a typology of urban green spaces, eco- system … · a typology of urban green spaces, ecosystem...

Report: D3.1:

A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECO-

SYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES

AND DEMANDS

Work package 3: Functional linkages Partners involved: UL, UBER, TUM, SRC, FCRA, UH, FFCUL

Researchers: C. Braquinho, R. Cvejić, K. Eler, P. Gonzales, D. Haase, R.Hansen, N. Kabisch, E.

Lorance Rall, J. Niemela, S. Pauleit, M. Pintar, R. Lafortezza, A. Santos, M.

Strohbach, K. Vierikko, Š. Železnikar Description: The report outlines the different types of urban green spaces, ESS provision-

ing and demand for green space as a part of the EU FP7 (ENV.2013.6.2-5-

603567) GREEN SURGE project (2013-2017)

Primary authors: Rozalija Cvejić, Klemen Eler, Marina Pintar, Špela Železnikar

(UL, Slovenia), Dagmar Haase, Nadja Kabisch, Michael Strohbach (UBER,

Germany)

V10 •May 13th2015

A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS • WP3 •

LIST OF CONTRIBUTING PARTICIPANTS TO WP3

No. Legal name (short name) and working months Country Organisation type

1 Kobenhavns Universitet (UCPH) 5 Denmark Research Organisation

2 Helsingin Yliopisto (UH) 3 Finland Research Organisation

3 Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (UBER) 35 Germany Research Organisation

4 Technische Universität München (TUM) 6 Germany Research Organisation

5 Wageningen University (WU) 2 Netherlands Research Organisation

6 Stockholms Universitet (SRC) 8 Sweden Research Organisation

7 Forestry Commission Research Agency (FCRA) 10 United Kingdom Public Body

8 ICLEI European Secretariat (ICLEI Europe) 1 Germany SME

10 Università degli Studi di Bari 'Aldo Moro' (UNIBA) 1 Italy Research Organisation

13 Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU) 6 Sweden Research Organisation

14 Fundação da Faculdade de Ciências 18

Da Universidade de Lisboa (FFCUL) Portugal Non-profit

Research Organisation

15 Univerza v Ljubljana (UL) 44 Slovenia Research Organisation

16 Technische Universität Berlin (TUB) 1 Germany Research Organisation

24 Eco-Metrica (ECO) 6 United Kingdom SME


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 General introduction to the deliverable D3.1 8

1.2 Introduction to the urban green spaces inventory 9

1.3 Introduction to ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space 10

1.4 Introduction into the demand for urban green space 13

2 METHODOLOGY 14

2.1 Urban green space elements inventory 14

2.2 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European

Urban Atlas cities and Urban Learning Labs 15

2.2.1 European scale 15

2.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale 17

3 RESULTS 18

3.1 Inventory of urban green space elements 18

3.1.1 Urban green space elements 18

3.1.2 Empirical evidence for functional links between urban green space elements

and ecosystem services 29

3.1.3 Assessments of selected urban green space elements for European and

Urban Learning Lab cities 46

3.2 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European

Urban Atlas cities and Urban Learning Labs 49

3.2.1 European scale 49

3.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale 52

4 DISCUSSION 57

4.1 Urban green space elements inventory 57

4.2 Ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space 57

4.3 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, Urban Learning

Lab and European Urban Atlas cities 58

5 REFERENCES 60

6 SUPPLEMENT 66


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Green walls in the city of Augsburg, Germany. (Photo: M. Strohbach) 7

Figure 2: Ecosystem services as an integral of natural capital, goods and benefits for

human well-being and drivers of change (left) and different categories of ecosystem

services that ecosystems provide (right) (http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas) 12

Figure 3: Method for accessibility calculation in ARC GIS 16

Figure 4: The forest cover of the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in

percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin,

Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö. 46

Figure 5: The green urban areas cover of the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA,

2010) in percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin,

Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö. 46

Figure 6: The agricultural land, semi-natural areas, and wetland cover in the core city

areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20

and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö. 47

Figure 7: Share of city areas covered by forests. Calculation based on Urban Atlas data

(EEA 2010). 47

Figure 8: Share of city areas covered by green urban areas. Calculation based on Urban

Atlas data (EEA 2010). 48

Figure 9: Share of city areas covered by agricultural, semi-natural areas and wetlands.

Calculation based on Urban Atlas data (EEA 2010). 48

Figure 10: UGS in the ULL city Berlin. They cover 46 % of the city. Green roofs (detail in

frame on top right) cover only 0.1% of the city or 12% of the total building area

(Source: Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin). 49

Figure 11: Share of population with access to UGS (≥2 ha) within 500 m in administrative

city boundaries. Note: Calculation based on GEOSTAT 1 km² grid and Urban Atlas land

cover data. 52

Figure 12: Land use/cover as share of total area based on Urban Atlas 20006 (EEA,

2010). 54

Figure 13: Accessibility of urban green and forest areas of a minimum size of 2 ha within

500 m distance. Note: In colour are only those grid cells which are within a distance

to a 2ha green space. The respective colour of those grid cells represents the number

of people living in that grid cell. Calculation is based on GEOSTAT 1km² grid and

Urban Atlas land cover data. No street or public transport net was included in the

analysis. 55

Figure 14: Per capita green space (m²/inh.) and population density at district level for

the ULL cities Berlin and Ljubljana. 56


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at European scale. 17

Table 2: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at ULL scale 17

Table 3: The elements of the UGS inventory with a description and photos of examples.

The full inventory is stored in an excel spreadsheet. 18

Table 4: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and provisioning services.

Because no link between UGS and medicinal resources was found in this review, the

column is also not shown here. 31

Table 5: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and regulating services.

Pollination and biological control were removed from table because they are usually

provided by organisms and not particular UGS. Because no link between UGS and

erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility was found in this review, the

column is also not shown here. 34

Table 6: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and habitat or supporting

services. Because no link between UGS and maintenance of genetic diversity was

found in this review, the column is not shown here. 38

Table 7: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and cultural services. 42

Table 8: Land use/land cover area and per capita values for European urban regions 51

Table 9: Area of land cover/land use in the ULL case study cities. 53


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESS ecosystem service

ULL Urban Learning Lab/ Urban Learning Labs

UGS urban green space/ urban green spaces

GI green infrastructure

DOW description of work

UGI urban green infrastructure

WP work package

PPP public private partnership

EU European Union


Figure 1: Green walls in the city of Augsburg, Germany. (Photo: M. Strohbach)


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General introduction to the deliverable D3.1

The concept of Green Infrastructure (GI) became increasingly important and prominent in the

last decade and across the different spheres of science, policy and planning. It is understood as a

strategic approach to develop “an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural

ecosystem values and functions, and that provides associated benefits to human populations”

(Benedict and McMahon, 2002). At the pan-European scale, the GI approach can be central to

achieving the 2020 biodiversity target (SCU-UWE, 2012; European Commission, 2013). Accord-

ing to the DOW of GREEN SURGE, “[…] urban GI is a planning approach aimed at creating net-

works of multifunctional green space in urban environments” (DOW, p11 and Milestone 34).

Historically, most cities were almost devoid of green spaces, but cities were relatively small and

most people lived in rural areas. It wasn’t until the 19th century that the importance of parks and

other urban green for residents was recognized to some extent (Swanwick et al., 2003). Today, it

is understood that urban green spaces (UGS) are essential for well-functioning and liveable cities

because they (1) play a recreational role in everyday life; (2) contribute to the conservation of

biodiversity; (3) contribute to the cultural identity of the city; (4) help maintaining and improv-

ing the environmental quality of the city; and (5) bring natural solutions to technical problems

(e.g., sewage treatment) in cities (Sandström 2002). Besides an ever growing evidence base for

the benefits of UGS, the increasing interest in them is driven by several other factors according to

Swanwick et all. (2003):

Widespread concern at the decline in the quality and condition of many parks and other ur-

ban green spaces due in part to their generally low priority in the political agenda at both

national and local levels;

Growing emphasis on the need for more intensive development in urban areas, focused

around the concept of the high-density 'compact city' as the model for future cities in Eu-

rope, raising questions about the role of green space in this model;

Parallel emphasis on the development of brownfield rather than greenfield land, and a

recognition that more intensive urban development may sometimes involve the sacrifice of

existing areas of urban green space […]

Within the strategy or the approach of urban green infrastructure (UGI), green space elements as

parts of the urban ecosystem, ranging from larger woodland and nature areas to private gardens,

green roofs to sustainable urban drainage systems, play a major role. Some of these elements, in

particular those which are privately owned, as well as vertical green elements, have been rarely

investigated in quantitative and functional terms. This is part of the work in WP3.


According to the DOW of the GREEN SURGE project, WP3 studies the functional linkages be-

tween UGS and respective types of green infrastructure and the ecosystem services (ESS) pro-

vided by them on one hand, and their impacts on biodiversity, human health and well-being, so-

cial cohesion and green economy on the other hand.

The deliverable D3.1 is based on the results achieved with the fulfilment of the two following

tasks, and on the Milestones 23 and 24, dedicated to these tasks in the DOW:

Task 3.1: Identification, description and quantification of the full range of urban green spaces

This task will develop a comprehensive concept and listing of urban green spaces (i.e. different

types of urban green spaces) in urban settings varying from larger public parks, urban woodlands,

green fields and street/park trees to private green spaces such as gardens, allotments, and roof,

wall and domestic greenery as well as blue components such as lakes, rivers, riparian zones etc.

