects of natural and designed landscapes. The authors identified three
dimensions of human health linked to Green Infrastructure: (1) Mental well-being: landscape as a restorative
environment; (2) Physical well-being: walkable landscapes; (3) Social well-being: landscape as a bonding structure.
Table-1 summarizes the most recent frameworks which link ecosystem and human health.
Table 1 Models and theories linking ecosystem and human health aspects (Source: Tzoulas 2007; revised by author).
Author
Model/theory
Green infrastructure aspect
Freeman (1984)
Model of Environmental
Effects on Mental and
Physical Health
Physical, social and cultural factors
Henwood (2002)
Psychosocial Stress and
Health Model
Physical poor environment
Pickett et al. (1997,
2001),
Grimm et al. (2000)
Human Ecosystem
Framework
Ecosystem structure and processes and
cultural and socio-economic resources
Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000 5
WHO (1998)
Arch of Health
Environmental, cultural, socio-
economic factors
Pat on et al. (2005)
Healthy living and working
model
Environmental, cultural, socio-
economic factors
Millennium
Assessment
(2003)
Links between ecosystem
services and human well-
being
Provisioning, ecosystem services,
regulating and cultural
Macint yre et al. (2002)
Framework based on basic
human needs
Air, water, food, infectious diseases,
wast e disposal, pollution
van Kamp et al. (2003)
and Circerchia
(1996)
Domains of liveability and
quality of life
Natural environment, natural resources,
landscapes, flora and fauna, green areas
TEP (2008)
Life support system and
sustainable growth
high-quality natural environment
(environmental capacity), Managing
surface waters ; biodiversity; climate
change adaptation
Tzoulas et al. (2007)
and Austin (2014)
Conceptual framework
integrating Green
Infrastructure, ecosystem
and human health.
Ecosystem services and functions (air
and water purification, climate and
radiation regulation, etc.) and
ecosystem health (air quality, soil
structure etc.)
Abraham et al. (2010)
Human health and
wellbeing benefits of green
infrastructure
Accessibility, walkability,
Aesthetically appealing rural green,
environmental aspects (air quality and
noise reduction), Biophilia, restorative,
social and cultural interactions
4. Developing a conceptual framework
The DPSIR framework (Figure 1) conceptualizes the interaction between human activities and green
infrastructure structure and performance. This framework provides the basis to establish a composite indicator-based
model for assessing green infrastructure performance (Figure 2).Frequently in green infrastructure literature, the
concept of ecosystem services is adopted to replace and explain the functions and benefits of green infrastructure
from the global to the local scales (Tzoulas, 2007; Mazza et al., 2011; Lovell et al., 2013; Austin, 2014; Hansen et
al., 2014; Ely & Pitman, 2014). The co mbination of both green infrastructure and ecosystem services theories into a
unified framework seems promising.
Figure 2 demonstrates the links between human health and wellbeing, ecos ystem health and ecosystem services.
This model respects both philosophical anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. The link between these three systems is
very clear. A healthy ecosystem within a green infrastructure environment has the ability to increase the delivery of
ecological and cultural services to improve human health and wellbeing at both individual and community scales.
This conceptual framework proposed in figure 2 helps to identify relevant indicators for assessing the performance
of green infrastructure.
6 Parisa Pakzad/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
Figure 2 Conceptual framework of green infrastructure proposed by the author, derived from the integration of the approaches set out in Table 1
and the DPSIR framework in Figure 1.
5. Performance indicators of green infrastructure
Indicators reduce the complexity of data, simplify interpretations and assessments and facilitate communication
between experts and non-experts (Segnestam, 2002). Therefore, indicators can be used to highlight key informat ion
concerning ecosystem structure, function and services.
Ely and Pitman (2014) tabulate the ecosystem services that can be provided by green infrastructure based on the
“triple bottom line” of sustainable development, which represents the benefits of green infrastructure across the
categories of environmental, social and economic (Table 2).
Table 2 Ecosystem services that can be provided by green infrastructure (Source: Ely & Pitman 2014, p.28).
Theme
Categories
Sub-categories
Environmental
Climatic modification
Temperature reduction (Shading; evapotranspiration)
Wind speed modification
Climate change mitigation
Carbon sequestration and storage
Avoided emissions (reduced energy use)
Air quality improvement
Pollutant removal
Avoided emissions
Water cycle modification
Flow control and flood reduction (Canopy interception; Soil infiltration and storage)
Water quality improvement
Soil improvements
Soil stabilization
Increased permeability
Waste decomposit ion and nutrient cycling.
Biodiversity
Species diversity
Habitat and corridors
Food production
Productive agricultural land
Urban agriculture
Social
Human health and well-
being.
Physical
Social and psychological
Community
Cultural
Visual and aesthetic
Economic
Commercial vitality
Increased property values
Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000 7
Value of ecosystem services
However, Austin (2014) explained the contribution of green infrastructure to ecosystem services by
demonstrating the interlinkages between ecosystem health and human health and wellbeing through the framework
proposed by Tzoulas et al. (2007). This framework has been further developed by the author by adding the natural
processes (energy, carbon, water etc.) as supporting functions and fundamental elements in providing services to
humans and nature (Table 3).
Table 3 Green infrastructure contributions to ecosystem and human health through ecosystem services. (Source: Noss and Cooperrider 1994;
Tzoulas et al. 2007 and Austin 2014 ; revised by author).
To derive a draft indicator set from the above conceptual model, a series of 21 semi-structured interviews were
conducted with Australian representative experts. Interviewees were asked to identify the main benefits of green
infrastructure. There was a strong recognition of the social and cultural role of green spaces in human health and
wellbeing, emphasizing that it:
is an imperative for national, regional and local policy regarding sustainable development
brings economic and health benefits
contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation
can offset the negative environmental and social effects of development
improves the quality of life and the quality of place
Analyzing and coding the interviewees’ responses revealed nine major concepts and themes that were consistent
across all interviewees: These nine concepts can be classified into three categories: economic growth; environmental
sustainability; and health and wellbeing.
