Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Urban Forestry&UrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 
Towards anintegratedunderstandingofgreenspaceintheEuropean 
built environment 
P...
whichtodevelopmultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryresearchonurbangreenspace.Inordertoaddressthese 
needs,aniterativeproce...
different disciplineandprofessionalinterestsinurban 
green space.Emergentfromthisprocesswasacatalogue 
of keyresearchquest...
detaileddiscussionofthepointsraisedduringthe 
symposium,todistilfurthertheshortlistofquestions 
and todrawthelistandthemes...
human healthandviablewildlifepopulations(Tzoulas 
et al.,2007). Withinthecontextofclimatechange, 
urban greenspacescanplay...
8. Howcanurbangreenspacesbedesignedand 
managed andprovideaccesstoexperiencenature 
for theurbanpopulationandstillmeetnati...
Chen, 2003), greenways(Walmsley, 2006), greeninfra- 
structure(Sandstro¨m, 2002), ecologicalframeworks 
(KazmierczakandJam...
along withthedetailedquestionscataloguedabove, 
formsthebasisofanagreedresearchagenda. 
Ecosystemservicesareprimarily,butn...
follows:PeterAnnett,DepartmentforCommunities 
and LocalGovernment;IanCooper,Universityof 
Salford;SteveCurwell,Universityo...
Korpela, K.M.,Hartig,T.,Kaiser,F.,Fuhrer,U.,2001. 
Restorative experienceandself-regulationinfavourite 
places. Environmen...
Tyrva¨inen, L.,2001.Economicvaluationofurbanforest 
benefits inFinland.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement 
62, 75–92. 
Tzoul...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Towards an integrated Understanding of Green Space in the European Built Environment

Towards an integrated Understanding of Green Space in the European Built Environment
`
For more information, Please see websites below:
`
Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children
http://scribd.com/doc/239851214
`
Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech
http://scribd.com/doc/239851079
`
Free School Gardening Art Posters
http://scribd.com/doc/239851159`
`
Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden
http://scribd.com/doc/239851159
`
Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success
http://scribd.com/doc/239851348
`
City Chickens for your Organic School Garden
http://scribd.com/doc/239850440
`
Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide
http://scribd.com/doc/239851110

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Towards an integrated Understanding of Green Space in the European Built Environment

  1. 1. Urban Forestry&UrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 Towards anintegratedunderstandingofgreenspaceintheEuropean built environment P. Jamesa,, K.Tzoulasa, M.D.Adamsb, A.Barberc, J.Boxd, J.Breustee, T.Elmqvistf, M. Frithg, C.Gordonh, K.L.Greeningi, J.Handleyj, S.Haworthk, A.E.Kazmierczaka, M. Johnstonl, K.Korpelam, M.Morettin, J.Niemela¨o, S.Pauleitp, M.H.Roeq, J.P. Sadlerr, C.WardThompsons aBuHu andSchoolofEnvironmentandLifeSciences,PeelBuilding,UniversityofSalford,SalfordM54WT,UK bBuHu andSchoolofScienceandEngineering,NewtonBuilding,UniversityofSalford,SalfordM54WT,UK cCABE-Space, 1KembleStreet,LondonWC2B4AN,UK dAtkins, CornerstoneHouse,StaffordPark13,Telford,ShropshireTF33AZ,UK eDepartment ofGeographyandGeology,UrbanandLandscapeEcology,UniversityofSalzburg,Hellbrunnerstrasse34,A-5020 Salzburg, Austria fDepartment ofSystemsEcology,StockholmsUniversity,SE-10691Stockholm,Sweden gPeabody Trust,45WestminsterBridgeRoad,LondonSE17JB,UK hNatural England,NorthminsterHouse,PeterboroughPE11UA,UK iFaculty ofHealthandSocialCare,WestminsterBuilding,UniversityofChester,ParkgateRoad,ChesterCH14BJ,UK jSchool ofEnvironmentandDevelopment(PlanningLandscape),UniversityofManchester,ManchesterM139PL,UK kSchool ofEnvironmentandLifeSciences,PeelBuilding,UniversityofSalford,SalfordM54WT,UK lMyerscough College,MyerscoughHall,St.Michael’sRoad,BilsborrowPreston,LancashirePR30R,UK mDepartment ofPsychology,33014UniversityofTampere,Finland nSwiss FederalResearchInstituteWSL,UnitEcosystemBoundaries,ViaBelsoggiorno22,CH-6500Bellinzona,Switzerland oFaculty ofBiosciences,Viikinkaari1,P.O.Box65,00014UniversityofHelsinki,Finland pCentre forForest,LandscapeandPlanning,UniversityofCopenhagen,Rolighedsvej23,DK-1958FrederiksbergC,Denmark qSchool ofArchitecture,PlanningLandscape,UniversityofNewcastleuponTyne,NewcastleuponTyneNE17RU,UK rSchool ofGeography,EarthEnvironmentalSciences,TheUniversityofBirmingham,Edgbaston,BirminghamB152TT,UK sOPENspace, EdinburghCollegeofArt,LauristonPlace,EdinburghEH39DF,UK Abstract In recentyearssocial,economicandenvironmentalconsiderationshaveledtoareevaluationofthefactorsthat contributetosustainableurbanenvironments.Increasingly,urbangreenspaceisseenasanintegralpartofcities providingarangeofservicestoboththepeopleandthewildlifelivinginurbanareas.Withthisrecognitionand resultingfromthesimultaneousprovisionofdifferentservices,thereisarealneedtoidentifyaresearchframeworkin ARTICLEINPRESS www.elsevier.de/ufug 1618-8667/$-seefrontmatter r 2009 ElsevierGmbH.Allrightsreserved. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.001 Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+441612952133;fax:+441612955015. E-mail addresses: P.James@salford.ac.uk(P.James), K.Tzoulas@salford.ac.uk(K.Tzoulas), M.D.Adams@salford.ac.uk(M.D.Adams), alan.barber@blueyounder.co.uk(A.Barber), john.box@atkinsglobal.com(J.Box), juergen.breuste@sbg.ac.uk(J.Breuste), thomase@ecology.su.se (T. Elmqvist), mathew.frith@peabody.org.uk(M.Frith), Chris.Gordon@naturalengland.org.uk(C.Gordon), K.Greening@chester.ac.uk (K.L. Greening), John.Handley@manchester.ac.uk(J.Handley), Stephen.haworth2@btopenworld.com(S.Haworth), mjohnston@myerscough.ac.uk(M.Johnston), Kalevi.Korpela@uta.fi(K.Korpela), marco.moretti@wsl.ch(M.Moretti), jari.niemela@helsinki.fi (J. Niemela¨), sp@life.ku.dk (S.Pauleit), m.h.roe@newcastle.ac.uk(M.H.Roe), j.p.sadler@bham.ac.uk(J.P.Sadler), c.ward-thompson@eca.ac.uk (C. WardThompson).