(joint task with WP2). Methods will include a specific literature and data review on urban green

space descriptions and analysis from different European cities including results from our own field

work, remote sensing results and relevant case studies from other continents for comparison

Task 3.2: Identification and quantification of the demand on ESS provided by urban green spaces

This task will involve identification and quantification of the demand on ESS provided by urban

green space at two scales, ULLs and Europe (Urban Atlas cities) (joint task with WP2). Methods will

include an extensive and criteria-based literature review on the demand on urban ESS at the spatial

level of specific cities (ULL and 15 reference cities) and across Europe using the Urban Atlas cities.

The review will result in quantitative rankings and qualitative models of urban ESS use by different

groups of beneficiaries including residents, planning institutions, economic actors and interest

groups.

The main part of this deliverable, consequently, includes the inventory of green space elements,

a list and a discussion of the potential ESS provisioning by different green space elements and an

analysis of the demand/accessibility of green spaces in European cities. In addition, for the pan-

European dataset of the Urban Atlas we show which UGS elements can be identified and quanti-

fied using data provided by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

1.2 Introduction to the urban green spaces inventory

Well-designed, well-managed, and well-connected green spaces are integral to the urban green

infrastructure (UGI) approach studied within GREEN SURGE. Green spaces, however, are very

diverse, ranging from city parks to green walls and rooftop gardens, from urban forests to allot-

ment gardens. They basically encompass all vegetation found in the urban environment but they

also include blue spaces such as lakes or rivers and their adjacent green. Because of this diversi-

ty, as a prerequisite for understanding how green spaces can be functionally connected with

each other and with the built environment as green infrastructure, an inventory of UGS elements

was compiled for the use within the entire GREEN SURGE project.


Several inventories have been proposed, for example by Bell et al. (2007), who differentiated

between parks and gardens; natural and semi-natural spaces; green corridors; allotments, com-

munity gardens and urban farms; outdoor sport facilities; amenity green spaces; provision for chil-

dren and young people; cemeteries, disused churchyards and other burial grounds; other public

spaces. Swanwick et al. (2003) produced an inventory of 25 UGS types, falling into 10 subgroups

and four main groups (amenity green space, functional green space, semi-natural habitats, and

linear green space). Other inventories are grouped based on usage (Hofmann and Gerstenberg,

2014), based mainly on scale (Byrne and Sipe, 2010), or cover informal UGS (Rupperch and Byr-

ne, 2014). Some typologies combine UGS with other open spaces such as squares, pedestrian

areas, cycling areas (DTLR, 2002; Bell et al., 2006).

Probably no inventory can cover all the peculiarities that exist in European cities due to their

natural conditions (geomorphological, climatic, biological), historical backgrounds and social

demand. In addition, no inventory can be final – social initiatives, technological progress, envi-

ronmental awareness and creativity of city planners, urban dwellers and others perpetually lead

to new types of UGS (e.g., community gardens, roof allotments, rain gardens, bioswales, con-

structed wetlands but also mobile backyard gardens or different forms of guerrilla gardening).

The great diversity of UGS made it necessary to establish an inventory for the use within GREEN

SURGE, which has a distinct green-infrastructure-perspective as compared to existing invento-

ries. The resulting inventory in Milestone 23, which is part of this deliverable, is based on exiting

inventories, internal project meetings and discussions, and a commented draft disseminated to

all GREEN SURGE partners. Hence, it includes all UGS considered relevant for GREEN SURGE and

particularly for assessing the functional linkages between UGI on the one hand and ecosystem

services and biodiversity on the other.

1.3 Introduction to ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space

Ecosystem services are benefits people derive from the functioning of nature or from ecosystem

processes (Figure 2). In cities, we call these services urban ecosystem services (urban ESS; TEEB

2011; Haase et al., 2014). Urban ESS have been classified in a variety of ways; most commonly,

they are divided into four categories: provisioning services, regulating services, habitat or sup-

porting services, and cultural services (MEA 2005; Cowling et al. 2008; TEEB 2011). In more

detail, UES can be grouped into the following categories (EASAC, 2009; TEEB, 2011):

1. Provisioning Services are ecosystem services that describe the material or energy out-

puts from ecosystems. They include: Raw materials: Ecosystems provide a diversity of materials for fuel and con-

struction (plant oils, biofuels and wood that are directly derived from wild and cultivated plant species).

Fresh water: Ecosystems play a vital role in the global hydrological cycle, as they regulate the flow and purification of water.

Food: Ecosystems provide the conditions for growing food. Medicinal resources: Ecosystems provide plants used as traditional medi-

cines and raw materials for the pharmaceutical industry.


2. Regulating Services are the services that ecosystems provide by acting as regulators.

Local climate and air quality: Ecosystems regulate air quality, provide

shade and influence rainfall and water availability, removing pollutants from

the atmosphere,

Carbon sequestration and storage: Ecosystems store and sequester green-

house gases, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, improve the capac-

ity of ecosystems to adapt to the effects of climate change.

Moderation of extreme events: Ecosystems moderate extreme weather

events or natural hazards (storms, tsunamis, floods, avalanches,...), ecosys-

tems and living organisms create buffers against natural disasters.

Waste-water treatment: Ecosystems filter both animal and human waste

and act as a natural buffer to the surrounding environment.

3. Cultural services include the non-material, socio-ecological benefits (including psycho-

logical and cognitive benefits) people obtain from contact with the environment.

Recreation, physical and mental health (for example walking or play-

ing sports in green areas)

Tourism

Aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art and design

Spiritual experience and sense of place: different sacred places or plac-

es with a religious meaning.

4. Habitat and supporting services underpin almost all other services by providing living

spaces for organisms.

Habitats for species

Maintenance of genetic diversity.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that 60 % of the world’s ecosystems are de-

graded or used unsustainably, having adverse effects on ESS provisioning and human well-being

(MEA 2005). Because almost no ecosystem remains un-impacted by humans and humans cannot

exist without ecosystems, protection and sustainable use of ecosystems are no longer an isolated

interest but a key element of global sustainable development. The observed rapid degradation of

the ability of ecosystems to generate services not only necessitates a better understanding of

how to maintain important ecosystem functions but also requires that this knowledge is put into

a broad institutional and governance context (TEEB 2011).


Figure 2: Ecosystem services as an integral of natural capital, goods and benefits for human well-

being and drivers of change (left) and different categories of ecosystem services that ecosystems

provide (right) (Source: http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas).

Today, cities are facing enormous challenges, such as climate change, demographic aging, and

natural resource depletion. Ecosystems and their natural capital play an important role in facili-

tating transformations needed to address these challenges. Understanding how urban ecosys-

tems work, how they change, and what limits their performance can add to the general under-

standing of ecosystem change and governance in an ever more human-dominated world

(Elmqvist et al. 2013). In general, functioning ecosystems provide the flexibility in urban land-

scapes to build adaptive capacity and cope with problems such as increased risks of heat waves

and flooding.

Although urban social–ecological system analyses have been found to be promising for enhanc-

ing our understanding of how exactly ecosystems and green infrastructure can help address the

moderation of climate change effects, large knowledge gaps, particularly for cities, are still pre-

sent. For example, urban ecosystems were vastly underrepresented in the world’s largest as-

sessment of ecosystems. The TEEB study (2011) made one of the first successful attempts to

explicitly represent urban ecosystems in their ‘‘Manual for Cities”, which includes also a discus-

sion of the benefits of UGS but still, a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services in urban

areas does not exist, let not alone an assessment of all major urban areas in Europe.


1.4 Introduction into the demand for urban green space

Urban residents’ mental and physical health and well-being can benefit from the ecosystem ser-

vices provided by green spaces. The demand for UGS can therefore be roughly approximated by

the number of urban population. The application of per capita UGS values and accessibility

threshold values can provide a broad overview-kind of assessment of green space provision for a

whole city without looking into the inner differentiation of the city itself (Larondelle and Haase,

2013). Green spaces can be broadly defined as any vegetated areas found in the urban environ-

ment, including parks, forests, open spaces, lawns, residential gardens, or street trees (see 1.2).

For the purpose of this analysis, a narrower definition is used (see 2.2).

The benefits of green space are broad and diverse (for an overview see a review by Kabisch et al.,

2015): UGS help to preserve and enhance biodiversity within urban ecosystems (Tzoulas et al.,

2007). Green spaces provide fresh air, reduce noise and elevated air temperatures through their

cooling capabilities (Bowler et al., 2010; Spronken-Smith and Oke, 1998). Social benefits include

positive influence on psychological and mental health (Ulrich et al., 1991; Völker and Kistemann,

2013) via stress reduction (Chiesura, 2004; Kaplan, 1985) and relaxation (Kuo et al., 1998).

Within a broader social view, UGS act as meeting places in neighbourhoods (Martin et al., 2004)

and play an important role in the interactions of residents of different population groups with

others in their community by providing space (Kabisch and Haase, 2014). Finally, UGS often pro-

vide the primary contact with local flora and fauna and the natural environment for urban resi-

dents and thus increase environmental learning (Krasny et al., 2013).

Because of the many benefits green spaces provide, their availability and accessibility to resi-

dents in cities have been the focus of planning and research for some time. Van Herzele and

Wiedemann (2003) applied a spatial GIS (Geographical Information System)-based indicator

system to cities in Belgium to plan accessible and attractive green spaces. Germann-Chiari and

Seeland (2004) used GIS and regression analyses to assess the distribution and access of UGS by

social target groups in three cities in Switzerland. Comber et al. (2008) used a GIS approach for

Leicester, UK, to assess UGS accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Balram and

Dragićević (2005) used multiple methods involving semi-structured interviews and a collabora-

tive GIS workshop for accessibility assessments. In the US, the focus of research and planning has

been on the distribution of tree canopy rather than green space. Heynen (2003) for example,

found that minorities and residents with low socio-economic status had a lower canopy cover in

their neighbourhood. Danford et al. (2014) studied the difficulties in reaching an equitable tree

canopy distribution in Boston, MA, USA.