Concept 1: Climate change adaptation and mitigation
Concept 2: Human health and wellbeing
Concept 3: Healthy ecosystem
Concept 4: Biodiversity
Concept 5: Economic benefits
Concept 6: Alignment with political issues and city strategies
Concept 7: An active travel network
Concept 8: Water management
Concept 9: Food production
Based on the literature review and interviews, a set of 30 indictors in four categories including ecological
indicators, health indicators, socio-cultural indicators and economic indicators has been proposed (Table 4).
8 Parisa Pakzad/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
6. Conclusions
According to DSE (2007) sustainability assessment is ‘a generic term for a method ology that aims to assist
decision making by identifying, measuring and comparing the social, economic and environmental implications of a
project, program, or policy option (DSE, 2007,pp1). Green infrastructure performance indicators play an important
role in successfully achieving the urban sustainability targets. They can be used for the proposing new sustainable
urban development plans and for improving the decision-making process based on the pre-established benchmarks.
This will allow the comparison of different practices and facilitate the identification of best practices among various
urban development scenarios.
This paper has proposed a conceptual framework which links green infrastructure performance into ecosystem
services, ecosystem health and human health and wellbeing. This framework (Figure 2) provides a conceptual basis
to establish a composite indicator-based model for assessing green infrastructure sustainability performance, which
are identified in Table 4. These 30 indicators have been selected (as shown in table 4) based on literature review and
semi-structure interview with 21 stakeholders in Australia. The proposed variables or the indicators are both
qualitative and quantitative
This research is essentially exploratory; the development of GI sustainability performance indicators, which in
future studies further investigation, is required in terms of the scale and applicability of these indicators in various
GI typologies, and also assigning weight to indicators based on the stakeholders’ perspective.
Table 4 Proposed green infrastructure performance indicator set
CATEGORIES
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
REFERENCES
ECOLOGICAL
INDICATORS
C1
Climate a nd microclimatic modifications
(e.g. Urban Heat Island effect mitigation;
temperat ure modera tion through
evapotranspiration a nd shading; wind
speed modific ation)
Regula tion of solar radiation
(Armson et al., 2012; Picot,
200 4; Streiling & Matzarakis,
200 3; Akbari et al., 2001 )
Loweri ng air temperature
thro ugh evapotranspirati on
(Heidt & Neef, 2008; Rosenfel d
et al., 1998)
Wind breaking
(Duryea et al., 1996)
C2
Air qual ity improvement (e.g. Pollutant
removal; Avoided emissions)
(CNT 201 0; Nowak et al. 2006)
C3
Carbon Emissions (e.g. direct carbon
sequestrati on and storage; avoided
greenhouse gas emissi ons through
cooling)
Direct carbon st orage an d
sequestrati on
(CNT 201 0; Nowak & Crane,
2002)
Cont rolling carbon dioxi de
emissions by cooling effect
(CNT 201 0; Akbari, 2002)
C4
Reduc ed building e nergy use for heating
and cooling (through e.g. shading by
trees; covering building by green roof and
green wall s)
(Akbari & Taha, 1992)
C5
Hydrological regulation (e.g . flow c ontrol
and floo d reduction; regulation of water
qual ity; water purification)
Regula tion of water quality
prob lems
(Sanders, 198 6)
Increased rainwater retenti on
and floo ding
(CNT 201 0; Xiao et al., 2 000;
Grimmond et al., 1994)
C6
Improve d soil quality a nd Erosion
preve ntion (e.g. soil fertility; soil
stabilization)
(McKinney, 2006; Zhu & Carreiro 2004 )
C7
Was te decomposition and nutri ent
cycling
(Astbury and Rogers 2004)
Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000 9
C8
Nois e level attenuation
(CNT 201 0; Islam et al., 2 012; Nett le 2 009)
C9
Biodi versity-protection and
enha ncement (e.g. Communities;
species; genetic resources; habitats)
Promoting conservation
(Adams, 1994 )
Harbouring wildlife
(Dunster, 1998)
HEALTH
INDICATORS
C10
Improvi ng physical well-being ( e.g.
physic al outdoor activity; healthy food;
healthy environments )
(Schip perijn et al., 20 13; Li et al., 2011; Kent, Thompson et al. 2011;;
Abraham et al. 2 010;; Wilbur et al. 20 02; Ulrich, 1984)
C11
Improvi ng social wel l-being (e.g. social
interaction; social integration ;
community cohesi on)
(Peschardt et al., 201 2; Wood et al. 2010; Maller et al.
200 6;Frumkin et al. 2004)
C12
Improvi ng mental well-being (e.g.
reduced depression a nd anxiety; recovery
from stress; attention restoration;
positive emotions)
Reduction of mental fatigue
(Arnberger & Eder, 2012; K uo &
Sull ivan, 2001; Kap lan & Kaplan,
198 9;)
Emotional and spiritual benefits
(Abraham et al. 2010; Milligan
and Bin gley 2007; Chiesu ra,
2004)
SOCIO-CULTURAL
INDICATORS
C13
Food production (e.g. urban agric ulture;
kitchen gardens; edible landscape and
community gardens)
(Clark & Nic holas, 2013)
C14
Opportunities for recreat ion, tourism and
social interaction (community li vabili ty)
(Gobster & Westphal, 2004; Nowak et al., 2001)
C15
Improvi ng pedestrian ways and their
conne ctivity
(e.g. increasing safety; quality of path;
connectivity and linkage with other
modes)
(Turrell 2010; Leslie et al. 2005; Titze et al. 2005)
C16
Improvi ng accessibi lity
(Rundle et al. 2013)
C17
Provision of outdoor sites for educati on
and research
(McDonnell et al., 1997)
C18
Reduc tion of crimes and fear of crime
(comfort ; amenity and safety)
(Kuo & Sull ivan, 2001)
C19
Attac hment to place and sense of
belonging (cultural and symb oli c value)
(Kent, Thompson et al. 2011; Cohen et al. 200 8)
C20
Enhanc ing attractiveness of cities (e.g.