  2. 2. whichtodevelopmultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryresearchonurbangreenspace.Inordertoaddressthese needs,aniterativeprocessbasedonthedelphitechniquewasdeveloped,whichcomprisedemail-mediateddiscussions and atwo-daysymposiuminvolvingexpertsfromvariousdisciplines.Thetwooutputsofthisiterativeprocesswere(i) an integratedframeworkformultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryresearchand(ii)acatalogueofkeyresearch questionsinurbangreenspaceresearch.Theintegratedframeworkpresentedhereincludesrelevantresearchareas(i.e. ecosystemservices,driversofchange,pressuresonurbangreenspace,humanprocessesandgoalsofprovisionof urbangreenspace)andemergentresearchthemesinurbangreenspacestudies(i.e.physicality,experience,valuation, managementandgovernance).Collectivelythesetwooutputshavethepotentialtoestablishaninternationalresearch agendaforurbangreenspace,whichcancontributetothebetterunderstandingofpeople’srelationshipwithcities. r 2009 ElsevierGmbH.Allrightsreserved. Keywords: Delphi technique;Researchagenda;Urbanecology Introduction There areanumberofsignificantfactorsthatare convergingandforcingare-examinationoftheway cities areplanned,designedandlivedin.TheGlobal EnvironmentOutlook(UNEP, 2007) identifiedfive driversforhumandevelopment:demographics;eco- nomicprocesses(consumption,production,markets and trade);scientificandtechnologicalinnovation; distributionpatternprocesses(inter-andintra-genera- tional);andcultural,social,politicalandinstitutional processes(includinghumanbehavioursandtheproduc- tion andservicesectors).Thesedrivers,andothersthat may emerge,willhavesubstantialconsequencesfor urbandevelopment,andhencegreenspacewithinurban areas, yetthereisgreatuncertaintyaboutthewaysin whichurbanareaswillbeaffected.Whatislackingisa frameworkformulti-,inter-andtransdisciplinary researchthatwouldformanevidencebasetosupport these changesandactions.Thedistinctionsbetween these threeapproachesandtheirdifferencefroma traditional,singledisciplinaryapproachrequiresome consideration.Amultidisciplinaryapproachisonein whichindividualsorgroupsworkingindifferent disciplinesaddressthesameissue,whereasaninter- disciplinaryapproachisonewhereanindividualora groupworkattheboundariesoftraditionaldisciplines and ofteningapsthatemergebetweendisciplines,and lastly atransdisciplinaryapproachisonewherean individualorgroupusesknowledgefromanumberof disciplinestoseenewconnectionsandgainnewinsights. The termsgreenspaceandopenspaceareoftenused interchangeably(Swanwicketal.,2003). Inorderto addresstheconfusionthatmayoccur,theydefinedthe key termsmoreclearly. Swanwicketal.(2003) suggested that urbanareasaremadeupofthebuiltenvironment and theexternalenvironmentbetweenbuildings.The externalenvironment,intheirmodel,iscomposedof two distinctspaces:‘greyspace’and‘greenspace’.Grey space islandthatconsistsofpredominantlysealed, impermeable,‘hard’surfacessuchasconcreteortarmac. Green spaceland,whetherpubliclyorprivatelyowned, consistsofpredominantlyunsealed,permeable,‘soft’ surfacessuchassoil,grass,shrubs,treesandwater.In this papertheauthorsfollowthisdefinitionofgreen spacewhilstatthesametimerecognisingthatthe juxtapositionofgreenandgreyspacesisessentialin townsandcities. AcrossEurope,developmenttrajectoriesoftownsand citiesvary(Kasanko etal.,2006). Wherethepopula- tions arefalling,thereareopportunitiestoredesignthe builtandexternalenvironmentsinordertoimprove liveabilityandsustainability(Mace etal.,2007). Where populationsaregrowingandcitiesareexpanding spatially,orareconfinedbyphysicalorpolitical boundaries,thereisadecreaseinpercapitaspaceand often aneedtoaddressissuesofthelossofurbangreen space. Whilstanunderstandingofthemultiplefunctionsof urbangreenspacesisreasonablywelldeveloped,itisnot wellintegratedintotheplanning,designandmanage- mentprocess(Yli-PelkonenandNiemela¨, 2005; Sand-stro ¨m etal.,2006). Furthermore,reliableandrobust approachestothevaluationofurbangreenspacethat effectivelysupportdecision-makingareoftenabsent (Tyrva¨inen, 2001; Neilan,2008). Therefore,itisdesir- abletoidentifythekeyissuesrequiringresearch,to developevidenceonwhichtobasedecisionsandto presenttheseinawaythatisaccessibletoacademics, practitionersanddecision-makers. This paperreportsontheoutcomesofasymposium heldattheUniversityofSalford,UnitedKingdom, duringJune2007.Thissymposiumwasdevelopedin recognitionofthreeimportantgapsinurbangreen spaceresearch:theneedtoencourageinterdisciplinary andmultidisciplinaryapproaches,theneedtodevelop joint,multidisciplinaryinitiativesacrossEuropeandthe needforcomparativeresearch.Expertsfromdifferent disciplines,countriesandjobroles(e.g.academics, practitionersanddecision-makers)attendedthesympo- sium withthegoaltodevelop,andsubsequentlyagree on, anintegratingframeworkthatwouldbringtogether ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 66
  3. 3. different disciplineandprofessionalinterestsinurban green space.Emergentfromthisprocesswasacatalogue of keyresearchquestionsforurbangreenspaceresearch and thesynthesisoftheseintoanintegratingframework to supportmultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryunder- standingandcommunication,decision-makingand researchefforts.Inthispapertheauthorsproposean internationalresearchagendarelatingtothiskey componentofurbanliving. The paperisprimarilyinformedbyresearchrelating to theEuropeanandNorthAmericancontextandby Europeanissuesandpractices.Itisintendedthatthe agendawillinfluenceregional,nationalandinterna- tional researchfundingallocationsandinformthe discussionsofthoseconcernedwithidentifyingthe needs andprioritiesofurbangreenspace. Process The needforamultidisciplinaryapproachinurban green spaceresearchwasidentifiedduringdiscussions held amongsttheparticipantsattheEuropeanSociety for ConservationBiologymeetinginEger,Hungary. Subsequently,theoverallprocesswasbasedarounda modified DelphiTechnique,awidelyusedtechniquein consultationexerciseswhereconsensusisrequired (Ndour etal.,1992; Medsker etal.,1995; Curtis,2004; Okoli andPawlowski,2004). In early2007agroupof40peoplecametogetherto address thisneed.Thegroupincludedrepresentativesof academicinstitutions(29),consultancy(4),voluntary organizations(2),politicians(1),statutorybodies(1), housing provider(1),practiceandpolicyadvisor(1), centralgovernment(1)andlocalauthority(1).These peoplewereallchosenbecauseoftheirestablished record