Some European cities provide per capita threshold values for UGS or for minimum accessibility

for a defined area. For instance, the city of Berlin, Germany, aims at providing at least 6 m² urban

green per person (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, 2013), while Leipzig,

Germany, aims at 10 m² per capita (Stadt Leipzig, 2003). In the UK, it is recommended that – as a

national target – city residents should have access to a natural green space of minimum 2 ha

within a distance of 300 m from home (Handley et al., 2003). Berlin’s Department of Urban De-

velopment and the Environment recommends that every resident should have access to urban

green of minimum 0.5 ha within a 500 m distance from home. Similarly, Hutter et al., (2004) rec-

ommend green space of 1.0 – 10 ha for every resident within 500 m.


2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Urban green space elements inventory

The inventory is based on existing inventories and general literature on UGS1, internal project

meetings and discussions, and a commented draft disseminated to all GREEN SURGE partners.

Moreover, several revisions of the database prepared for Milestone 23 were included in the cur-

rent typology. Thus, the inventory reflects the needs of GREEN SURGE but can also serve needs

from outside the project. As it is linked to Urban Atlas and Corine land use/ land cover, it bridges

scales from regional to local. It also supports cross-city comparisons. The inventory includes

green, partly green and grey as well as blue spaces (waters, wetlands). It also includes green

space usually not considered urban, but which can be located close to the city or even within the

city itself (like arable land, forests, grasslands, sparsely vegetated areas). Thus, the inventory can

also be applied to larger urban regions.

The UGS inventory is contained in a spreadsheet with four tabs: Definitions, UGS elements, Urban

Atlas legend and the Corine land cover (CLC) legend. The main tab of the spreadsheet is UGS ele-

ments. There, each UGS is listed and grouped into one of eight broader categories (based mainly

on scale, location within city and function). Additional columns in the spreadsheet are:

synonyms if available;

a description of each element;

a column where it is indicated if the element concerns a green or a blue space;

a column indicating the type of management of the UGS, either in form of state, coopera-

tions, institutions, PPP, associations, private etc.;

a column indicating whether the UGS element is private or publicly accessible;

a column which indicates if public engagement or stewardship is generally possible in

regards to the respective element;

a column highlighting possible data sources if data is used for certain purposes;

column indicating data availability for ULL;

column indicating data availability at European scale (i.e. if an element can be identified

on the European data level (Urban Atlas) scale);

three columns that show corresponding land cover types (CORINE), land use types (Ur-

ban Atlas) and habitat types (EUNIS);

urban ecosystem services based on the TEEB for city categories (TEEB 2011). The col-

umns contain empirical evidence from the literature for functional links between the UGS

elements and ESS.

1 Ahern (2007); Alberti (2008); Baycan-Levent et al. (2009); Bell et al. (2006); Bell et al. (2007); Benedict and McMahon (2001); Bolund and Hunhammar (1999); Botkin and Beveridge(1997); Byrne and Sipe (2010); Cameron et al. (2012); Carr et al. (1992); Comber et al. (2008); DTLR (2002); Dunnett et al. (2002); EEA (2007); EEA (n.d.); Hofmann et al. (2014); Kabisch et al. (2015); Keeley et al. (2013); Kowarik et al. (2011); Landscape Institute (2009); McMahon (2000); Natural England (2009); Neuenschwander et al. (2014); Niemelä et al. (2010); Pfoser (2012); Rupprecht et al. (2014); Sadler et al. (2010); Sandström et al. (2002); Swanwick et al. (2003); Tzoulas et al. (2007); Van Herzele and Wiedemann (2003); Van Leeuwen et al. (2010); Völker and Kistemann (2013); Wooley (2003)


We include the corresponding Urban Atlas and Corine land cover classes, because these two pub-

licly available land use/cover data sets are used for UGS and related ESS analysis and quantifica-

tion on EU level. Some of the columns are still empty and need input after extensive discussion

with project partners and also in-depth analyses during the project. Therefore, we emphasize

that this work and the whole inventory is a living document which will be further developed and

completed during the whole project time.

2.2 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European Urban Atlas cities and Urban

Learning Labs

2.2.1 European scale

To assess the demand for UGS, both land use data (land cover data) and demographic data are

used for calculation of statistical and GIS models. Land cover data stem from the European Urban

Atlas land cover dataset obtained from (EEA 2010). The data in the Urban Atlas refer to 301

larger urban zones which refer to commuting zones around cities. Urban Atlas data are based on

satellite images with a 2.5 m spatial resolution and, thus it provides comparable land use data for

all of the European core cities and respective larger urban zones with more than 100,000 inhab-

itants. The analyses in Milestone 24 and this deliverable focus exclusively on the core cities.

Therefore, core cities were delineated using the core city layer from the Urban Audit (European

Commission, 2004), which refers to administrative city boundaries.

In the Urban Atlas, 21 thematic classes, including diverse urban fabric, transportation, industrial

and environmental classes, are distinguished (EEA, 2010). This classification of urban land cover

and land use is, thus, finer than commonly used datasets of land-cover/land use. In particular,

the Urban Atlas includes groups of different urban fabric classes according to density and a ‘‘land

without current use’’ class, which represents brown fields. For green assessments the classes

“green urban areas” and “forest areas” are used. Unfortunately, the class “agricultural areas,

semi-natural areas and wetlands” combines land that can potentially serves as green space (i.e.

grasslands, semi-natural land) with land of low recreational value (i.e. arable land). We therefore

excluded it from our analysis. We also decided not to include Urban Atlas class 142 “sports and

leisure facilities” in our definition of UGS because “sports and leisure facilities” includes race

courses and areas of sport compounds (e.g., football stadiums, tennis courts, golf courses), which

a) can be covered by hard surfaces (except of golf courses) to a high degree, and b) might be not

publicly available and thus not accessible to all urban residents (they may provide other im-

portant ESS, nevertheless). Both restrictions might lead to an underestimation of both per capita

green space values and its accessibility. The Urban Atlas land use data refer to the year 2006 (a

follow-up version that should be based on 2012 imagery is in preparation and expected to be

published in 2015).

Population data is provided by the Urban Audit Data Explorer (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-

and-maps/data/external/urban-audit-database) and by national statistical agencies and are

used to calculate per capita values. The data refer to the selection period 2012/2013 and are

provided for core cities and are, thus, comparable to the Urban Atlas spatial delineation (see


Kabisch and Haase, 2013 for a methodological comparison). In total, 290 cities in 26 countries

are part of this analysis. We had to exclude some of the Urban Atlas cities were no or insufficient

population data was available.

Using both, Urban Atlas data and population data, we calculated the total amount of the land use

classes per city and the per capita values of green spaces provision on city level.

Finally, the 1 km² grid dataset of population data for the EU from 2011 was used for calculating

the access to green space (≥ 2 ha) within a 500 m distance. The grid dataset was produced by the

ESSnet project GEOSTAT which was launched in co-operation with the European Forum for Geo-

Statistics (EFGS). For accessibility calculations, a 500 m buffer around green and forest areas

within administrative boundaries of cities was calculated within GIS (ARCMap 10.0, Figure 3). All

grid cells which had their centroids within the city area were selected and respective population

numbers were aggregated per cities. Then the grid cells were combined with the buffer of the

green space (using the Arc Map toolbox function “intersect”). If a grid cell was only partly within

the buffer zone, percentage share of area within buffer was calculated and used for calculating

the respective population numbers within this part of the grid cell. All data used for calculation

at European scale is presented in Table 1.

Figure 3: Method for accessibility calculation in ARC GIS


Table 1: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at European scale. Data Temporal scale Source Administrative city boundaries 2004 GISCO Urban Audit

(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco) Demography GEO STAT Grid

2011

GISCO 2014

(http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco) Urban green space (class 141 and class forest areas class 30)

2006

Urban Atlas 2006 (EEA, 2010)

Urban residential area (classes 111-1124)

2006 Urban Atlas 2006 (EEA, 2010)

2.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale

Data for calculating the demand of the case study cities reflect land use/cover data and demo-

graphic data (Table 2). Land use data are based on the Urban Atlas data base for comparability

reasons. Data for demographic calculations stem from local administrative agencies. They in-

clude population number for specific years. District data is available for the ULLs Berlin (Germa-

ny) and Ljubljana (Slovenia). Although not being a case study city, we also included the Polish

city of Łódź into the case study analysis to discuss a case from Eastern Europe.

Table 2: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at ULL scale Data Temporal scale source

Administrative city boundaries 2004 GISCO Urban Audit

District borders Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana 2012 Local communal sta-tistical agencies

Demographic data (population number) 2013 Local communal sta-tistical agencies

Land cover/use data (class 141 and class forest areas class 30)

2006 Urban Atlas 2006 (EEA, 2010)


3 RESULTS

3.1 Inventory of urban green space elements

3.1.1 Urban green space elements

The inventory contains 44 UGS elements (Table 3). They fall into eight categories (Table 4). More

detail can be found in the living document spreadsheet.

Table 3: The elements of the UGS inventory with a description and photos of examples. The full

inventory is stored in an excel spreadsheet.

No. UGS element Description Example

01 balcony green Plants in balcony and ter-

races, planted mostly in

pots.

02 ground based green wall Ground based climbing

plants intended for orna-

mental (and sometimes

food production) purposes.

03 facade-bound green wall Plants growing in facade-

bound substrate, e.g. con-

tainers or textile-systems.



04 extensive green roof Roof vegetation on thin

substrate with little or no

irrigation and management.

Vegetation established ei-

ther artificially by seeding or

planting or naturally: moss-

es, succulents, few herbs

and grasses.