enhancing desirable views; restricting
undesirable views )
(Manning, 2008)
ECONOMIC
INDICATORS
C21
Incre ased property values
(Donova n & Butry 20 10; Shoup and Ewi ng 2010)
C22
Grea ter local economic activity (e.g.
tour ism, recreation, cultural activities)
(Wolf, 200 4 ; McPh erson & Simpson, 2002)
C23
Hea lthcare cost savings
(Shoup and Ewing 2010; Bauman et al 2008)
C24
Economic benefits of provision services
(e.g. raw materi als; timber; food
prod ucts; biofuels; medicinal products;
fresh water etc.)
(Baines, 200 0)
C25
Value of avoided CO2 emissions a nd
carbon sequestration
(CNT 201 0; Scott et al., 1 998)
C26
Value of avoided energy consumption
(e.g. reduced demands for cooling and
heating)
(CNT 201 0; Akbari & Taha, 1 992)
10 Parisa Pakzad/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
C27
Value of air pollutant removal/avoidance
(McPherson et al., 1999)
C28
Value of avoided grey infrastructure
des ign(construction and management
costs)
(CNT 201 0; Girling & Kellett, 2 002)
C29
Value of reduced flood damage
(Wong 20 11; CNT 2010; Xiao et al ., 200 0)
C30
Reduc ing cost of using private car by
increasing walki ng a nd cycling (e .g.
shi fting travel mode)
(McPherson & Muchnick, 200 5)
References
Abraham, A., K. Sommerhalder, et al. (2010). Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor
environments. International Journal of Public Health 55(1): 56-59.
Adams, L.W. (1994). In our own backyard: Conserving urban wildlife. Journal of Forestry 92, 24-25.
Akbari, H.; Taha, H. (1992). The impact of trees and white surfaces on residential heating and cooling energy use in four Canadian cities. Energy
17 (2), 141-149.
Akbari, H.; Pomerantz, M.; Taha, H. (2001). Cool surfaces and shade trees t o reduce energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Solar
Energy 70 (3), 295-310.
Akbari, H. (2002). Shade trees reduce building energy use and CO2 emissions from power plants. Environmental Pollution 116 (1), 119-126.
Arnberger, A.; Eder, R. (2012). Exploring coping behaviours of Sunday and workday visitors due to dense use conditions in an urban forest.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (4), 439-449.
Armson, D.; Stringer, P.; Ennos, A.R. (2012). The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area. Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (3), 245-255.
Astbury, B. and P. Rogers (2004). Evaluation of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy: Gilles Plains Community Garden. A case
study, RMIT University Collaborative Institute for Research.
Austin, G. (2014). Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning: Integrating Human and Natural Systems. New York: Routledge.
Bauman, A., C. Rissel, et al. (2008). Getting Australia Moving: Barriers, Facilitators and Interventions to Get More Australians Physically
Active Through Cycling., Cycling P romotion Fund, Melbourne.
Baines, C. (2000). A forest of other issues. Landscape Design 294, 46-47.
Benedict, M. A. & McMahon, E. T., (2006). Green Infrastructure:Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (1), 129-138.
Cicerchia, A., (1996). Indicators for the measurement of the quality of urban lifewhat is the appropriate territorial dimension? Soc. Indicators
Res. 39 (3), 321358.
Clark, K.H.; Nicholas, K.A. (2013). Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide
ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 28 (9), 1649 -1669.
CNT (2010). Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green Infrastructure's Multiple Benefits Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Cohen, D. A., S. Inagami, et al. (2008). The built environment and collective efficacy. Health and Place 14(2): 117-366.
DSE, (2007). Method for Conducting a Sustainability Assessment of Future Management Options for State Forests Supplying Water to
Melbourne. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.
Donovan, G.H.; Butry, D.T. (2010). Trees in the city: Valuing street trees in Portland, Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning 94 (2), 77-83.
Dunster, J.A. (1998). The role of arborists in providing wildlife habitat and landscape linkages throughout the urban forest. Journal of
Arboriculture 24 (3), 160-167.
Duryea, M.L.; Blakeslee, G.M.; Hubbard, W.G.; Vasquez, R.A. (1996). Wind and trees: A survey of homeowners after hurricane Andrew.
Journal of Arboriculture 22 (1), 44-50.
Ely, M., & Pitman, S., (2014). Green Infrastructure;Life support for human habitats, Adelade: Botanic Gardens of Adelaide, Department of
Environment, Water and Natural Resources.
Freeman, H., (Ed.), (1984). Mental health and the environment. Churchill Livingstone; London.
Frumkin, H., L. Frank, et al. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health. Washington, Island Press.
Gobst er, P.H.; Westphal, L.M. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape
and Urban Planning 68 (2-3), 147-165.
Grinde, B. and G. G. Patil (2009). Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being? International Journal of
Environmental Research and P ublic Health 6(9): 2332-2343.
Grimm, N.B., Grove, J.M., P ickett, S.T.A., Redman, C.L., (2000). Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems.
BioScience 50, 571 584.
Grimmond, S.; Souch, C.; Grant, R.H.; Heisler, G. (1994). Local scale energy and water exchange in a Chicago neighbourhood. In: McPherson,
E.G.; Nowak, D.J.;
Author name / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000 11
Heidt, V.; Neef, M. (2008). Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate. In: Carreiro, M.M.; Song, Y.C.; Wu, J. (eds.), Ecology,
planning, and management of urban forests: International perspective, Springer: New York, pp 84-96.