ofinterestin,andcommitmentto,academic, managerialordecision-makingrolesinurbanenviron- ment. Also,theparticipantspossessedknowledgeofthe historicandcontemporaryissuesassociatedwithopen green spaceincitiesandtowns.Furthermore,thegroup was chosentoberepresentativeofdifferentacademic disciplines(e.g.Psychology,Sociology,Planning,Ecol- ogy, andHealth),withmanycontributorshaving expertiseinmorethanonediscipline.Representation from differentpartsofEuropewasachieved–Austria (2), Finland(2),France(1),Greece(1),Denmark(1), The Netherlands(2),Poland(1),Sweden(1),Switzer- land (2)andUnitedKingdom(28). The purposeoftheprocesswastoidentifykey researchthemesandquestionsrelatedtocontemporary issuesandfuturestudiesinurbangreenspace.Theneed for amultidisciplinaryapproachwasidentifiedduring conversationsheldatvariousconferencesthroughout 2006. Consequently,theoverallprocesswasbased aroundamodifiedDelphiTechnique.Thisisawidely used techniqueinconsultationexerciseswhereconsen- sus isrequired(Ndouretal.,1992; Medskeretal.,1995; Curtis,2004; Okoli andPawlowski,2004). In theresearchreportedheretheDelphiTechnique was dividedintothreestages.Theinitialstagewasto inviteallindividualstopartakeinanemail-mediated discussion.Theinitiallistofinviteeswascompiledby the UrbanNatureResearchGroupintheResearch InstitutefortheBuiltandHumanEnvironmentatthe UniversityofSalford.Thelistgrewto40asexisting memberssuggestedotherprospectivemembers.All emailsweresharedamongstthewholegroupwith periodicpublicationofacompendiumofemailscover- ing specifictimeperiods.Inthiswayallcontributors weremadeawareoftheongoingdebates,thechronol- ogyofideasandtheprovenanceoftheideas.Earlyonin the processthesymposiumchairwasidentified.This personalsomediatedthepre-symposiumpreparations ensuringthatallemailswereavailabletoallmembers. Theseemailexchangesbegantheprocessofdeveloping a richpictureofthescopeandconcernsrelatedtothe topic. Thereafterparticipantswereinvitedtosubmita list ofkeyresearchquestionsrelevanttotheprevious email-mediateddiscussions.Intotal215questionswere submitted. The secondstagewasatwo-dayexpertsymposium that washeldinSalfordinearlyJune2007,towhichall 40 contributorswereinvited,29wereabletoattend.The symposiumwasbasedonfacilitatedgroupdiscussions andsubjectpresentationsaroundthecoreprinciplesof opendiscussionandconsensusbuilding.Thepartici- pantswerefirstsplitintothreemultidisciplinaryteams. The aimwasthateachgroupwouldhaverepresentatives from allthedisciplinesrepresentedatthesymposium. Eachgrouphadonesessiondiscussingtheresearch areas andemergentresearchthemes,andthreesessions focused onrefiningtheemergentresearchquestions.The discussionsinthesesessionswerefacilitatedbyagroup chairperson.Attheendofeachsessiontheoutcomes from eachgroupwerecombinedanddiscussedin plenary session.Thesubjectpresentationfocusedon introducingandsummarizingthedifferentcomponents of thesymposium. By thecloseofthesymposium,threespecificout- comeswereachieved.Firstly,thethemesthatsurfaced duringtheemail-mediateddiscussionswererevisited, discussedandamended.Secondly,thelonglistof215 questionswasdistilledtoashortlistof50questions. Thisreductioncamethroughaprocessthatinvolved combiningsimilarquestions,developingcomposite questionsfromthosethataddressedsimilarthemes andtestingeachquestionforrelevanceandsuitability for research.Thirdly,aself-selectedsteeringgroup of 17people,coveringtherangeofdisciplinesrepre- sented inthesymposium,agreedtotakeforward ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7567
  4. 4. detaileddiscussionofthepointsraisedduringthe symposium,todistilfurthertheshortlistofquestions and todrawthelistandthemestogetherintoaresearch paper.Thisfurtheriterationofquestionsformedthe thirdandfinalstageoftheDelphiprocess. Emergent researchagenda Five researchthemesand35researchquestions The pre-symposiumemaildiscussionsenabledthe originalcatalogueof215questionstobecategorised into fiveemergentthemes:thephysicality,theexperi- ence,thevaluation,themanagementandthegovernance of urbangreenspace.Furtherrefinementsduringthe symposiumandpost-symposiumemaildiscussions reducedtheseto50questionsandfinallyto35questions. This catalogueofquestionsinconjunctionwiththe integratedframework,whichisdiscussedlaterinthis paperandpresentedin Fig. 1, forms theproposed researchagendaforurbangreenspace.Thequestions arediscussedbelowundertheheadingsofthefive emergentthemes. Theme1:Thephysicalityofurbangreenspace The physicalityofurbangreenspacecoversecologi- cal,microclimate,soil,airandwaterqualityfunctions (i.e.provisioningandregulatingservices; Breuste etal., 1998; Marzluffetal.,2001; Berkowitzetal.,2003). Severalphysicalfactorsdiffergreatlybetweenurban andruralenvironments.Thelocation,structure,com- positionandspatialconfigurationofurbangreenspaces willinfluencetheirecologicalqualitiesandfunctions (PauleitandDuhme,2000; Whitford etal.,2001; Turner etal.,2005). Theseecologicalfunctionsmayinclude populationdynamics,communityinteractionsand resilience,speciesmigrationorplantpollination. The ecosystemservicesprovidedbyurbangreen spacesarerelatedtothephysicalaspectsofthesespaces (de Grootetal.,2002) andarecentraltomaintaining ARTICLEINPRESS Social Processes: Research and knowledge transfer Professional practice User and community participation Partnership working Decision making Negotiating Goals of Provision: Improved quality of urban green space and of quality of life Pressures on Green Space: Promotion of better health Habitat species conservation Provision of more housing Attracting retaining inward investment Responding and adapting to climate change scenarios Accommodating technological innovation Broad Drivers of Change: Demographic changes Economic changes Scientific technological developments Wealth resources distribution Cultural, social, political organizational values Climate /or environmental change Ecosystem Services*: Provisioning Regulating Supporting Cultural Emergent Urban Green Space Research Themes: Physicality - Experience - Valuation - Management - Governance Fig. 1. Integrating frameworkforaresearchagendaforurbangreenspace.Key:Dashedboxesindicatebroadresearchareasthat are changingovertimeandacrossgeographicalareas;solidboxindicatesspecificresearchthemesthatremainconstantintimeand geographical areas;dashedtwo-wayarrowsindicatedynamicrelationshipsbetweendifferentresearchareas;solidtwo-wayarrows indicate thatresearchthemesaredrawnfrom,andareapplicableto,thedifferentresearchareas.(*) Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 68