05 intensive green roof Roof vegetation on thick

substrate with irrigation and

management. Vegetation

established either artificially

by seeding or planting or

naturally: perennials, grass-

es, small tress, rooftop

farming.

06 atrium Green area surrounded /

enclosed in a building

planted mostly with orna-

mental plants.

07 bioswale Vegetated and gently

sloped pit for filtering sur-

face runoff.



08 tree alley and street tree,

hedge Trees planted along roads

and paths either solitary or

in rows. Hedges along roads

or paths.

9 street green and green

verge Non-tree, mostly shrubby or

grassy verges along roads or

other built or natural ele-

ment

10 house garden Areas in immediate vicinity

of private houses cultivated

mainly for ornamental pur-

poses and/or non-

commercial food produc-

tion.

11 railroad bank Green space along railroads.



12 green playground, school

ground Green areas intended for

playing or outdoor learning.

13 riverbank green Green space sideways the

rivers, streams and canals,

usually with foot or bike

paths.

14 large urban park Larger green area within a

city intended for recrea-

tional use by urban popula-

tion, can include different

features such as trees,

grassy areas, playgrounds,

water bodies, ornamental

beds, etc.

15 historical park/garden Similar to large urban parks,

but with distinct manage-

ment due to heritage status.



16 pocket park Small park-like areas around

and between buildings veg-

etated by ornamental trees

and grass, publicly accessi-

ble.

17 botanical garden Educational and ornamental

areas planted with large

diversity of plant species.

18 zoological garden Areas with animals kept in

cages and enclosures often

combined with planted

trees, ornamental beds and

cultivated grass.

19 neighbourhood green

space Semi-public green spaces,

vegetated by grass, trees

and shrubs in multi-story

residential areas.



20 institutional green space Green spaces surrounding

public and private institu-

tions and corporation build-

ings.

21 cemetery and churchyard Burial ground often with

covered by lawns, trees and

other ornamental plants.

22 green sport facility Intensively cultivated and fertilized grass turf toler-ant to frequent trampling for sport activities (e.g., golf courses, football fields).

23 camping area Green areas reserved for

camping.



24 allotment Small garden parcels culti-

vated by different people,

intended for non-

commercial food production

and recreation.

25 community garden Areas, collectively gardened

by a community for food

and recreation.

26 arable land Regularly ploughed arable

land for crop production.

27 grassland Pastures or meadows.



28 tree meadow/ meadow

orchard Fruit and nut trees, mixed

agricultural and fruit or

biofuel production.

29 biofuel production / agro-

forestry

Land devoted to dedicated

biofuels like short rotation

coppice.

30 horticulture Land devoted to growing

vegetables, flowers, berries,

etc.

31 forest (remnant woodland,

managed forest, mixed

forms)

Natural or planted areas of

dense tree vegetation.



32 shrubland Natural or secondary shrub-

land, e.g., heath, macchia,

etc.

33 abandoned, ruderal and

derelict area Recently abandoned areas,

construction sites, etc. With

spontaneously occurring

pioneer or ruderal vegeta-

tion.

34 rocks Areas covered by sparsely

vegetated rocky areas.

35 sand dunes Areas covered by sparsely

vegetated sandy areas,

shaped by wind or water.



36 sand pit, quarry, open cast

mine

Sites with removed top soil

and vegetation for resource

extraction.

37 wetland, bog, fen, marsh Areas with soil permanently

or periodically saturated

with water and characteris-

tic flora and fauna.

38 lake, pond Natural and artificial stand-

ing water bodies containing

non-saline water with

(semi)natural aquatic com-

munities, banks artifi-

cial/managed or natural.

39 river, stream Running waters, including

springs, streams and tem-

porary water courses,

riverbanks artificial/ man-

aged or natural.

40 dry riverbed, rambla Land depression formed by

flowing water but usually

dry. Can be managed or

unmanaged and is usually

rich in biodiversity and of-

ten used for recreation.



41 canal Artificial non-saline water

courses with man-made

substrate.

42 estuary Downstream part of the

river, subject to tidal effects

with mixing of freshwater

and seawater.

43 delta Landform at the mouth of a

river formed by sediment

deposits.

44 sea coast Contact areas (littoral) be-

tween the sea and the land

of different characteristics,

e.g. sand beaches, cliffs,

coastal dunes.


3.1.2 Empirical evidence for functional links between urban green space elements and ecosystem services

In the following section, we present evidence from the literature for functional links between

UGS elements and ESS (Table 4 -


Table 7). There are several field studies and modelling attempts running in GREEN SURGE that

will identify estimates of ecosystem services provisioning of single elements of UGS in more de-

tail, such as allotment gardens, parks, brownfields and meadows. The quantitative results of

these studies will be included into the living documents spreadsheet of UGS elements later in the

project. So far, we highlight the contribution of UGS types to ESS provisioning in a semi-

quantitative, more qualitative way based on a selective review of literature which includes the

paper database of a large review about urban ecosystem services (Haase et al., 2014). The refer-

ences are provided in the supplement.


Table 4: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and provisioning services. Because no link between UGS and medicinal resources

was found in this review, the column is also not shown here.

Category No. Green space element Food Raw materials Fresh water

bu

ildin

g gr

ee

ns

1 balcony green

2 ground based green wall

3 facade-bound green wall

4 extensive green roof

5

intensive green roof Rooftop gardens could grow a large

share of Bologna’s vegetables (Orsini

et al., 2014).

6 atrium

pri

vate

, co

mm

erc

ial,

ind

ust

rial

, in

stit

uti

on

al

UG

S an

d U

GS

con

ne

cte

d t

o g

rey

infr

astr

uc-

ture

7 bioswale


hedge


verge

10

house garden Residential gardens make up the big-

gest part of Chicago’s urban agricul-

ture sites (Taylor and Lovell, 2012).

11 railroad bank


ground



rive

rban

k

gre

en

13

riverbank green

par

ks a

nd

rec

reat

ion

14 large urban park

15 historical park/garden

16 pocket park

17 botanical garden/arboreta

18 zoological garden

19

neighbourhood green

space

During WW II, neighbourhood green

was changed into tenant gardens

(Zerbe et al., 2003).

20 institutional green space

21 cemetery and churchyard

22 green sport facility

23 camping area

allo

tme

nts

an

d c

om

-

mu

nit

y ga

rde

ns

24

allotment Large quantities of vegetables can be

grown in allotment and community

gardens. In Chicago, community gar-

dens make up 20% of the urban agri-

culture area (TEEB, 2011; Taylor and

Lovell, 2012).

25

community garden



agri

cult

ura

l lan

d

26 arable land

27 grassland

28 tree meadow / orchard


forestry

30

horticulture Urban farms used for growth of veg-

etables make up 4.7% of Chicago’s

urban agriculture area (Taylor and

Lovell, 2012).

nat

ura

l, se

mi-

nat

ura

l an

d f

era

l are

as

31

forest (remnant wood-

land, managed forests,

mixed forms)

Forests provide food in urban areas

(Niemelä et al., 2010; Yokohari and

Bolthouse, 2011).

Forests provide raw materials in ur-

ban areas (Niemelä et al., 2010;

Yokohari and Bolthouse, 2011).

32 shrubland

33

abandoned, ruderal and

derelict area

Land conversion on brownfields of-

fers great potential for food produc-

tion, except for on polluted sites. In

Chicago, gardens on vacant lots

make up 27% of Chicago’s urban ag-

riculture area (Taylor and Lovell,

2012; Haase et al., 2014).

Marginal land can be sustainably

used for biofuel production under

certain conditions, e.g., low contam-

ination (Zhao et al., 2014).

34 rocks

35 sand dunes




mine

37 wetland, bog, fen, marsh

blu

e s

pac

es

38 lake, pond Fresh water and sea ecosystems pro-

vide food in urban areas (Niemelä et

al., 2010).

39 river, stream

40 dry riverbed, rambla

41 canal Fresh water and sea ecosystems pro-

vide food in urban areas (Niemelä et

al., 2010).

42 estuary

43 delta

44 sea coast

Table 5: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and regulating services. Pollination and biological control were removed from table

because they are usually provided by organisms and not particular UGS. Because no link between UGS and erosion prevention and maintenance

of soil fertility was found in this review, the column is also not shown here.

Category No. Green space element Local climate and air quality

regulation

Carbon sequestration and stor-

age

Moderation of extreme

events Waste-water treatment

bu

ildin

g gr

ee

ns

1 balcony green

2 ground based green wall Enhance air quality, reduce

urban heat island effect,

reduce heating and cooling

costs (Bohemen et al.,

2008; Cook-Patton and


4 extensive green roof Green roofs have great

potential to reduce storm

Green roofs can take up

pollution form rainwater 5 intensive green roof



regulation


age



Bauerle, 2010; Sternberg

et al. 2010 and 2011;

Wong et al. 2010).

water runoff in low rainfall

events (Mentens et al.,

2006; Cook-Patton and

Bauerle, 2010).

(Cook-Patton and Bauerle,

2010).

6 atrium

pri

vate

, co

mm

erc

ial,

ind

ust

rial

, in

stit

uti

on

al U

GS

and

UG

S co

nn

ect

-

ed

to

gre

y in

fras

tru

ctu

re

7

bioswale Bioswales reduce the

amount of stormwater

runoff (Pataki et al., 2011).

Bioswales reduce the pol-

lution load of stormwater

runoff (Pataki et al., 2011).

8

tree alley and street tree,

hedge

Provide cooling, wind con-

trol and air pollution re-

moval (Tyrväinen et al.,

2005).

Street trees can store car-

bon under certain condi-

tions (Novak, 2002).


verge

10

house garden Gardens improve localised

air cooling (Cameron et al.,

2012).