Hansen, R. and S. Pauleit (2014): From m ultifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for m ultifunctionality in green
infrastructure planning for urban areas. AMBIO: A Journal of t he Human Environment 43:516529. DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2.
Henwood, K., (2002). Issues in health development: environment and health: is there a role for environmental and countryside agencies in
promoting benefits to health? Health Development Agency; London.
Hull, R.B.; Lamb, M.; Vigob, G. (1994). Place identity: Symbols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning 28 (2-3), 109-120.
Islam, M.N.; Rahman, K.S.; Bahar, M.M.; Habib, M.A.; Ando, K.; Hattori, N. (2012). Pollution attenuation by roadside greenbelt in and around
urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11 (4), 460-464.
Kaplan, R.; Kaplan , S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 340pp.
Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and
Behavior 33 (4), 543.
Kent, J., S. M. Thompson, et al. (2011). Healthy Built Environments: A review of the literature. Sydney, Healthy Built Environments P rogram,
City Futures Research Centre, UNSW.
Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, Konijnendijk CC, (2013). Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban
regions. iForest 6: 102-108.
Lein, J.M., (2003). Integrated Environmental Planning. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Leslie, E., B. Saelens, et al. (2005). Residents percep tions of walkability attributes in objectively different neig hbourh oods: a pilot study. Health
Place 1 11: 227236.
Li, Q.; Kobayashi, M.; Wakayama, Y.; Inagaki, H.; Katsumata, M.; Hirata, Y.; Hirata, K.; Shimizu, T.; Kawada, T.; Park, B. (2009). Effect of
phytoncide from trees on human natural killer cell function. International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology 22 (4), 951-959.
Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 15 (1), 9-17.
Li, Q.; Otsuka, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Wakayama, Y.; Inagaki, H.; Katsumata, M.; Hirata, Y.; Li, Y.; Hirata, K.; Shimizu, T. (2011). Acut e effects of
walking in forest environments on cardiovascular and metabolic parameters. European Journal of Applied Physiology 111 (11), 2845-2853.
Li, Q.; Morimoto, K.. et al.. (2008). A forest bathing trip increases human natural killer activity and expression of anti-cancer proteins in female
subject s. Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents 22 (1), 45 -55.
Lovell, S.T ., and J.R. Taylor. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States.
Landscape Ecology 28: 14471463.
Macint yre, S., Ellaway, A., Cummins, S., (2002). Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc Sci
Med, 55; 125-139.
Maller, C., M. Townsend, et al. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people:‘contact with nature’as an upstream health p romotion intervention for
populations. Health Promotion International 21(1): 45.
Manning, W. (2008). Plants in urban ecosystems: Essential role of urban forests in urban metabolism and succession toward sustainability. The
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 15 (4), 362-370.
Mazza, L. et al. (2011). Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency. Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment on
Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059, Brussels and London., Institute for European Environmental Policy.
McDonnell, M.J.; Pickett, S.T .A.; Groffman, P.; Bohlen, P.; Pouyat, R.V.; Zipperer, W.C.; Parmelee, R.W.; Carreiro, M.M.; Medley, K. (1997).
Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1 (1), 21-36.
McKinney, M.L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127 (3), 247-260.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, 245 pp.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assemssment), (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q. (1999). Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto's municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture
25 (5), 235-248.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. (2002). A comparison of municipal forest benefits and costs in Modesto and Santa Monica, California, USA.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1 (2), 61-74.
McPherson, E.G.; Muchnick, J. (2005). Effects of street tree shade on asphalt concrete pavement performance. Journal of Arboriculture 31 (6),
303-310.
Milligan, C. and A. Bingley (2007). Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults.
Health and Place 13: 799811.
Naumann, S. et al. (2011). Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report Brussels, European
Commission.
Nettle, C. (2009). Growing Community: Starting and nurturing community gardens. Adelaide, Health SA. Government of South Australia and
Community and Neighbourhood Houses and Centres.
Neubert MG, Caswell H. (1997). Alternatives to resilience for measuring the responses of ecological-systems to perturbations. Ecology 78:653
65.
Niemeijer, D., Groot, R.S.D., (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 8, 1425.
Noss, Reed F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. (1994). Saving Nature’s Lagacy. Washington, D.C.: Defence of Wildlife/Island Press.
Nowak, D.J.; Noble, M.H.; Sisinni, S.M.; Dwyer, J.F. (2001). People and trees: Assessing the US urban forest resource. Journal of Forestry 99
(3), 37-42.
Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution 116 (3), 381-389.
12 Parisa Pakzad/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000000
Pat on, K., Sengupta, S., Hassan, L., (2005). Settings, systems and organisation development: the Healthy Living and Working Model. Health
Promot. Int., 19 (access 25 January 2015).
Peschardt, K.K.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K. (2012). Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
11 (3), 235-244.
Pickett, S.T.A., et al. (1997). A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosystem. 1, 185199.
Pickett, S.T.A., et al. (2001). Urban ecological systems: Linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan
areas. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 127157.
Picot, X. (2004). Thermal comfort in urban spaces: Impact of vegetation growth case study: Piazza dellascienza, Milan, Italy. Energy &
Buildings 36 (4), 329-334.
Rosenfeld, A.H.; Akbari, H.; Romm, J.J.; Pomerantz, M. (1998). Cool communities: Strategies for heat island mitigation and smog reduction.
Energy & Buildings 28 (1), 51-62.
Rundle, A., J. W. Quinn, et al. (2013). Associations between body mass index and park proximity, size, cleanliness, and recreational facilities.
American Journal of Health Promotion 27(4): 262-269.
Sanders, R.A. (1986). Urban vegetation impacts on the hydrology of Dayton, Ohio. Urban Ecology 9 (3), 361-376.