  5. 5. human healthandviablewildlifepopulations(Tzoulas et al.,2007). Withinthecontextofclimatechange, urban greenspacescanplayacentralroleinboth climate-proofingcitiesandinreducingtheimpactsof cities onclimate(Gill etal.,2007). Whiletheroleof green areasinsequesteringcarbonissmallcomparedto carbon dioxideemissionsproducedincities(Nowak, 1994; McPherson,1998), urbangreenspacesmayreduce energy consumptionandthusalsocarbondioxide emissions byreducingtheneedforairconditioningin the summerandtheneedforheatinginthewinter (McPherson,1994; Jo andMcPherson,2001). Within the themeof‘ThePhysicalityofUrbanGreenSpace’, the followingsevenkeyresearchquestions(1–7)are identified: 1. Whataretheecosystemservicesprovidedbyurban green spacesandhowcantheseservicesbequanti- fied? 2. Whatbenefitsdoesthecreationofurbangreenspace provide inareasthathavepoorenvironmental conditionsorsocialproblems? 3. What,inrelationtourbanform,aretherequired quantity,qualityandconfigurationofurbangreen spaces tomaintain,sustainandenhanceecosystem services andecologicalfunctioncompatiblewith other functions? 4. Whatarethedirectandindirecteffectsoftheclimate changes predictedincurrentscenariosonurbangreen spaces andhowdothesechangesimpactpeople’s well-being(qualityoflife)inurbanareas? 5. Howresilientarecurrentgreenspacedesigns (includingstreettrees)toclimatechangeandhow can resiliencebeimproved? 6. Howcanurbangreenspacesthatarerobusttoharsh urban environments(e.g.lackofwaterandsunshine) be designedandmanagedtomitigatetheeffectsof climate changeinurbanareasandallowcitiesto adapt tothesechanges? 7. Howcantheprovisionandmanagementoffresh- water quantityandqualitybepromotedthrough urban greenspaces? Theme 2:Theexperienceofurbangreenspace Urban greenspacesareimportantincitiesduetothe opportunitiestheyprovidetopeopletocomeincontact with natureandwitheachother.Contactwithnature has psychologicalbenefitsbyreducingstress(Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich etal.,1991), restoringattention(Kaplan and Kaplan,1989), reducingcriminalandanti-social behaviour(Kuo andSullivan,2001) andbypositively affectingself-regulationandrestorativeexperiences (Korpelaetal.,2001; Hartigetal.,2003; Korpela and Yle´n, 2007; van denBergetal.,2007). Inadditionto psychologicalbenefitsfromcontactwithnature,there are directphysicalhealthbenefits(Prettyetal.,2006), such asaddressingissuesassociatedwithobesity (DepartmentofHealth,2004), increasedlongevity (Takanoetal.,2002) andself-reportedhealth(de Vries et al.,2003; Maasetal.,2006). Intermsofsocialwell- beingurbangreenspacecontributestosocialinteraction andtobringingpeopletogether,reducesnegativesocial behaviourssuchasaggressionandviolence,contributes to asenseofplaceandplaysanimportantrolein fosteringsocialcohesionandidentify(Newton, 2007). Thesepsychological,physicalandsocialhealtheffectsof urbangreenspacesmakethemanimportantcomponent of publichealthprovision(Henwood,2003; Newton, 2007). However,greenspacesthatareperceivedtobe unmanagedmayhaveanegativeeffectonthewell- beingofpeoplebyincreasinganxietycausedbycrime andfearofcrime(BixlerandFloyd,1997; Kuo etal., 1998; Jorgensenetal.,2007). Theoccurrenceofwild animalsincities,forexample,largemammalssuchas fox (Vulpes vulpes L.), badger(Meles meles L.), wild boar(Sus scrofa L.) andbear(Ursus arctos L.), bring withthemaneedtoaddressthechangingrelationships betweenpeopleandwildlife.Urbanandperi-urban ecologicalchangescanaffectthegeographicalrangeof diseasessuchasLymedisease(Patz andNorris,2004) andWestNileVirus(Zielinski-GutierrezandHayden, 2006). Hence,furtherresearchwillshowwhetheritis possibletoquantifyenvironmentalinfluencesand subsequentpositiveornegativehealthoutcomesfrom differenttypesandconfigurationsofurbangreen spaces. The aestheticcontributionsofurbangreenspacesto city lifeareequallyimportant.Thereisaplethoraof theoriesandstudiesshowingthepreferenceamongst urbandwellersforurbanareaswithgreenspacesin them (Wilson,1993; Appleton, 1996; Stamps,2004; StaatsandHartig,2004; Regan andHorn,2005; Hartig andStaats,2006). Thecharacterofurbangreenspaces hasbeen,andcontinuestobe,importantinexpressing contemporaryvalues,beliefsandculturaltrendsin urbansocieties(Thompson,2004). Closely linkedwithaestheticandpublichealthaspects of urbangreenspacesaretheculturalbackgroundsof the communitiesthatusethem(WardThompson,1996; Tzoulas,2006). Differentcultureshavedifferentvalue systemsandrelationshipswithnature.So,theroleof urbangreenspacesinimprovinglocalquality,identity andcharactermaybedifferentamongstdifferent culturalgroupswithinthesamecityandalsoamongst individuals.Understandinghowdifferentculturaland sub-culturalgroupsincitiesuseurbangreenspacesis centralindevelopingappropriatemanagementsystems (JohnstonandShimada,2003). Hence,withinthetheme of ‘TheExperienceofUrbanGreenSpace’,ninekey researchquestions(8–16)areidentified: ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7569
  6. 6. 8. Howcanurbangreenspacesbedesignedand managed andprovideaccesstoexperiencenature for theurbanpopulationandstillmeetnationaland regionalbiodiversitytargets? 9. Whatarethepersonalandsocialinfluencesthat resultingreateruseofurbangreenspaces? 10. Whatarethedynamicinteractionsbetweensocietal, personality,situational,andtemporalfactorsand individualandgroupengagementwithurbangreen spaces? 11. Howdothecumulativeeffectsofcognitive,emo- tional,psychologicalandphysicalhealthbenefits from multisensorycontactwithgreenspacesinflu- enceindividualandcommunityhealthandwell- being? 12. Whataspectsandtypesofurbangreenspace stimulatepositiveandnegativephysicalandpsy- chologicalhealtheffects? 13. Whatarethenecessaryquantities,qualitiesand configurationofurbangreenspacesthatcontribute to theirregularusesuchthatdifferentsegmentsofa societywithchangingsocio-demographiccharacter- isticsmaygainbenefits? 14. Howcanactualandperceivedlevelsofcrimeand anti-socialbehaviourbemanagedthroughmanip- ulationoflandscapedesigningreenspaceswhilst maintainingecological,landscapeandaesthetic benefits? 15. Howdoesgreenspaceaffectanti-socialbehaviour andcommunitydevelopmentgenerally? 