Private gardens store low

amounts of carbon in trees

in Leicester, UK, and Leip-

zig, Germany (Davies et al.,

2011, Strohbach and

Haase, 2012).

Gardens help mitigate

flooding (Cameron et al.,

2012).

11 railroad bank


ground



regulation


age



rive

rban

k

gre

en

13

riverbank green

par

ks a

nd

rec

reat

ion

14

large urban park The Cascine Park in Flor-

ence, Italy, was shown to

have retained its capacity to

remove pollutant (TEEB,

2011).


16 pocket park




space




23 camping area

allo

t-

me

nts

and

com

mu

ni-

ty g

ar-

de

ns

24

allotment



regulation


age



25

community garden

agri

cult

ura

l lan

d

26 arable land

27 grassland



forestry

30 horticulture

nat

ura

l, se

mi-

nat

ura

l an

d f

era

l are

as

31



mixed forms)

Forests provide cooling,

wind control and air pollu-

tion removal (Tyrväinen et

al., 2005).

Forests in cities can store

large amounts of carbon

(Strohbach and Haase,

2012).

32 shrubland


derelict area

34 rocks

35 sand dunes


mine

37 wetland, bog, fen, marsh Wetlands in Berlin are

used for carbon mitigation

Upstream wetlands reduce

flooding after heavy rain-

Functioning urban wet-

lands contribute strongly



regulation


age



(Klingenfuß, 2013). fall events (TEEB, 2011). to waste water treatment

(Cairns and Palmer, 1995;

Niemelä et al., 2010; TEEB,

2011).

blu

e s

pac

es

38 lake, pond

39 river, stream


41 canal

42 estuary

43 delta

44 sea coast

Table 6: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and habitat or supporting services. Because no link between UGS and maintenance

of genetic diversity was found in this review, the column is not shown here.

Category No. Green space element Habitats for species

bu

ildin

g gr

ee

ns

1 balcony green Balconies provide habitat for wild bees in Leipzig, Germany (Everaars et al., 2011).

2 ground based green wall Green walls enhanced the habitat of house sparrows and European starlings in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-

Lyme, UK, (Chiquet et al., 2012).


4 extensive green roof Diverse roofs can support diverse communities (Cook-Patton and Bauerle, 2010; Fernandez-Canero and Gonzales-



5 intensive green roof Redondo, 2010).

6 atrium

pri

vate

, co

mm

erc

ial,

ind

ust

rial

, in

stit

u-

tio

nal

UG

S an

d U

GS

con

ne

cte

d t

o g

rey

infr

astr

uct

ure

7 bioswale


hedge

Streetscapes with old trees supported a higher abundance and richness of bird species than other streets in Mel-

bourne, Australia (White et al., 2005).


verge

Diverse streetscapes with native vegetation enhance abundance and richness of species (Leather, 2004; White et al.,

2005; Lososová et al. 2011).

10 house garden Diverse gardens enhance abundance and richness of species (Smith et al., 2006; Goddard et al., 2010; Lososová et al.,

2011; Cameron et al., 2012).

11 railroad bank


ground

rive

rban

k

gre

en

13

riverbank green

par

ks a

nd

rec

reat

ion

14 large urban park Large parks have an outstanding value for urban biodiversity (Donnelly and Marzluff, 2004; Lososová et al. 2011;

Strohbach et al., 2013).


16 pocket park Pockets parks slightly increase number of observed bird species (Strohbach et al., 2013).






space




23 camping area

allo

tme

nts

an

d c

om

-

mu

nit

y ga

rde

ns

24

allotment Tenant gardens showed relatively high plant species richness in a study in Berlin, Germany (Zerbe et al., 2003).

25

community garden

agri

cult

ura

l lan

d

26 arable land

27 grassland In a study in Leipzig Germany, high bird species richness was associated with grassland (Strohbach et al., 2009).



forestry

30 horticulture

nat

ura

l, se

mi-

nat

ura

l an

d f

era

l

are

as

31



mixed forms)

Urban forests are biodiversity hot-spots (Tyrväinen et al., 2005; Strohbach et al., 2009).

32 shrubland Mid successional sites with grassland and shrub vegetation host diverse assemblages (Lososová et al., 2011).




derelict area

34 rocks

35 sand dunes


mine


blu

e s

pac

es

38 lake, pond In a study in Leipzig Germany, high bird species richness was associated with lakes and ponds (Strohbach et al., 2009).

39 river, stream In a study in Leipzig Germany, high bird species richness was associated with rivers and streams (Strohbach et al.,

2009).


41 canal

42 estuary

43 delta

44 sea coast


Table 7: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and cultural services.

Category No. Green space element Recreation and mental and

physical health Tourism

Aesthetic appreciation and

inspiration for culture, art and

design

Spiritual experience and sense

of place

bu

ildin

g gr

ee

ns

1 balcony green

2 ground based green wall


4 extensive green roof Green roofs can enhance

overall human well-being


2010).

Green roofs can enhance

the aesthetic environment


2010).

5 intensive green roof

6 atrium

pri

vate

, co

mm

erc

ial,

ind

ust

rial

, in

stit

uti

on

al U

GS

and

UG

S co

nn

ect

ed

to

gre

y in

fras

tru

ctu

re

7 bioswale

8 tree alley and street

tree, hedge


verge

10

house garden Gardens can provide stress

relief (Cameron et al.,

2012).

Gardens are shaped by

aesthetic desires (Cameron

et al., 2012).

Positive memories of

childhood are often linked

to gardens and provide

strong sense of place

(Cameron et al., 2012).

11 railroad bank

12 green playground,

school ground






design


of place

rive

rban

k

gre

en

13

riverbank green Structurally rich riverbanks

are associated with psy-

chological well-being (Dal-

limer et al., 2012).

par

ks a

nd

rec

reat

ion

14

large urban park Parks contribute to the

physical and psychological

well-being (Fuller et al.,

2007; Niemelä et al.,

2010).


16

pocket park Small public are used pri-

marily for rest and restitu-

tion and socialising (Pes-

chard et al., 2012).

17 botanical gar-

den/arboreta



space


21 cemetery and church-

yard







design


of place

23 camping area

allo

tme

nts

an

d c

om

-

mu

nit

y ga

rde

ns

24 allotment Gardening in community

gardens and allotments

enhance social capital

(Yokohari and Bolthouse,

2011; Cameron et al.,

2012).

25

community garden Gardening in community

gardens is associated with

health benefits (Yokohari

and Bolthouse, 2011;

Cameron et al., 2012).

agri

cult

ura

l lan

d

26 arable land

27 grassland


29 biofuel production / ag-

roforestry

30 horticulture

nat

ura

l, se

mi-

nat

ura

l an

d f

era

l are

-

as

31



mixed forms)

Urban forests provide rec-

reational opportunities,

and have a positive impact

on psychological well-

being (Tyrväinen et al.,

2005; Niemelä et al.,

2010).

Urban forests are im-

portant for tourism

(Tyrväinen et al., 2005).

Urban forests can improve

home and work environ-

ments and may have a

strong cultural and histori-

cal value (Tyrväinen et al.,

2005).

32 shrubland


derelict area






design


of place

34 rocks

35 sand dunes

36 sand pit, quarry, open

cast mine


blu

e s

pac

es

38 lake, pond Recreational opportunities

are provided especially by

water ecosystems (Nie-

melä et al., 2010).

39 river, stream


41 canal Recreational opportunities

are provided especially by

water ecosystems (Nie-

melä et al., 2010).

42 estuary

43 delta

44 sea coast


3.1.3 Assessments of selected urban green space elements for European and Urban Learning Lab cities

For an overview on the amount of green space in European cities, we quantified some of the UGS

components using the Urban Atlas data (EEA, 2010). Maps and plots are shown for forests (UGS

class 31; Figure 4; Figure 7), green urban areas (UGS classes 13 - 20; Figure 5; Figure 8) and agri-

cultural, semi-natural areas, wetlands (UGS class 26-30, 32, 34, 35, 37; Figure 6; Figure 9). In

addition, we created a map of UGS for Berlin (Figure 10).

Figure 4: The forest cover of the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in percent

shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana and

Malmö.

Figure 5: The green urban areas cover of the core city areas of Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in

percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana

and Malmö.


Figure 6: The agricultural land, semi-natural areas, and wetland cover in the core city areas of

Urban Atlas cities (EEA, 2010) in percent shown for the bottom 20, top 20 and for the ULL cities

Bari, Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana and Malmö.

Figure 7: Share of city areas covered by forests. Calculation based on Urban Atlas data (EEA

2010).


Figure 8: Share of city areas covered by green urban areas. Calculation based on Urban Atlas data

(EEA 2010).

Figure 9: Share of city areas covered by agricultural, semi-natural areas and wetlands. Calcula-

tion based on Urban Atlas data (EEA 2010).


Figure 10: UGS in the ULL city Berlin. They cover 46 % of the city. Green roofs (detail in frame on

top right) cover only 0.1% of the city or 12% of the total building area (Source: Senatsverwal-

tung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin).

3.2 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European Urban Atlas cities and Urban

Learning Labs

3.2.1 European scale


Table 8 shows mean values for total area, residential area, forest areas, and green urban areas

for Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western European cities. The sample was grouped accord-

ing to macro-geographical regions (United Nations Institute of Social Affairs, 2010). In Western

and Northern Europe, the share of residential area is comparatively higher which gives a first

hint on the long and ongoing sprawl process after WW II there. Not surprisingly, forest areas are

most frequent in Northern European cities. Cities in Eastern and Southern Europe show lowest

values for green areas within their city boundaries. This reflects the ideal of the dense southern

European city where in a number of cities narrow roads have been most important to provide

shadow during hot summers. This is also represented in comparatively low values for per capita

green space.