Schipperijn, J.; Bentsen, P.; Troelsen, J.; Toftager, M.; Stigsdotter, U.K. (2013). Associations between physical activity and characteristics of
urban green space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (1), 109-116.
Scott, K.I.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. (1998). Air pollutant u ptake by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 24 (4), 224-234.
SEDAC, (2007). Compendium of Environmental Sustainability Indicators. The Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Center
for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, USA.
Segnestam L. (2002) Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development. Theories and Practical Experience. The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT.
Shoup, L. and R. Ewing (2010). The Economic Benefits of Open Space, Recreation Facilities and Walkable Community Design. A Research
Synthesis. Princeton, NJ, Active Living Research, a National Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
St reiling, S.; Matzarakis, A. (2003). Influence of single and small clusters of trees on the bio-climate of a city: Acase st udy. Journal of
Arboriculture 29 (6), 309-316.
TEP. (2008). Towards a Green Infrastructure Framework for Greater Manchester. Association of Greater Manchester, England, U.K., The
Environment Partnership.
Titze, S., W. Stronegger, et al. (2005). Prospective study of individual, social, and environmental predictors of physical a ctivity: women’s leisure
running. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6: 363376.
Turrell, G., M. Haynes, et al. (2010). Neighborhood Disadvantage and Physical Activity: Baseline Results from the HABITAT Multilevel
Longitudinal Study. Annals of Epidemiology 20(3): 171-181.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Kazmierzcak, A.E., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Niemela, J., James, P., (2007). Enhancing ecosystem and human health
through Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167-178.
U.N., (2012). Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects. NewYork: United Nations.
Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window m ay influence recovery from surgery. Science 224 (4647), 420-421.
Van de Pol, J.F., (2010). Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment Method. Twente, Netherlands: University of Twente.
van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., de Hollander, A., (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being: Towards a
conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature review. Landscape Urban Planng, 65; 5-18.
WHO, (1998). City Health Profiles: A review of progress. World Health Organization,(s.l.).
Wilbur J, Chandler P, Dancy B, Choi J, Plonczynski D (2002) Environmental, policy, and cultural factors related to physical activity in urban,
African American women. Women’s Health 36:17–28
Wolf, K.L. (2004). Trees and business district preferences: A case study of Athens, Georgia, US. Journal of Arboriculture 30 (6), 336-346.
Wood, L., L. D. Frank, et al. (2010). Sense of Community and Its Relationship with Walking and Neighborhood Design. Social Science and
Medicine 70(9): 1381-1390.
Wong, T. H. F. (2011). Blueprint 2011. Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City. Melbourne, The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities,
Monash University.
Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G.; Ustin, S.L.; Grismer, M.E.; Simpson, J.R. (2000). Winter rainfall interception by two mature open-grown trees in
Davis, California. Hydrological Process 14 (4), 763-784.
Zhu, W.X.; Carreiro, M.M. (2004). Variations of soluble organic nitrogen and microbial nitrogen in deciduous forest soils along an urbanrural
gradient. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36 (2), 279-288.
... This uncurbed urbanisation and shift from forest systems to mechanized and grey infrastructure laden environment has resulted in the reduction of species' richness and weakened the capacity of ecosystems for natural food production, rejuvenation of human health, maintenance of aquatic and terrestrial resources, regulate microclimate and air quality in the built environment (Tzoulas et al., 2007;Ward Thompson, 2011). To ameliorate some of these negative consequences of urbanization, strategies of green infrastructure was proposed as solution to tackle environmental sustainability and human well-being especially in rapidly developing urban centres (Pakzada & Osmonda, 2016). Green infrastructure (GI) is a network of multifunctional green space facilities that can increase connectivity between existing natural areas, encourage ecological coherence while improving the quality of life and well-being. ...
... Also, availability of green spaces has been reported to enhance factors such as community cohesion and revitalization, improved housing conditions, neighbourhood pedestrian corridors, job availability, and more active youths in productive ventures (Jennings, Baptiste, Jelks & Skeete, 2017). In general, green infrastructure has the capacity to enhance health and mitigate environmental sustainability challenges (Pakzada & Osmonda, 2016;Jennings et al., 2017), but the aspect or dimension of the challenges, the extent of the mitigation and the effect that these will have on the health of urban residents in developing nations like Nigeria is unclear. The present study therefore, examined the mitigating effects of GI on selected environmental sustainability issues as well as the extent to which availability of GI can enhance selfreported (perceived) health of urban residents in Lagos Nigeria. ...
... We as well measured the extent of self-reported improvement on health of urban residents in Lagos Metropolis, in relation to the availability and access to green infrastructure. This study was premised on the literature (Takano et al., 2002;Tzoulas et al., 2007;Pakzada & Osmonda, 2016;Ward Thompson et al., 2016;Jennings et al., 2017) addressing links between access to GI facilities and health, particularly levels of reported good health in areas with green spaces and poor health induced by environmental sustainability challenges in urban centres. We explored potential mitigating effects of GI on selected environmental sustainability issues as well as the extent to which availability of GI can enhance self-reported (perceived) health of urban residents in Lagos Nigeria. ...