16. Howcanurbangreenspacesbeusedforgreater benefitinenvironmentaleducationandineducation more generally? Theme3:Thevaluationofurbangreenspace In herreviewofEnglishlanguageliteratureonthe link betweenqualityoflifeandeconomiccompetitive- ness ofcityregions Donald (2001) focused onthelinks betweenacityregion’seconomiccompetitivenessand, with regardtoenvironmentalquality,concludedthere was evidencesuggestingarelationshipbetweenenviron- mentalquality,hightechnologyandtheattractionof knowledgeworkers.Astheknowledgesocietycontinues to becomeanevermoredominantfeatureofthe21st century,sodoestheimportanceofcreatingplaceswhere peoplewishtoliveandwork. Luttik (2000), reporting on astudyof3000housetransactionsintheNether- lands, foundthataviewonaparkorwaterleadstoan increaseinhouseprices.Theobservation,basedonthe willingnesstopayconcept,clearlyindicatesthevalue attributedtonearbygreenspacebyindividuals.Ata policy leveltheimportanceofurbangreenspaceto economicdevelopmentisincreasinglyrecognised (Ahern, 1995; Sandstro¨m, 2002; Benedict andMcMa- hon, 2002; Konijnendijk,2003; Li etal.,2005; Benedict andMcMahon,2006). However,atalocalauthority level thismaynotalwaysappeartobethecase(Barber, 2007; Britt andJohnston,2008). The contributionmadebyurbangreenspaceto ecosystemservicesandtopsychological,socialand healthexperiencesisdifficulttovalue(Ulrich, 1984; KaplanandKaplan1989; Takanoetal.,2002; de Groot etal.,2002; Tzoulasetal.,2007). However,thereisstilla needforquantitativeeconomicevaluationofboth physicalandsocialecosystemservicesprovidedby greenspaces(McPherson,1998; Tyrva¨inen, 2001; Lambert,2007; Neilan,2008). Traditionalvaluation techniquessuchasCostBenefitAnalysisandCon- tingentValuationmaynotbeabletocopewithvaluing the ecologicalandsocialfunctionsofurbangreen spaces,whicharerequiredtostrengthentheirrolein the decision-makingprocesswithinlocalcommunities. New valuationtechniquesmayberequired.Hence, withinthetheme‘TheValuationofUrbanGreen Space’,thefollowingfourkeyresearchquestions (17–20)areidentified: 17.Whatglobalcompetitivegainsaredeliveredtocities through theprovisionofhigh-qualitygreenspaces and howcanthesegainsbesustained/increased through greenspaceplanningandmanagement? 18.Howcantransdisciplinaryconsiderationsbeinte- grated intothedevelopmentofwidelyaccepted methodologiesforquantifyingandvaluingecosys- tem servicesthatareprovidedbyurbangreen spaces? 19.Howcanthemultiple‘publicgood’and‘market’ benefits ofurbangreenspacesbevaluedandbuilt into governanceandfundingdecisionsupporttools? 20.Howcanecosystemservicesbegivenanappropriate valuation sothattheycanbeconsideredmore equitablyalongsideotherurbansystemfunctions? Theme4:Themanagementofurbangreenspace The managementofurbangreenspaceincluding planning,designandresourcemanagementrequiresthe collaborativeworkingofmanydisciplinesatdifferent spatialscales.Thereisvariabilityinthemechanismsand structuresgoverninggreenspacemanagementand maintenancewithinthesamecountrybutevenmore so acrossEurope(Werquinetal.,2005). Overall responsibilityforurbangreenspacerarelyrestswith nationalministries,departmentsoragenciesconcerned withcityplanningortheenvironment(Carmonaetal., n.d.). Usuallyurbangreenspacesaretheremitof municipalorregionalauthorities(Niemela¨, 1999). Variousschemeshavebeenproposedandimplemen- ted todifferingdegreesacrossEuropeincludingthe urbanforest(Konijnendijk,2000), greenbeltandgreen heart(Ku¨hn, 2003), greenfingersorwedges(Jim and ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 70
  7. 7. Chen, 2003), greenways(Walmsley, 2006), greeninfra- structure(Sandstro¨m, 2002), ecologicalframeworks (KazmierczakandJames,2008) andecologicalnetworks (Opdam etal.,2006; Sandstro¨m etal.,2006). Someof these andotheropenspaceplanningmodelshavebeen reviewedby MaruaniandAmit-Cohen(2007) who organisedthevariousmodelsintoacomparative classificationframework.Theyfoundthatnomodel was universallyapplicabletoallfunctionsandneedsand that thedifferentmodelsreflectdifferentplanning conceptsofthespatialorfunctionalconfigurationof urban greenspaces.Thisvariabilityinthemechanisms of governanceofgreenspaces,inconceptualspatial models andinconcernedagencies,createsadifficultyin comparativeanalysisandimportantlyinthecompre- hensive assessmentandplanningofgreenspacesata transnational,nationalorregionallevel.Hence,within the theme‘TheManagementofUrbanGreenSpace’, the followingsevenkeyresearchquestions(21–27)are identified: 21. Whatareappropriateindicatorsandtypologiesfor the comparativeassessment,monitoringandpredic- tion ofthestateandtrendsofurbangreenspaces and theirecosystemservicesacrossEurope? 22. Whatarethemechanismsbywhichgreenspacecan be successfullyplanned,designedandmanagedat local,regionalandnationallevels,andhowcan different levelseffectivelyworktogether? 23. Howeffectiveisthecurrenttheoreticalbasisof urban andrestorationecologyinsupportingsus- tainableurbanecosystemmanagementstrategies, and informingurbanplanning? 24. Howcantheresilienceandadaptabilityofurban areas tofutureeconomic,housingandenvironmen- tal demandsbeenhancedthroughappropriate design andmanagementofurbangreenspaces? 25. Howwillchangingsocialvaluesandbehaviours guide theprovisionandmaintenanceofurbangreen spaces? 26. Howcantheviewsandexperienceofalllocal residentsinformtheplanninganddesignprocessof urban greenspaces? 27. Howcantheskillsbaserequiredfordelivering integratedplanning,design,managementandmain- tenance ofurbangreenspacesinsupportingurban sustainabilitybeimproved? Theme 5:Thegovernanceofurbangreenspace Governanceistheprocessofmakingdecisionsthat defineexpectations,grantauthorityandverifyperfor- mance. Greenspacegovernanceandmanagementis commonlyalocalauthorityresponsibility,oftendivided amongst differentdepartmentsandgeographicalareas (Britt andJohnston,2008). However, Carmonaetal. (n.d.) recognisedthatthewaythatgreenspacegovern- anceandmanagementresponsibilitiesarecoordinatedis more importantthantheirdistributionamongstdiffer- entdepartments.Theyalsoidentifiedthatimportant issuesinthecoordinationofresponsibilitiesofurban green spacemanagementandgovernancemayinclude limitationsonexistingstatutoryandnon-statutory powers,availabilityofskillsandeffectivecommunica- tion amongstdepartments.Hence,withinthetheme ‘TheGovernanceofUrbanGreenSpace’,thefollowing eight keyresearchquestions(28–35)areidentified: 28. Howdodifferinggovernanceandmanagement systemsofurbangreenspaceinfluencetheplanning for deliveryofsustainableecosystemservicesand ecologicalfunctionofurbangreenspaces? 29. Whataretheconsequencesofchangingpatternsof urbangreenspaceownership? 30. Whatarethesocialandgovernanceimplicationsof differentfundingandtenuremodelsforthedelivery of high-qualityurbangreenspaceinwhichthelocal communityisengagedfully? 