Table 8: Land use/land cover area and per capita values for European urban regions

Indicator Western

Europe Southern

Europe Eastern Europe

Northern Europe

Total area (ha) 29625.04 25595.24 18958.96 48816.15

Total residential area 4936.69 2489.48 2665.92 5661.93

Forest 4168.85 2487.7 3035.86 16700.32

Green urban areas 853.24 399.2 462.06 1288.32

Water bodies 842.72 639.52 518.87 3096.19

Per capita green space (m² per inh.)

27.25 10.97 13.71 32.95

Per capita green +forest (m² per inh.)

233.97 137.39 157.52 1277.95

per capita water area (m² per inh.)

32.52 28.01 27.05 229.18

The spatial differentiation of total urban green and forest areas in the different European regions

is also reflected in accessibility values. Figure 11 shows a European map in which the share of

population which has access to green and forest areas of a minimum size of 2 ha within a 500 m

distance. More than two thirds of the population living in Scandinavian countries or in countries

in Western Europe such as Austria or North-Western Germany has access to green space in their

vicinity. In addition, a number of cities in the Eastern European countries of Poland, Slovakia and

the Czech Republic show high values. Notably cities in Southern-Eastern or Southern European

countries show comparatively low values. In a number of cities in Hungary, Bulgaria or Romania

only one third or less have access to UGS ≥ 2 ha within a 500 m distance from their home. This is

also the case for Southern European cities notably in Greece and some cities in Italy and Spain.

Those cities in Eastern and South-Eastern European countries with lower accessibility values

may lack a sound green space management after their entry into the market economy and new

construction dominates the land use change. For Southern Europe, the traditional built density of

the cities comes together with higher efforts to maintain green spaces under conditions of con-

siderable summer aridity. Moreover, Southern European cities’ area contains considerable rock

surface.


Figure 11: Share of population with access to UGS (≥2 ha) within 500 m in administrative city

boundaries. Note: Calculation based on GEOSTAT 1 km² grid and Urban Atlas land cover data.

3.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale

The ULL cities in GREEN SURGE are Berlin, Malmö, Ljubljana, Edinburgh, and Bari. In this Mile-

stone, we additionally studied Łódź as an Eastern European city.

Berlin is the largest city with more than 89,000 ha (Table 9). Residential area in Berlin comprises

nearly 30 % of the city area while open spaces including forest areas, green spaces and water

bodies do also represent nearly 30 %. Among all case study cities, Berlin has the highest popula-

tion number with more than 3.5 million inhabitants. Per capita green space (including forest and

urban green) is high with more than 60 m² per inhabitant.

Malmö in Sweden is one of the smaller case study cities. The city had around 313,000 inhabitants

by 2013. Share of UGS is comparatively high which results in a value of 36 m² per capita green

space (including forest areas).

Ljubljana is the capital of Slovenia. The city has only 248 ha of UGS but a very high forest area of

more than 11,000 ha which is based on its topographical situation. Ljubljana’s population was


280,600 in 2013. Per capita green space is comparatively low with around 9 m² per inhabitant

while it is very high when also forest areas are considered (422.30 m²/inh.)

Bari, situated in Italy is the smallest case study city with around 11,000 ha. Forest area is small

with only 7 ha while UGS comprise 182 ha. With around 313,000 inhabitants per capita green

space is calculated with around 6 m² and is the lowest value among the cities. Bari also only

comprises 5 ha of water bodies within administrative city boundaries.

The Scottish city of Edinburgh is situated in northern UK. The city had nearly half a million in-

habitants in 2013. More than one fifth of the city area is residential area. Around 3,000 ha of land

are UGS and forest areas. Per capita UGS is relatively high with 31 m² per inhabitants and even

higher is the value when forest areas are considered as well.

Finally, the city of Łódź in Poland is the second largest city of the case studies with around

719,000 inhabitants. Per capita values for UGS and forest areas are similar to those of Berlin with

12.5 and 60.0 m² per inhabitant respectively.

Figure 12 shows the land use values as share of the total city area for the ULL cities.

Table 9: Area of land cover/land use in the ULL case study cities.

City Berlin Malmö Ljubljana Edin-

burgh Bari Łódź

Total area Urban Atlas (ha) 89,042 15,309 27,563 26,218 11,374 29,428

Residential area (ha) 28,791 3,060 3,122 5,424 1,992 6,720

Green space (ha) 5,727 1,029 248 1,515 182 898

Forest (ha) 15,578 107 11,602 1,379 7 3,417

Water area (ha) 5,077 184 273 260 5 59

Population nr. 2013 (in 1000) 3,502 313 281 483 313 719

per capita green (m²/inh) 16.35 32.86 8.85 31.39 5.81 12.50

per capita green + forest (m²/inh) 60.84 36.28 422.30 59.97 6.04 60.03

per capita water area (m²/inh) 14.50 5.87 9.72 5.38 0.15 0.82

Share of pop who has access to green space (2 ha within 500m)

67.66 84.08 56.79 88.32 21.44 75.79


Figure 12: Land use/cover as share of total area based on Urban Atlas 20006 (EEA, 2010).

Figure 13 shows the results of the accessibility calculations for the case study cities. For the in-

terpretation of the accessibility values presented in the maps it has to be noted that they show all

grid cells in colour which are within a distance to a 2ha green space. The respective colour of the

grid cell (from yellow to red) shows the number of people living in that grid cell. Thus, the colour

simply represents the number of people in that cell but says nothing about quality of access (in

terms of “good” or “bad” access) or a certain share of people with access. As an example: if a grid

cell is within a 2ha green space distance of 500m and has a high population number (of more

than 6000), this grid cell is represented in red.

Again, they reflect the results from the total and per capita values. Berlin as the largest city of the

sample has a high share of UGS. Over the whole city area, high numbers of residents have access

to green space in their vicinity. Similar results were found for Ljubljana, Edinburgh and Malmö.

In Łódź, notably people living near the city border have access to forest areas and those living in

the inner parts of the city to green urban areas. Bari shows only some areas in which people have

access to urban green of a minimum size of 2 ha.

For any conclusions in terms of green space provision within the ULL cities, it needs to be men-

tioned again that in the calculation of all cases only the Urban Atlas classes “forest” and “green

urban areas” were included because of the mentioned shortcomings in the data base. Therefore,

cemeteries, allotment gardens, green sports areas and brownfield sites could not be included.

These land uses are summarized in other classes such as “industrial, commercial, public, military

and private units” where no further distinction is made. The raster-based type of analysis does

not include the road and path network of the cities and show always the “bird’s eye view”.


Figure 13: Accessibility of urban green and forest areas of a minimum size of 2 ha within 500 m

distance. Note: In colour are only those grid cells which are within a distance to a 2ha green

space. The respective colour of those grid cells represents the number of people living in that

grid cell. Calculation is based on GEOSTAT 1km² grid and Urban Atlas land cover data. No street

or public transport net was included in the analysis. At district level, UGS distribution (including forest areas) is different. Figure 14 shows per capita

green space and population density values for the districts of Berlin, Germany and Ljubljana,

Slovenia. In Berlin, districts situated near the city border have higher shares of urban green and

notably forest areas as in the southwest of the city. Accordingly, per capita values are high in

these districts. By comparison, the map of the population density shows that density is highest in

inner city areas. This is also the case for Ljubljana although population density values are overall

lower than in Berlin. Per capita values for urban green and forest areas are highest in the north

and the east of the city with values of more than 500 m² per inhabitant. These per capita values

represent the land use distribution in the city. Share of forest area is high in those districts near


the city border and population numbers are low. Per capita values, thus, result to be exceptional-

ly high in these areas.

Figure 14: Per capita green space (m²/inh.) and population density at district level for the ULL

cities Berlin and Ljubljana.


4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Urban green space elements inventory

In total, 44 UGS elements were identified and grouped into eight broad categories (see, e.g., Table

4). This categorisation is not a typology in a strict sense and alternative ways of grouping the

UGS elements are possible and legitimate. Alternative possibilities for structuring could include

physical appearance, spatial extent and spatial complexity, social function, ownership and access,

quantity and quality of ecosystem services they provide, role for biodiversity conservation, the

intensity of human influence, or relevant planning purpose and open space strategy. The eight

groups identified here help structuring the inventory, but the focus of this deliverable and

GREEN SURGE in general is on the single UGS elements and not on the categories. We defined the

categories building greens; riverbank green; parks and recreation; allotments and community gar-

dens; agricultural land; natural, semi-natural and feral areas; blue infrastructure; private, com-

mercial, industrial, institutional UGS; and UGS connected to grey infrastructure.

Many UGS elements are too small to appear in data that covers the whole EU (e.g. green roofs).

Some categories are probably to fine for the ULL level of GREEN SURGE (e.g., it might not be

known whether green roofs are extensive of intensive). In that case, the UGS elements can be

combined with each other (intensive and extensive green roofs green roofs). Other UGS ele-

ments might be too broad for some purposes, in particular forests2. Here we recommend split-

ting these elements into sub-elements (e.g., forest coniferous and deciduous forest). Larger

UGS, like parks are often composed of many structurally and functionally different subunits such

as playgrounds, sport grounds, forest patches, small botanical gardens, lakes and streams, me-

morial sites, orchards, etc. Such UGS, however, possess ecosystem services stretching beyond the

services of individual subunits and it is reasonable to maintain in the inventory both levels of

scale.