Article
Full-text available
Green Infrastructure (GI) facilities have capacity to enhance health and mitigate Environmental Sustainability Challenges (ESC). However, the extent of the mitigation and health benefits is unclear in developing countries. This study examined the impact of GI on ESC and Perceived Health (PH) of urban residents in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 1858 residents of Lagos Metropolis who completed semi-structured questionnaires. Descriptive statistics and chi-square test were used to explore data distributions and assess association of the availability of GI with resident’s PH and ESC. Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (OR;95%CI) were estimated for good health and ESC mitigation. Participants were mostly men (58.9%) and younger than 50 years old (86.3%). Good health (20.5%) and high mitigation of ESC (collection and disposal of waste-52.7% and official development assistance-63.9%) were reported where GI is mostly available. Participants were more likely to report good health (OR:1.40; 95%CI:1.02-1.92) and high mitigation of ESC [water quality (OR:1.42; 95%CI:1.12-1.81) passenger transport mode (OR:1.41; 95%CI:1.06-1.89)] where GI are mostly available. Availability of Green infrastructure is supporting health and mitigating environmental sustainability challenges in the study area. Green infrastructure should be provided in urban areas where environmental sustainability is under threat
... To date, tools for implementing the assessment of the multi-functionality of GI elements are still under progress. Examples of development of toolkits for the assessment of GI multifunctionality include the combination of spatial data with the knowledge of experts and regional and local actors (Kopperoinen et al. 2014), the creation of performance indicators of GI (Pakzad and Osmond 2016), and the use of field questionnaire surveys to explore the perceived benefits (e.g. Qureshi et al. 2010). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This English manual version was compiled as Output O.T3.2 of the Interreg Central Europe Project MaGICLandscapes “Managing Green Infrastructure in Central European Landscapes“ funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). This publication is also available in Czech, German, Italian and Polish languages and can be downloaded from the project website https://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/MaGICLandscapes.html.
... To date, tools for implementing the assessment of the multi-functionality of GI elements are still under progress. Examples of development of toolsets for the assessment of GI multifunctionality include the combination of spatial data with the knowledge of experts and regional and local actors (Kopperoinen et al. 2014), the creation of performance indicators of GI (Pakzad and Osmond 2016), and the use of field questionnaire surveys to explore the perceived benefits (e.g. Qureshi et al. 2010). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This English manual version was compiled as Output O.T2.1 of the Interreg Central Europe Project MaGICLandscapes “Managing Green Infrastructure in Central European Landscapes“ funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). This publication is also available in Czech, German, Italian and Polish languages and can be downloaded from the project website https://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/MaGICLandscapes.html.
... This study emphasized that for restoration projects, both vegetation composition and ecological process indicators reflecting soil and site stability, hydrologic functions, and biotic integrity should be monitored in short and long terms.Some studies summarized a list of ESs and KPIs that can be used to reveal the delivered functions and check the quality of a project/green. In the framework developed byPakzad and Osmond (2016), 30 qualitative and quantitative indicators in 4 groups (ecological, health, socio-cultural, and economic indicators) were selected based on literature review and semi-structured interviews with 21 stakeholders in Australia. Another study byJerome et al. (2019) identified objective-led principles for high-quality green infrastructure which are categorized into 4 groups: core principles, principles to enhance health and wellbeing, principles for sustainable water management, and principles to enhance nature conservation. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
This report presents a systematic review to reveal the ecosystem services (ESs) provided by urban greenspace, their key performance indicators (KPIs), and the methods used to monitor them. This review aims to find ESs possibly delivered by The Meadoway, a linear meadowland restored with native plants along a hydro corridor in Toronto, as well as KPIs and corresponding monitoring methods used to quantify/qualify these ESs to aid the establishment of an evaluation project for The Meadoway. Existing evaluation frameworks for urban greenspace were also identified in the review. The systematic review was conducted by retrieving relevant papers from two database platforms Engineering Village and Web of Science using keywords and screening returned records based on inclusion and exclusion criteria by critically reading titles, abstracts, and full texts. In total, 71 papers were selected and reviewed, and the results are presented and discussed in the report. Many evaluation frameworks are developed and presented in reviewed papers. Some frameworks use monetary value to quantify ESs, while others use non-monetary methods such as predefined indices and scores. Some frameworks provide guidance on developing long-term monitoring plans, and some others suggest a list of ESs and KPIs that can be referred to to evaluate the quality of a greening project or green infrastructure. An evaluation framework to assess the overall outcome of The Meadoway project can be established by analyzing the monetary value or determining the non-monetary value index of ESs in a local context, which is out of the scope of this study. The existing frameworks that suggest a list of ESs and KPIs and provide guidance on developing monitoring programs are very helpful and can be referenced for the proposed evaluation project. Based on the results, the ESs provided by urban greenspace are very diverse, including climate regulation, air quality regulation, hydrological regulation, nutrient cycling, habitat services, and social & cultural services. Among these ESs, the social & cultural services are the most intensely studied (22 papers), followed by climate regulating services (13 papers). Many characteristics of urban greenspace can affect the delivery and quality of ESs, including vegetation composition, structure, and density, land typology, site area, shape, isolation, utilization level, and disturbance level. The restored meadows can potentially provide higher-quality ESs including improved cooling effect, air quality, runoff reduction and retention, carbon sequestration service, and social and cultural values compared with original turf lands due to the restoration of native plants. Many KPIs and corresponding monitoring methods are identified for each ES from reviewed papers. Indicators are variables with some logical link to the object or the process being measured that provide clues and guidance to policy- or decision-makers for better management. The identified KPIs include field measurements, modeling results, or predefined indices. They reflect the status, drivers, or outcome of the investigated process in an unambiguous and usually quantitative way that simplifies information to make it easy to interpret by policy- or decision-makers. The applicability of identified KPIs and monitoring methods to The Meadoway is discussed to generate a specific list appropriate to The Meadoway evaluation project. In general, this study completes its primary objective to generate a list of potential ESs, KPIs, and monitoring methods applicable to The Meadoway to aid the development of an evaluation framework and monitoring plans. The study provides guidance on the evaluation of similar restoration projects in GTA and contributes to the implementation and management of the 10-year strategic plan Building the Living City.
... Apart from environmental disruption that arises as a result of the construction of sports facilities, Sports facilities have two main functions in urban life, as a means of recreation and environmental binding [11]. Those main functions also have a positive impact to improve the quality of health of local residents, such as improving physical well-being, improving social wellbeing, and improving mental well-being [12]. Those improvements could be done by improving the social 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Environmental Disruption ...