31. Whatarethecriticalfactorsthataffecttheextentto whichlocalcommunitiesareempoweredtopartici- pateinlocaldecision-makingprocesses? 32. Howisthepowerrelationshipbetweenlocal authorities,developersandlocalcommunitieschan- ging ascommunitiesareencouragedtobecome more involvedinthedecision-makingprocessabout developmentandadaptationoftheirneighbour- hood greenspaces? 33. Howcanfinancialcommitmentsofdevelopersbe reconciledwiththetimerequirementsofinclusive publicconsultation? 34. Whichmodelsofgovernanceeffectivelyfacilitate meaningfulparticipationindecision-makinginan environmentwhereownershipoflandparcels changesovertime? 35. Whatistheevidencethaturbangreenspaceshave risenupthelocalpoliticalagendaandwhat differencehasitmadetogreenspaceresourcesand qualityofstewardship? An integratedframeworkformultidisciplinaryand interdisciplinary researchonurbangreenspace The questionsidentifiedunderthepreviousfive themes,distilledfromtheDelphiprocessdescribed previouslyandunderpinnedbytheexistingurbangreen space evidencebase,haveenabledthedevelopmentofan integratedcontextualframeworkforinterdisciplinary andmultidisciplinaryresearch(Fig. 1). Suchaframe- work aidsinterdisciplinaryandmultidisciplinaryunder- standings,andthecommunicationofthecomplexityof the issuesidentifiedduringdiscussions.Thisframework, ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7571
  8. 8. along withthedetailedquestionscataloguedabove, formsthebasisofanagreedresearchagenda. Ecosystemservicesareprimarily,butnotexclusively, concernedwiththeenvironmentalfunctionsprovidedby urbangreenspace(Whitfordetal.,2001; de Grootetal., 2002; Tratalosetal.,2007). Suchenvironmentalfunc- tions mayincludetheprovisioningofresources(e.g. food orfuel),theregulatingofmicroclimates,the supportingofbio-geophysicalprocessandcycles(e.g. soil formation)andculturalinterpretations(e.g.aes- thetic,recreationaloreducationalfacilities; Millennium EcosystemAssessment,2005). Theecosystemservices providedbyurbangreenspacesareinextricablyrelated to broadsocio-economicandenvironmentaldriversof change.Suchbroaddriversofchangeincludedemo- graphic,economicandscientificdevelopments,evolving socio-politicalvalues,andclimatechangeorother environmentalhazards.Ecosystem,environmentaland socio-economicdriversofchangecreatespecificpres- sures onurbangreenspacessuchasadaptingto technologicalandsocietalchanges,attractinginward investment,andpromotingnatureconservationand health. Social processesareimportantinbringingtogether broaddriversofchangeandspecificpressuresthatact upon themanagementanduseofurbangreenspace. Socialprocessesarealsoimportantinintegratingpublic sector,professional,academicandvoluntarysector practices.Suchprocessmayincluderesearchand knowledgetransfer,professionalpractices,community participationandinclusivedecision-making.Thegoals of urbangreenspaceprovisionaretheoutcomeofthe multiple,dynamicandcomplexinterplaybetweensocial, economicandenvironmentalfactors.Theseareprimar- ily focussedonimprovementsinthequalityoflifein urbanareasandinthequalityofurbangreenspace. These broadresearchareas(ecosystemservices, driversofchange,pressures,socialprocessesandgoals of provisionassociatedwithurbangreenspace)are interrelatedandthisisindicatedbythedottedtwo-way arrowsbetweenthem(Fig. 1). Fiveresearchthemes, namelyphysicality,experience,valuation,management and governanceofurbangreenspace,emergedfromthe Delphi process,andhavebeenusedtostructurethe presentationofresearchquestionsinthispaper.These researchthemes,andassociatedresearchquestions,are drawnfromandareapplicabletoalloftheresearch areas oftheintegratingframework.Thisisindicatedby the solidtwo-wayarrowsin Fig. 1. Discussion An importantaspectoftheintegratedframework developedduringthisresearchandpresentedin Fig. 1 is that changesintheurbanenvironment,aselsewhere,are the resultofthecomplexinteractionsofnaturaland spontaneousprocessesaswellasoftheplannedactions by humans(Antrop,1998; WoodandHandley,2001). Thus,anunderstandingofthedetailof,andinteractions between,thefivebroadresearchareasisimportant. Furthermore,thisintegratedframeworkdemonstrates explicitlythattheoutcomesfromdifferentresearch themesofurbangreenspaceareinextricablylinkedand include physicalandsocialsystemsandprocesses.What emergesfromthiscontextualconceptualisationisthat aninterdisciplinary,multidisciplinaryandtransdisci- plinaryunderstandingoftheemergentresearchthemes arerequired.Theproposedresearchagenda(Fig. 1 and the 35questions)facilitatesthedevelopmentofsuch studiesintwoways.First, Fig. 1 identifiesbroad interrelationshipsbetweenresearchareasandthusgives anindicationofthepotentialforcollaborationbetween disciplines.Second,the35questionsprovideaninitial catalogueofidentifiedquestionsthatrequirefurther research.Thiscatalogueofquestionsisnotdefinitive, nor isitprioritised,andthequestionsmayvaryin differentgeographicallocationsandatdifferenthistor- ical times.However,itdoesprovideacommonframe- work forresearchingcurrenturbangreenspacetopicsin Europe. Our analysisshowsthatwhilstthegeneralfunctions andbenefitsofgreenspacesarereasonablywellunder- stood,whenlookingtothefuturethereisinsufficient understandingofthefollowing: (a) howtoplan,designandmanagegreenspace(e.g. how large,howtoconnect);and (b) howgreenspaceswillbehaveundersocio-demo- graphicandenvironmentalchange. The frameworkpresentedhereoffersanoverviewfor how suchresearchmightbestructured.Aswithallsuch frameworksthisisverymuchaproductofitstimeand place. Hence,therelativeimportanceofspecificissues willvaryovertime.However,theframework(Fig. 1), andtheresearchquestionspresentedhere,shouldbe seen asatoolfordevelopingworkingpracticesthat transcenddisciplinaryboundariesinordertodevelop newinsightsandunderstandingofurbangreenspaces:it hasbeendesignedtoberesilientinordertoaccom- modatechangesinknowledge.Astheseissuesare developedbyothers,thegeneralmodelcanbeexpanded by incorporatingstandard(quantitative)indicatorsfor eachofthefiveemergenturbangreenspaceresearch themes. Acknowledgements Therehavebeenmanycontributorstothispaper beyondthemainauthors.Thesecontributorswereas ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 72