4.2 Ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space

As shown in Table 4 - Table 6, a wide range of ESS are provided by various UGS elements. Not all

ESS are equally well represented in terms of empirical or model-based knowledge about their

performance. The performance of UGS very much depends on the specific configuration and the

spatial context (Ahern 2007), so tables provide a simplified picture. Nevertheless, the knowledge

about the effects of some UGS elements is considerable, for example for green roofs and green

walls and of more classical elements of UGS like forests and parks. Particularly green roofs pro-

vide a number of ESS, ranging from air temperature regulation and respective cost savings for

heating and cooling up to rainwater infiltration and habitat provision. They have the potential to

act as a kind of “second green skin” of cities with dense centres and limited open space on the

ground. The assessment also shows the importance of many UGS for habitat provisioning.

2 Forests can be categorized according to their age, species composition, usage, etc. For some aspects, like recreation, it may not make a difference whether a forest is deciduous or coniferous, and therefore the UGS element “forest” is sufficient. For other aspects, like ecosystem service provisioning, the species composition or age of a forest is highly influential and the UGS element should be further divided.


For most UGS elements, more information on ecosystems service provisioning will be filled in

throughout the project as empirical and modelling analyses in GREEEN SURGE are ongoing.

Looking forward, D3.2 will provide more knowledge about the health effects of UGS in cities as

one specific and upcoming issue in the urban ESS and UGI discussion. In addition, assessments of

ecosystem services and biodiversity for combinations of different UGS in GI will also be made

throughout the project. For some elements, however, the link to ecosystem service production

and biodiversity depends on a range of factors (e.g., the bird diversity of parks depends on man-

agement and vegetation structure) and on how they are integrated into UGI.

4.3 Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, Urban Learning Lab and European Urban

Atlas cities

The results of the calculation for the demand of UGS show a heterogeneous picture across the

EU. The ULL cities, which act as case studies in the GREEN SURGE project stand as an representa-

tive example for the general trend of values in Western, Southern, Eastern and Northern urban

Europe.

Accordingly, the low forest and tree cover in Southern Europe explains the below-average per

capita urban green and accessibility values in Southern European cities such as in Bari. Addition-

ally, cities along the Mediterranean coastline have a high degree of soil sealing and rock surface,

which further explains lower values for green space accessibility (Kasanko et al., 2006).

The above-average values for green, forest and water areas in Northern European cities result

from the biophysical conditions and the forest richness of the respective countries in general.

Malmö as the Swedish case study city in Northern Europe is situated at the Baltic see. It has the

highest share of water area and respectively high per capita water area.

Western European cities present a diverse picture. Whereas in many cities, urban sprawl reduc-

es green space of any type outside the core cities, in their inner parts, green spaces have been

started to be better preserved and enhanced. Some cities do have a very high share of UGSs such

as Berlin. This is mainly due to an increased awareness of planning, protecting and investing in

nature has been developing in the last years. Further, an increase in ecological ‘‘green’’ lifestyles

such as urban gardening activities are appearing in cities such as Berlin and may lead to the di-

verse picture of green space provision and access.

Łódź is an example of an Eastern European city. Per capita values are below average but still

represent a certain provision of urban green and forest areas for city residents. The accessibility

map however shows that a number of inhabitants benefit from access to green. Larondelle et al.

(2014) concluded that for the case of Eastern European cities, the ecosystem services provision

based on green land use is very dynamic and hard to predict. Authors noted that biophysical pre-

conditions are different according to location in Europe making comparisons between, for exam-

ple, the more Mediterranean Bulgarian cities and semi-continental cities in Poland and the Czech

Republic difficult.


Data issues

Due to the broad focus of this Milestone, green space was defined rather narrowly based on Ur-

ban Atlas classification. Only those areas were included in the analyses which are represented in

the two Urban Atlas classes “forest” and “green urban areas”. Due to the classification in Urban

Atlas, which summarizes different land uses in one class, important green spaces such as ceme-

teries, allotment gardens or green brownfield sites could not be included. Future research within

GREEN SURGE will look at how different green spaces (including cemeteries or allotment gar-

dens) can supply the demand for ecosystem services by residents. For a detailed analysis, land

use maps with higher resolution will be used at ULL scale.

Finally, accessibility threshold values are differently used in literature. Thus, a comparative anal-

ysis using different threshold values such as a 300 m distance for 2 ha or a 1500 m distance for

50 ha as well as the inclusions of a street network is planned for future work.


5 REFERENCES

Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. Pp. 267–283. in Cities of

the Future Towards Integrated Sustainable Water and Landscape (V. Novotny and P. Brown,

eds.). IWA Publishing, London, UK.

Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in Urban Ecology. (p. 374). New York, USA: Springer.

Balram, S., and Dragićević, S. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating question-

naire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape

and Urban Planning, 71(2-4), 147–162. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.02.007

Baycan-Levent T., Vreeker R., Nijkamp P. (2009). A multi-criteria evaluation of green spaces in

European cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 16, 2: 193-213

Bell S., Montarzino A., Travlou P. (2006). Green and Public Space Research: Mapping and Priori-

ties. Department for Communities and Local Government, London: p. 11-12. Retrieved from

http://www.openspace.eca.ac.uk/pdf/appendixf/OPENspacewebsite_APPENDIX_F_resource

_17.pdf

Bell S., Montarzino A., Travlou P. (2007). Mapping research priorities for green public urban

space in UK. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6, 2: 103–115

Benedict, M. A. and McMahon, E. T. (2001). Green Infrastructure. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse

Monograph Series.

Botkin D., Beveridge C. E. (1997). Cities as environment. Urban Ecosystems, 1: 3–19

Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., and Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns

and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning,

97(3), 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006

Byrne J. and Sipe, N. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation – A review

of the literature and best practice. urban Research Program, Issues paper 11. p. 13.

Cameron, R. W. F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J. E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A. J., Henricot, B., et al. (2012).

The domestic garden - Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Ur-

ban Greening VL - 11:129–137.

Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G, and Stone, A. M. (1992). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Plan-

ning, 68(1), 129–138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003

Stadt Leipzig. (2003). Umweltqualitätsziele und -standards für die Stadt Leipzig. Leipzig.


Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., and Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine

urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Ur-

ban Planning, 86(1), 103–114. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002

Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., O’Farrell, P.J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D.J., Welz, A., et al.

(2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 9483–

9488.

Danford, R. S., Strohbach, M. W., Ryan, R., Nicolson, C., and Warren, P. S. (2014). What Does It

Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy Distribution? A Boston Case Study. What Does

It Take to Achieve Equitable Urban Tree Canopy, 7(1).

DTLR – Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (2002). Green Spaces,

Better Places. Final Report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce, London. p. 43.

Dunnett, N., C. Swanwick, and H. Woolley. (2002). Improving urban parks, play areas and green

spaces (p. 214). Rotherham: Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

Retrieved from http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/131021.pdf

EASAC - European Academies Science Advisory Council (2009). policy report 09. London. Availa-

ble at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x (20th January 2015)

EEA - European Environment Agency (2010). Urban Atlas. Retrieved from

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas

EEA - European Environment Agency (2007). CLC2006 technical guidelines (No. 17/2007).

EEA - European Environment Agency. (n.d.). EUNIS database. http://eunis.eea.europa.eu.

Elmqvist, T., et al. (eds.) (2013) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges

and Opportunities. A Global Assessment. [Online] Dordrecht: Springer. Available from:

http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-94-007-7088-1 [Accessed 14/01/2015].

European Union (2013): Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe.

European Commission. (2004). Urban audit — methodological handbook. Luxembourg: Office for

Official Publications of the European Communities.

Germann-Chiari, C., and Seeland, K. (2004). Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act

as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach

for urban forestry research. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(1), 3–13. doi:10.1016/S1389-

9341(02)00067-9

Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgstrom, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-

Baggethun, E., Gren, A., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., et. al. (2014) A Quantitative Re-


view of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. AM-

BIO, 43: 413-433.

Handley, J., Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Barber, A., Baker, M., Jones, C., and Lindley, S. (2003). Accessible

Natural Green Space Standards in Towns and Cities: A Review and Toolkit for their Imple-

mentation. English Nature Research Reports, Report Nr. 526, (526).

Heynen, N. C. (2003). The Scalar Production of Injustice within the Urban Forest. Antipode, 980–

998.

Hofmann M., Gerstenberg T. (2014). A user-generated typology of urban green spaces. 17th In-

ternational Conference of the European Forum on Urban Forestry (EFUF), 3 – 7 June 2014,

Lausanne, Switzerland

http://www.efuf2014.org/download/pictures/e0/43mdhfjiscqm5fvm4jp8keddvd15vf/b2_h

ofmann.pdf

Hutter, G., Westphal, C., Siedentop, S., Janssen, G., and Müller, B. (2004). Handlungsansätze zur

Berücksichtigung der Umwelt-, Aufenthalts und Lebensqualität im Rahmen der Innenentwick-

lung von Städten und Gemeinden – Fallstudien. Umweltbundesamt Texte 41. Berlin, Germany.

Kabisch, N., and Haase, D. (2013). Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990–2006.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 110, 113–122. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017

Kabisch, N., and Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in

Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129–139.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016

Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., and Haase, D. (2015). Human–environment interactions in urban green

spaces — A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. En-

vironmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 25–34. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007

Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the en-

vironment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161–176.

Kasanko, M., Barredo, I. J., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L., Sagris, V., and Brezger, A.

(2006). Are European cities becoming dispersed? A comparative analysis of 15 European ur-

ban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 111–130.

Keeley, M., Koburger, A., Dolowitz, D. P., Medearis, D., Nickel, D., and Shuster, W. (2013). Perspec-

tives on the Use of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Management in Cleveland and Mil-

waukee. Environmental Management 51:1093–1108.

Kowarik, I., Fischer, L. K., Säumel, I., von der Lippe, M., Weber, F., and Westerman, J. R. (2011).