... Generally, GI has its origin in two fundamental principles: connecting parks and other green areas for the benefit of people, and conserving and connecting natural areas to benefit biodiversity and counter habitat fragmentation. These two fulcrums enhance the multifunctional capacity of GI facilities (Pakzada & Osmonda, 2016). The concept of GI emphasizes the value of functionally and spatially connected, healthy ecosystems and the importance of ensuring that they keep providing their goods and services. ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite global efforts at promoting environmental sustainability through development of Green Infrastructure (GI) facilities at urban centres; social menaces, depletion and wrong use of green spaces still persists in many developing nations. Indeed, attitude of residents towards the use of these facilities have not been commensurate to the reasons why the GI facilities were created. This study therefore examines the socio-demographic factors associated with visiting GI sites among residents of Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 1560 participants in a questionnaire survey. Descriptive statistics was used to explore data distributions while Chi-square test was used to investigate residents' socio-demographic characteristics associated with visit to green infrastructure sites in the study area. Participants were mostly men (58.6%) and younger than 50 years old (85.8%). Percentages of residents visiting GI facilities for either spiritual exercises (male=26.4%, female=23.8%) or joblessness (male=48.9%, female=52.1%) is higher than percentages of residents visiting GI facilities for recreation/relaxation (male=24.7%, female=24.1%) activities in Lagos Metropolis. The study suggests among others that, the Lagos State government should develop GI facilities to enhance more opportunity for job generation, while more public orientation on positive attitude toward use of GI facilities should be emphasized.
... Generally, GI has its origin in two fundamental principles: connecting parks and other green areas for the benefit of people, and conserving and connecting natural areas to benefit biodiversity and counter habitat fragmentation. These two fulcrums enhance the multifunctional capacity of GI facilities (Pakzada & Osmonda, 2016). The concept of GI emphasizes the value of functionally and spatially connected, healthy ecosystems and the importance of ensuring that they keep providing their goods and services. ...
Article
Full-text available
Despite global efforts at promoting environmental sustainability through development of Green Infrastructure (GI)facilitiesat urban centres; social menaces, depletion and wrong use of green spaces still persists in many developing nations. Indeed, attitude of residents towards the use of these facilities have not been commensurate to the reasons why the GI facilities were created.This study therefore examines the socio-demographic factors associated with visiting GI sites among residents of Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 1560participants in a questionnaire survey. Descriptive statistics was used to explore data distributions while Chi-square test was used to investigate residents’ socio-demographic characteristics associated with visit to green infrastructure sites in the study area.Participants were mostly men (58.6%) and younger than 50 years old(85.8%).Percentages of residents visiting GI facilities for either spiritual exercises (male=26.4%, female=23.8%) or joblessness (male=48.9%, female=52.1%) is higher than percentages of residents visiting GI facilities for recreation/relaxation (male=24.7%, female=24.1%) activities in Lagos Metropolis. The study suggests among others that, the Lagos State government should develop GI facilities to enhance more opportunity for job generation, while more public orientation on positive attitudetoward use of GI facilities should be emphasized.
Chapter
Full-text available
In generalSponge node, GreenRenewalInfrastructureSunS (GI) is described as part of nature-based solutionsNature-Based Solutions (NBS) (NBS). It is not only recognised as a driver in sustainable water management and water resilient city construction, but also for promoting urban ecosystemEcosystem restoration, climate changeClimate change adaptation, and enhancing urban liveability and well-being. Due to their multi-objectives and multi-benefits, GI practices and GI-guided land use policies have gained attention in China’s Sponge City Program (SCP). Hence, the assessment of hydro-environmental performance is recognised as the foundation of SCP; however, there is a lack of a comprehensive quantitative evaluation system and a design and assessment process model including this evaluation system for high-qualityHigh-quality SCP at neighborhood scale. Taking the GI planning of the LiangnongLiangnong Town, SimingSiming Lake sponge nodeSponge node restoration as an example, this chapter applies the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) to examine key indicators of hydro-environmental performance. The findings utilise ten design scenarios to compare the effectiveness of each facility and their combinations in practice. Furthermore, based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) system, other benefits are quantitatively evaluated through a comprehensive performance analysis of the ten GI scenarios. The final results suggest the most suitable GI general plan for the transitional regeneration of LiangnongLiangnongSimingSiming lakeside area. Finally, a comprehensive evaluation system is developed to highlight key sustainability indicators and design pathways for high-qualityHigh-quality GI design for the neighborhood scale SCP. The chapter’s findings provide a useful reference for similar program’s decision-makingDecision-making and GI design.
Article
Full-text available
This study has been undertaken to investigate the determinants of stock returns in Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) using two assets pricing models the classical Capital Asset Pricing Model and Arbitrage Pricing Theory model. To test the CAPM market return is used and macroeconomic variables are used to test the APT. The macroeconomic variables include inflation, oil prices, interest rate and exchange rate. For the very purpose monthly time series data has been arranged from Jan 2010 to Dec 2014. The analytical framework contains. For sustainable urban mobility planning the social and economic changes that are taking place with the emergence of environment protection become much more necessary. Sustainability can be evaluated through a system of indicators which reflect its dimensions as it is difficult to be measured directly. This paper determined the importance of various criteria for sustainability in a smart city Nashik by using fuzzy and fuzzy-AHP method. Different sustainability indicators have been identified for designing a smart city Nashik in a developing country India. Efficiency of each sustainability indicators is determined for a smart city according to its input and output criteria. According to measured efficiencies we got idea about which sustainability indicator needs to focus depends on the importance of the input criteria to achieve the desired outputs. The research clearly highlights the need for policies that focuses on Road Condition and Water Quality from while designing and developing a smart city as the efficiencies are 0.47 and 0.42.