  9. 9. follows:PeterAnnett,DepartmentforCommunities and LocalGovernment;IanCooper,Universityof Salford;SteveCurwell,UniversityofSalford;Tom Flood,BritishTrustforConservationVolunteers; DavidGledhill,UniversityofSalford;DavidGoode, UniversityCollegeLondon;JohnHandley,CURE, UniversityofManchester;StewartHarding,TheParks Agency;FrancisHesketh,TheEnvironmentPartner- ship; GraemeLeeks,CentreforEcologyandHydrology; ElliottMorley,MP,HouseofCommons;SylvieNail, Universite´ SorbonneNouvelle;JamesPowell,Univer- sity ofSalford;KathleenRadford,Universityof Salford;DerekRichardson,GreaterManchesterEcol- ogy Unit;AnnaScott,UniversityofSalford;Paul Selman,UniversityofSheffield;RobbertSnep,Alterra Wageningen;NicolaStern,UniversityofSalzburg;and Wim Timmermans,AlterraWageningen. References Ahern, J.,1995.Greenwaysasaplanningstrategy.Landscape and UrbanPlanning33(1–3),131–155. Antrop, M.,1998.Landscapechange:planorchaos?Land- scape andUrbanPlanning41(3),155–161. Appleton, J.,1996.TheExperienceofLandscape,2nded. Wiley, Chichester. Barber, A.,2007.Let’stalkmoney.GreenPlaces35,22–25. Benedict, M.A.,McMahon,E.T.,2006.GreenInfrastructure: Linking LandscapesandCommunities.IslandPress, Washington. Benedict, M.A.,McMahon,E.T.,2002.Greeninfrastructure: smart conservationforthe21stcentury.Renewable Resources Journal(AutumnEdition),12–17. Berkowitz, A.R.,Nilon,C.H.,Hollweg,K.S.(Eds.),2003. Understanding UrbanEcosystems:ANewFrontierfor Science andEducation.Springer,NewYork. Bixler, R.D.,Floyd,M.F.,1997.Natureisscary,disgusting and uncomfortable.EnvironmentandBehaviour29, 443–467. Breuste, J.,Feldmann,H.,Uhlmann,O.(Eds.),1998.Urban Ecology. Springer,Berlin. Britt, C.,Johnston,M.,2008.TreesintownsII:anewsurvey of urbantreesinEnglandandtheirconditionand management. DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocal Government, London. Carmona, M.,DeMagalhaes,C.,Blum,R.,notdated.Isthe grass greener?Learningfrominternationalinnovationsin urban greenspacemanagement.CommissionforArchitec- ture andtheBuiltEnvironment–Space,London. Curtis, I.A.,2004.Valuingecosystemgoodsandservices:a new approachusingasurrogatemarketandthecombina- tion ofamultiplecriteriaanalysisandaDelphipanelto assign weightstotheattributes.EcologicalEconomics50 (3–4), 163–194. de Groot,R.S.,Wilson,M.A.,Boumans,R.M.J.,2002.A typology fortheclassification,descriptionandevaluation of ecosystemfunctions,goodsandservices.Ecological Economics 41,393–408. de Vries,S.,Verheij,R.A.,Groenewegen,P.P.,Spreeuwen- berg, P.,2003.Naturalenvironments–healthyenviron- ments? EnvironmentalPlanning35,1717–1731. Department ofHealth,2004.Atleastfiveaweek:evidenceon the impactofphysicalactivityanditsrelationshiptohealth. A reportfromtheChiefMedicalOfficer.Departmentof Health, London. Donald,B.,2001.Economiccompetitivenessandqualityoflifein city regions:areviewoftheliterature.RetrievedDecember8, 2007, from: /http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=enlr=q= cache:af-cx2jkkKgJ:geog.queensu.ca/WilliamsResearch.pdf+ Green+Space+and+City+CompetitivenessS. Gill, S.,Handley,J.,Ennos,R.,Pauleit,S.,2007.Adapting cities forclimatechange:theroleofthegreeninfrastruc- ture. JournaloftheBuiltEnvironment33(1),115–133. Hartig, T.,Staats,H.,2006.Theneedforpsychological restoration asadeterminantofenvironmentalpreferences. Journal ofEnvironmentalPsychology26,215–226. Hartig, T.,Evans,G.W.,Jamner,L.D.,Davis,D.S.,Ga¨rling, T., 2003.Trackingrestorationinnaturalandurbanfield settings. JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology23,109–123. Henwood, K.,2003.Environmentandhealth:istherearole for environmentalandcountrysideagenciesinpromoting benefits tohealth.Issuesinhealthdevelopment.NHS, Health DevelopmentAgency. Jim, C.Y.,Chen,S.S.,2003.Comprehensivegreenspace planning basedonlandscapeecologyprinciplesincompact Nanjing city,China.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning65, 95–116. Jo, H.K.,McPherson,E.G.,2001.Indirectcarbonreduction by residentialvegetationandplantingstrategiesinChicago, USA. JournalofEnvironmentalManagement61,165–177. Johnston, M.,Shimada,L.,2003.Urbanforestryinamulti- cultural society.JournalofArboriculture30(3),185–192. Jorgensen, A.,Hitchmough,J.,Dunnett,N.,2007.Woodland as asettingforhousing-appreciationandfearandthe contribution toresidentialsatisfactionandplaceidentityin Warrington NewTown,UK.LandscapeandUrban Planning 79,273–287. Kaplan, R.,Kaplan,S.,1989.TheExperienceofNature:A Psychological Perspective.CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge. Kasanko, M.,Barredo,J.I.,Lavalle,C.,Mccormick,N., Demicheli, L.,Sagris,V.,Brezger,A.,2006.AreEuropean cities becomingdispersed?Acomparativeanalysisof15 European urbanareas.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning77, 111–130. Kazmierczak, A.E.,James,P.,2008.Planningforbiodiversity conservation inlargerurbanareas:theecologicalframework for GreaterManchester.In:Breuste,J.(Ed.),Ecological PerspectivesofUrbanGreenandOpenSpacesSalzburger Geographische ArbeitenBand,vol.42,pp.129–150. Konijnendijk, C.C.,2000.Adaptingforestrytourban demands: theroleofcommunicationinurbanforestryin Europe. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning52,89–100. Konijnendijk, C.C.,2003.Adecadeofurbanforestryin Europe. ForestPolicyandEconomics5,173–186. Korpela, K.,Yle´n, M.,2007.Perceivedhealthisassociated with visitingnaturalfavoriteplacesinthevicinity.Health Place 13,138–151. ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7573
  10. 10. Korpela, K.M.,Hartig,T.,Kaiser,F.,Fuhrer,U.,2001. Restorative experienceandself-regulationinfavourite places. EnvironmentandBehaviour33,572–589. Ku¨hn, M.,2003.Greenbeltandgreenheart:separatingand integrating landscapesinEuropeancityregions.Landscape and UrbanPlanning64,19–27. Kuo, F.E.,Bacaicoa,M.,Sullivan,W.C.,1998.Transforming inner citylandscapes:trees,senseofplaceandpreference. Environment andBehaviour42,462–483. Kuo, F.E.,Sullivan,W.C.,2001.EnvironmentandCrimein the innercity:doesvegetationreducecrime?Environment and Behaviour33(3),343–367. Lambert, D.,2007.Assetsandliabilities:what’sthepark worth? GreenPlaces35,26–27. Li, F.,Wang,R.,Paulussen,J.,Liu,X.,2005.Comprehensive concept planningofurbangreeningbasedonecological principles: acasestudyinBeijing,China.Landscapeand Urban Planning72(4),325–336. Luttik, J.,2000.Thevalueoftrees,waterandopenspaceas reflected byhousepricesintheNetherlands.Landscapeand Urban Planning48,161–167. McPherson, E.G.,1998.Atmosphericcarbondioxidereduc- tion bySacramento’surbanforest.JournalofArboricul- ture 24(4),215–223. McPherson, E.G.,1994.Energy-savingpotentialoftreesin Chicago. In:McPherson,E.G.,Nowak,D.L.,Rowntree, R.A. (Eds.),Chicago’sUrbanForestEcosystem:Resultsof the ChicagoUrbanForestClimateProject.USDAForest Service GeneralTechnicalReportNE-186.Radnor,Penn- sylvania, pp.95–114. Maas, J.,Verheij,R.A.,Groenewegen,P.P.,deVries,S., Spreeuwenberg, P.,2006.Greenspace,urbanity,and health: howstrongistherelation?JournalofEpidemiology CommunityHealth60,587–592. Mace, A.,Hall,P.,Gallent,N.,2007.NewEastManchester: urban renaissanceorurbanopportunism?EuropeanPlan- ning Studies15(1),51–65. Maruani, T.,Amit-Cohen,I.,2007.Openspaceplanning models: areviewofapproachesandmethods.Landscape and UrbanPlanning81,1–13. Marzluff, J.M.,Bowman,R.,Donelly,R.