Plants in Urban Settings: From Patterns to Mechanisms and Ecosystem Services. In W. Endli-

cher (Ed.), Perspectives in Urban Ecology (pp. 135–166). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin

Heidelberg.


Krasny, E. M., Lundholm, C., Shava, S., Lee, E., and Kobori, H. (2013). Urban Landscapes as Learn-

ing Arenas for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Management. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias,

J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization,

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, A global assessment (pp.

629–665). Springer.

Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., and Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming Inner-City Landscapes: Trees,

Sense of Safety, and Preference. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 28–59.

doi:10.1177/0013916598301002

Landscape Institute. (2009). Green infrastructure: connected and multifunctional landscapes,

London, UK.

Larondelle, N., and Haase, D. (2013). Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural – urban

gradient : A cross-analysis of European cities. Ecological Indicators, 29, 179–190.

Larondelle, N., Haase, D., and Kabisch, N. (2014). Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem

services in European cities. Global Environmental Change, 26, 119–129.

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008

Martin, C. A., Warren, P. S., and Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a use-

ful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded

small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 355–368.

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.034

McMahon, E. T. (2000). Green Infrastructure. Planning Commissioners Journal:4–7.

MEA – Millennium ecosystem assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.

Island Press. Washington DC.

Natural England. (2009). Green Infrastructure Guidance.

Neuenschwander N., Wissen Hayek U., Gret-Regamey A. (2014). Integrating an urban green

space typology into procedural 3D visualization for collaborative planning. Computers, En-

vironment and Urban Systems 48: 99-110.

Niemelä J., Saarela S. R., Söderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Väre S., Kotze D. J. (2010).

Using the ecosystem approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a

Finland case study. Biodiversity Conservation, 19: 3225–3243

Pfoser, N. (2012): Advanced classification of facade greening – Characteristics and differences of

soil-bound and facade greening systems, In: Biotope City – International Journal for City as

Nature, Amsterdam.

Rupprecht C.D.D., Byrne J.A. (2014). Informal urban green space: A typology and trilingual sys-

tematic review of its role for urban residents and trends in the literature. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening 13, 597-611.


Sadler, J., Bates, A., Hale, J., and James, P. (2010). Bringing cities alive: the importance of urban

green spaces for people and biodiversity. In K. J. Gaston (Ed.), Urban Ecology (Ecological., p.

327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sandström G.U. (2002). Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Planning practice and

Research, 17, 4: 373-385

Science Communication Unit – University of the West of England (SCU-UWE), Bristol. 2012.

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt (2013). Urban Green. Retrieved from

http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/stadtgruen/gruenanlagen/index.shtml

Spronken-Smith, R. A., and Oke, T. R. (1998). The thermal regime of urban parks in two cities

with different summer climates. International Journal for Remote Sensing, 19, 2085–2107.

Swanwick, C., Dunnett, N., and Woolley, H. (2003). Nature, role and value of green space in towns

and cities: an overview. Built Environment, 29(2), 94–106.

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosys-

tem Services in Urban Management. www.teebweb.org

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., and James, P.

(2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A

literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167–178.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. a., and Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recov-

ery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psycholo-

gy, 11(3), 201–230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7

United Nations Institute of Social Affairs. (2010). Composition of macro geographical (continen-

tal) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Retrieved

from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

Van Herzele, A., and Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and

attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109–126.

doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00192-5

Van Leeuwen, E., Nijkamp, P., and de Noronha Vaz, T. (2010). The multi-functional use of urban

green space. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(1-2), 20–25.

Voigt A., Kabisch N., Wurster D., Haase D., and Breuste J (2014). Structural diversity as a key fac-

tor for the provision of recreational services in urban parks – a new and straightforward

method for assessment. AMBIO 43(4), 480–491.

Völker, S., and Kistemann, T. (2013). “I’m always entirely happy when I'm here!” Urban blue en-

hancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Social Science &

Medicine (1982), 78, 113–24. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.047


Weeks J.R. (2010). Defining urban areas. In: Remote sensing of urban and suburban areas.

Rashed T., Jürgens C. (eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: p. 33-45.

Wooley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London: Taylor and Francis Group.


6 SUPPLEMENT

Bohemen, H.D., Fraaij, A.L.A., Ottelé, M. (2008). Green roofs and the greening of vertical walls of buildings in urban areas. Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings.

Cairns Jr., J., and Palmer, S. E (1995). Restoration of urban waterways and vacant areas: the first steps toward sustainability. Environmental Health Perspectives, 103(5), 452-453.

Cameron, R. W. F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J. E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A. J., Henricot, B., and Thomp-son, K (2012). The domestic garden - Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(2), 129-137.

Chiquet, C., Dover, J., and Mitchell, P (2012). Birds and the urban environment: the value of green walls. Urban Ecosystems, 1-10.

Cook-Patton, S. C., and Bauerle, T. L (2012). Potential benefits of plant diversity on vegetated roofs: A literature review. Journal of Environmental Management, 106, 85-92.

Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Skinner, A. M. J., Davies, Z. G., Rouquette, J. R., Maltby, L. L., u. a (2012). Biodiversity and the Feel-Good Factor: Understanding Associations between Self-Reported Human Well-being and Species Richness. Bioscience, 62(1), 47-55.

Davies, Z. G., Edmondson, J. L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J. R., and Gaston, K. J (2011). Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. Jour-nal of Applied Ecology, 48(5), 1125-1134.

Donnelly, R., and Marzluff, J. M (2004). Importance of reserve size and landscape context to ur-ban bird conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 733-745.

Everaars, J., Strohbach, M. W., Gruber, B., and Dormann, C. F (2011). Microsite conditions domi-nate habitat selection of the red mason bee (Osmia bicornis, Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in an urban environment: A case study from Leipzig, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(1), 15-23.

Fernandez-Canero, R., and Gonzalez-Redondo, P (2010). Green Roofs as a Habitat for Birds: A Review. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(15), 2041-2052.

Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., and Gaston, K. J (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390-394.

Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., and Benton, T. G (2010). Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity con-servation in urban environments. Trends In Ecology & Evolution, 25(2), 90-98.

Haase, D., Haase, A., and Rink, D. (2014). Conceptualising the nexus between urban shrinkage and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 132, 159–169.

Klingenfuß, C (2013). Was „leisten“ die Berliner Moore. Naturmagazin Berlin-Brandenburg, 27(4), 40-42.

Leather, S (2004). Biodiversity on urban roundabouts - Hemiptera, management and the species-area relationship. Basic and Applied Ecology, 5(4), 367-377.

Lososová, Z., Horsák, M., Chytrý, M., Čejka, T., Danihelka, J., Fajmon, K., et al. (2011). Diversity of Central European urban biota: effects of human-made habitat types on plants and land snails. Journal of Biogeography, 38(6), 1152-1163.

Mentens, J. ,Raes, D., Hermy, M. (2006). Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape and Urban Planning, 77 , 217–226,


Niemelä, J., Saarela, S., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S., and Kotze, D. J (2010). Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 3225-3243.

Nowak, D. J., Stevens, J. C., Sisinni, S. M., and Luley, C. J (2002). Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture, 28(3), 113-122.

Orsini, F., Gasperi, D., Marchetti, L., Piovene, C., Draghetti, S., Ramazzotti, S., et al. (2014). Explor-ing the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture: the potential im-pact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services in the city of Bologna. Food Security, 6(6), 781-792.

Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., et al. (2011). Cou-pling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers In Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 27-36.

Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., and Stigsdotter, U. K (2012). Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), 235-244.

Smith, R. M., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J. G., Warren, P. H., and Gaston, K. J (2006). Urban domestic gardens (IX): Composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 129(3), 312-322.

Sternberg, T., Viles, H., Cathersides, A., Edwards, M. (2010). Dust particulate absorption by ivy (Hedera helix L) on historic walls in urban environments. Science of the Total Environment, 409, 162–168

Sternberg, T., Viles, H., Cathersides, A. 2011. Evaluating the role of ivy (Hedera helix) in moderat-ing wall surface microclimates and contributing to the bioprotection of historic buildings. Building and Environment, 46, 293-297

Strohbach, M. W., and Haase, D (2012). Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in Leipzig, Germany: Analysis of patterns in a European city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 95-104.

Strohbach, M. W., Lerman, S. B., and Warren, P. S (2013). Are small greening areas enhancing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greening projects in Boston. Landscape and Urban Planning, 114, 69-79.

Strohbach, M., Haase, D., and Kabisch, N (2009). Birds and the city: urban biodiversity, land use, and socioeconomics. Ecology and Society, 14(2).

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosys-tem Services in Urban Management. http://www.teebweb.org/

Taylor, J. R., and Lovell, S. T (2012). Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(1), 57-70.

Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., and de Vries, S (2005). Benefits and Uses of Urban Forests and Trees. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, and J. Schipperijn, Urban Forests and Trees (P. 81-114). Springer.

White, J., Antos, M., Fitzsimons, J., and Palmer, G (2005). Non-uniform bird assemblages in urban environments: the influence of streetscape vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71, 123-135.

Wong, N.H. (2010). Thermal evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Building and Environment, 45, 663-672


Yokohari, M., and Bolthouse, J (2011). Planning for the slow lane: The need to restore working greenspaces in maturing contexts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 421-424.

Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schmitz, S., and Sukopp, H (2003). Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(3), 139-148.

Zhao, X., Monnell, J. D., Niblick, B., Rovensky, C. D., and Landis, A. E (2014). The viability of biofuel production on urban marginal land: An analysis of metal contaminants and energy balance for Pittsburgh’s Sunflower Gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 22-33.

a typology of urban green spaces, eco- system … · a typology of urban green spaces, ecosystem...

Documents