Article
Green infrastructure (GI) is widely recognized for reducing risk of flooding, improving water quality, and harvesting stormwater for potential future use. GI can be an important part of a strategy used in urban planning to enhance sustainable development and urban resilience. However, existing literature lacks a comprehensive assessment framework to evaluate GI performance in terms of promoting ecosystem functions and services for social-ecological system resilience. We propose a robust indicator set consisting of quantitative and qualitative measurements for a scenario-based planning support system to assess the capacity of urban resilience. Green Infrastructure in Urban Resilience Planning Support System (GIUR-PSS) supports decision-making for GI planning through scenario comparisons with the urban resilience capacity index. To demonstrate GIUR-PSS, we developed five scenarios for the Congress Run sub-watershed (Mill Creek watershed, Ohio, USA) to test common types of GI (rain barrels, rain gardens, detention basins, porous pavement, and open space). Results show the open space scenario achieves the overall highest performance (GI Urban Resilience Index = 4.27/5). To implement the open space scenario in our urban demonstration site, suitable vacant lots could be converted to greenspace (e.g., forest, detention basins, and low-impact recreation areas). GIUR-PSS is easy to replicate, customize, and apply to cities of different sizes to assess environmental, economic, and social benefits provided by different types of GI installations.
Chapter
Full-text available
Ecological studies of terrestrial urban systems have been approached along several kinds of contrasts: ecology in as opposed to ecology of cities; biogeochemical compared to organismal perspectives, land use planning versus biological, and disciplinary versus interdisciplinary. In order to point out how urban ecological studies are poised for significant integration, we review key aspects of these disparate literatures. We emphasize an open definition of urban systems that accounts for the exchanges of material and influence between cities and surrounding landscapes. Research on ecology in urban systems highlights the nature of the physical environment, including urban climate, hydrology, and soils. Biotic research has studied flora, fauna, and vegetation, including trophic effects of wildlife and pets. Unexpected interactions among soil chemistry, leaf litter quality, and exotic invertebrates exemplify the novel kinds of interactions that can occur in urban systems. Vegetation and faunal responses suggest that the configuration of spatial heterogeneity is especially important in urban systems. This insight parallels the concern in the literature on the ecological dimensions of land use planning. The contrasting approach of ecology of cities has used a strategy of biogeochemical budgets, ecological footprints, and summaries of citywide species richness. Contemporary ecosystem approaches have begun to integrate organismal, nutrient, and energetic approaches, and to show the need for understanding the social dimensions of urban ecology. Social structure and the social allocation of natural and institutional resources are subjects that are well understood within social sciences, and that can be readily accommodated in ecosystem models of metropolitan areas. Likewise, the sophisticated understanding of spatial dimensions of social differentiation has parallels with concepts and data on patch dynamics in ecology and sets the stage for comprehensive understanding of urban ecosystems. The linkages are captured in the human ecosystem framework.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Green Infrastructure (GI) is a valuable tool for addressing ecological preservation and environmental protection as well as societal needs in a complementary fashion. This study developed a definition of Green Infrastructure projects based on terminology and working definitions used in different EU member states and identified a set of European green infrastructure projects and initiatives with a view to operationalise the Green Infrastructure concept and create a typology of GI projects. Thereafter the study analyses green infrastructure projects carried out by EU funds or as national initiatives and provides elements of their design and process used to implement them on the ground, estimates of their cost and benefits, and of their potential to respond to multiple objectives (biodiversity management and enhancement, increasing resilience to climate change, protection against natural disasters, etc). Furthermore, the study reports on the potential of current EU policy(-ies) and available funding instruments to promote green infrastructure projects and provide for the capacities and planning needed to develop and implement them on the ground and provides recommendations for EU, national and regional/local policy makers to take them up when designing Green Infrastructures policies and projects.
Article
In order to understand the effect of urban development on the functioning of forest ecosystems, during the past decade we have been studying red oak stands located on similar soil along an urban-rural gradient running from New York City ro rural Litchfield County, Connecticut. This paper summarizes the results of this work. Field measurements, controlled laboratory experiments, and reciprocal transplants documented soil pollution, soil hydrophobicity, litter decomposition rates, total soil carbon, potential nitrogen mineralization, nitrification, fungal biomass, and earthworm populations in forests along the 140 × 20 km study transect. The results revealed a complex urban-rural environmental gradient. The urban forests exhibit unique ecosystem structure and function in relation to the suburban and rural forest stands these are likely linked to stresses of the urban environment such as air pollution, which has also resulted in elevated levels of heavy metals in the soil, the positive effects of the heat island phenomenon, and the presence of earthworms. The data suggest a working model to guide mechanistic work on the ecology of forests along urban-to-rural gradients, and for comparison of different metropolitan areas.
Article
Undesired social conditions such as crowding can trigger coping behaviours of urban forest visitors to avoid these. Coping behaviours, such as spatial or temporal displacement, have implications for natural and social area management. However, coping behaviours have rarely been explored in the urban context and coping research has not differentiated between workday and Sunday visitors, although there are remarkable deviations in use intensities and user composition on these days, potentially affecting crowding perceptions and coping. Coping behaviours due to crowding were compared between on-site Sunday and workday visitors (N = 330) in a protected urban forest in Vienna. More than half of the visitors perceived the forest as crowded on Sundays and 44% reported coping behaviours. Workday visitors were more likely to cope compared to Sunday visitors. Temporal, intra-area and inter-area displacement, activity displacement, as well as changes in dog-walking behaviour were reported. Sunday and workday copers reported higher crowding perceptions and were more engaged in dog walking. Workday visitors compensated for dissatisfying social site conditions with coping behaviours, while Sunday copers were less satisfied despite their coping efforts. Management implications are discussed.