(Eds.),2001.Avian Ecology andConservationinanUrbanizingWorld. Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Norwell. Medsker,L.,Tan,M.,Turban,E.,1995.Knowledgeacquisition frommultipleexperts:problems andissuesexpertsystems with applications.InformationandManagement9(1),35–40. Millennium EcosystemAssessment,2005.Ecosystemsand Human Well-Being:AFrameworkforAssessment.Island Press, NewYork. Ndour, B.,Force,J.E.,McLaughlin,W.J.,1992.Usingthe Delphi methodfordeterminingcriteriainagroforestry research planningindevelopingcountries.Agroforestry Systems 19(2),119–129. Neilan, C.,2008.CAVAT:CapitalAssetValueforAmenity Trees. Revisededition.LondonTreeOfficersAssociation. Newton, J.,2007.Well-beingandthenaturalenvironment:a brief overviewoftheevidence.RetrievedDecember10, 2007from: /http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/ documents/Well-beingAndTheNaturalEnvironmentReport. docS. Niemela¨, J.,1999.Ecologyandurbanplanning.Biodiversity and Conservation8,119–131. Nowak, D.J.,1994.Atmosphericcarbondioxidereductionby Chicago’s urbanforest.In:McPherson,E.G.,Nowak,D.J., Rowntree, R.A.(Eds.),Chicago’sUrbanForestEcosystem: Results oftheChicagoUrbanForestClimateProject. USDA ForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportNE-186. Radnor, Pennsylvania,pp.83–94. Okoli, C.,Pawlowski,S.D.,2004.TheDelphimethod as aresearchtool:anexample,design,considerations and applications.InformationandManagement42(1), 15–29. Opdam, P.,Steingrover,E.,vanRooij,S.,2006.Ecological networks: aspatialconceptformulti-actorplanningof sustainable landscapes.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75, 322–332. Patz, J.A.,Norris,D.E.,2004.Landusechangeandhuman health. EcosystemsandLandUseChange153,159–167. Pauleit, S.,Duhme,F.,2000.Assessingtheenvironmental performance oflandcovertypesforurbanplanning. Landscape andUrbanPlanning52,1–20. Pretty, J.,Peacock,J.,Hine,R.,2006.Greenexercise:the benefits ofactivitiesingreenplaces.TheBiologist53, 143–148. Regan, C.L.,Horn,S.A.,2005.Tonatureornottonature: associations betweenenvironmentalpreferences,mood states anddemographicfactors.JournalofEnvironmental Psychology 25,57–66. Sandstro¨m, U.G.,Angelstam,P.,Khakee,A.,2006.Urban comprehensive planning:identifyingbarriersforthemain- tenance offunctionalhabitatnetworks.Landscapeand Urban Planning75,43–57. Sandstro¨m, U.G.,2002.Greeninfrastructureplanningin urban Sweden.PlanningPracticeandResearch17(4), 373–385. Staats, H.,Hartig,T.,2004.Aloneorwithafriend:asocial context forpsychologicalrestorationandenvironmental preferences. JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology24, 199–211. Stamps III,A.E.,2004.Mystery,complexity,legibilityand coherence: ameta-analysis.JournalofEnvironmental Psychology 24,1–16. Swanwick, C.,Dunnett,N.,Woolley,H.,2003.Nature,role and valueofgreenspacesintownsandcities:anoverview. Built Environment29(2),94–106. Takano, T.,Nakamura,K.,Watanabe,M.,2002.Urban residential environmentsandseniorcitizens’longevityin mega-city areas:theimportanceofwalkablegreenspace. Journal ofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth56(12), 913–916. Thompson, I.H.,2004.Ecology,CommunityandDelight: Sources ofValuesinLandscapeArchitecture.Taylor Francis, London. Tratalos, J.,Fuller,R.A.,Warren,P.H.,Davies,R.G., Gaston, K.J.,2007.Urbanform,biodiversitypotential and ecosystemservices.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning83 (4), 308–317. Turner, K.,Lefler,L.,Freedman,B.,2005.Plantcommunities of selectedurbanisedareasofHalifax,NovaScotia, Canada. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning71,191–206. ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 74
  11. 11. Tyrva¨inen, L.,2001.Economicvaluationofurbanforest benefits inFinland.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement 62, 75–92. Tzoulas, K.,Korpela,K.,Venn,S.,Yli-Pelkonen,V., Kazmierczak, A.,Niemela¨, J.,James,P.,2007.Promoting ecosystem andhumanhealthinurbanareasusingGreen infrastructure: aliteraturereview.LandscapeandUrban Planning 81,167–178. Tzoulas, K.,2006.Localculture:afundamentalfactorin biodiversity’s contributiontohumanhealthandwell- being. Ph.D.Thesis.TheUniversityofSalford,Greater Manchester. Ulrich, R.S.,Simons,R.F.,Losito,B.D.,Fiorito,E., Miles, M.A.,Zelson,M.,1991.Stressrecoveryduring exposure tonaturalandurbanenvironments.Journalof Environmental Psychology11,201–230. Ulrich, R.S.,1984.Viewthroughawindowmayinfluence recovery fromsurgery.Science224,420–421. UNEP, 2007.GlobalEnvironmentOutlook.UnitedNations Environment Programme,Nairobi. van denBerg,A.E.,Hartig,T.,Staats,H.,2007.Preferencefor nature inurbanizedsocieties:stress,restoration,andthe pursuit ofsustainability.JournalofSocialIssues63(1), 79–96. Walmsley, A.,2006.Greenways:multiplyinganddiversifying in the21stcentury.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning76, 252–290. Ward Thompson,C.,1996.Updatingolmsted.Landscape Design 254,23–33. Werquin, A.C.,Duhem,B.,Lindholm,G.,Oppermann,B., Pauleit, S.,Tjallingii,S.(Eds.),2005.GreenStructureand Urban Planning.FinalReport,COSTActionC11, European Commission,Brussels. Whitford, V.,Ennos,A.R.,Handley,J.F.,2001.Cityformand natural processes:indicatorsfortheecologicalperformance of urbanareasandtheirapplicationtoMerseyside,UK. Landscape andUrbanPlanning20(2),91–103. Wilson, E.O.,1993.Biophiliaandtheconservationethic.In: Kellert, R.,Wilson,E.O.(Eds.),TheBiophiliaHypothesis. Island Press,Washington,DC. Wood, R.,Handley,J.,2001.Landscapedynamicsandthe management ofchange.LandscapeResearch26,45–54. Yli-Pelkonen, V.,Niemela¨, J.,2005.Linkingecologicaland social systemsincities:urbanplanninginFinlandasacase. Biodiversity andConservation14,1947–1967. Zielinski-Gutierrez, E.C.,Hayden,M.H.,2006.Amodelfor defining WestNilevirusriskperceptionbasedonecology and proximity.EcoHealth3,28–34. ARTICLEINPRESS P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7575

×