D3.1 Typology of Urban Green Spaces 1

A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES
Report: D3.1:
Work package 3:
Partners involved:
Researchers:
Description:
AND DEMANDS
Functional linkages
UL, UBER, TUM, SRC, FCRA, UH, FFCUL
C. Braquinho, R. Cveji, 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, . eleznikar
The report outlines the different types of urban green spaces, ESS provisioning and demand for green space as a part of the EU FP7 (ENV.2013.6.2-5603567) GREEN SURGE project (2013-2017)
Primary authors: Rozalija Cveji, Klemen Eler, Marina Pintar, pela eleznikar
(UL, Slovenia), Dagmar Haase, Nadja Kabisch, Michael Strohbach (UBER,
Germany)
V10 May 13th2015
LIST OF CONTRIBUTING PARTICIPANTS TO WP3
No. Legal name (short name) and
working months
Country
Organisation type
Kobenhavns Universitet (UCPH)
Denmark
Research Organisation
Helsingin Yliopisto (UH)
Finland
Humboldt Universitt zu Berlin (UBER)
35
Germany
Technische Universitt Mnchen (TUM)
Germany
Wageningen University (WU)
Netherlands
Stockholms Universitet (SRC)
Sweden
Forestry Commission Research Agency (FCRA)
10
United Kingdom
Public Body
ICLEI European Secretariat (ICLEI Europe)
Germany
SME
10
Universit degli Studi di Bari 'Aldo Moro' (UNIBA) 1
Italy
13
Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU)
Sweden
14
Fundao da Faculdade de Cincias

Da Universidade de Lisboa (FFCUL)
18
Portugal
Non-profit
15
Univerza v Ljubljana (UL)
44
Slovenia
16
Technische Universitt Berlin (TUB)
Germany
24
Eco-Metrica (ECO)
United Kingdom
SME
A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES AND DEMANDS WP3 Page 2
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
General introduction to the deliverable D3.1

Introduction to the urban green spaces inventory
Introduction to ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space
Introduction into the demand for urban green space
8
9
10
13
METHODOLOGY
14
2.1
2.2
Urban green space elements inventory

Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European
Urban Atlas cities and Urban Learning Labs
2.2.1 European scale
2.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale
14
RESULTS
18
3.1
Inventory of urban green space elements

3.1.1 Urban green space elements
3.1.2 Empirical evidence for functional links between urban green space elements
and ecosystem services
3.1.3 Assessments of selected urban green space elements for European and
Urban Learning Lab cities
Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, European
Urban Atlas cities and Urban Learning Labs
18
18
DISCUSSION
57
4.1
4.2
4.3

Ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space
Assessment of urban green space demand for the two scale levels, Urban Learning
Lab and European Urban Atlas cities
57
57
REFERENCES
60
SUPPLEMENT
66
3.2
15
15
17
29
46
49
49
52
58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Green walls in the city of Augsburg, Germany. (Photo: M. Strohbach)
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)
Figure 3: Method for accessibility calculation in ARC GIS
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 Malm.
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 Malm.
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 Malm.
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.
Calculation 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: Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin).
Figure 11: Share of population with access to UGS (2 ha) within 500 m in administrative
city boundaries. Note: Calculation based on GEOSTAT 1 km grid and Urban Atlas land
cover data.
Figure 12: Land use/cover as share of total area based on Urban Atlas 20006 (EEA,
2010).
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 1km grid and
Urban Atlas land cover data. No street or public transport net was included in the
analysis.
Figure 14: Per capita green space (m/inh.) and population density at district level for
the ULL cities Berlin and Ljubljana.
12
16
46
46
47
47
48
48
49
52
54
55
56
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at European scale.
Table 2: Data used for calculation of demand for UGS at ULL scale
Table 3: The elements of the UGS inventory with a description and photos of examples.
The full inventory is stored in an excel spreadsheet.
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.
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.
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.
Table 7: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and cultural services.
Table 8: Land use/land cover area and per capita values for European urban regions
Table 9: Area of land cover/land use in the ULL case study cities.
17
17
18
31
34
38
42
51
53
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ESS
ULL
UGS
GI
DOW
UGI
WP
PPP
EU
ecosystem service
Urban Learning Lab/ Urban Learning Labs
urban green space/ urban green spaces
green infrastructure
description of work
urban green infrastructure
work package
public private partnership
European Union
Figure 1: Green walls in the city of Augsburg, Germany. (Photo: M. Strohbach)
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). According to the DOW of GREEN SURGE, [] urban GI is a planning approach aimed at creating networks 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 wasnt 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 improving the environmental quality of the city; and (5) bring natural solutions to technical problems
(e.g., sewage treatment) in cities (Sandstrm 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 urban 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 Europe, 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 between UGS and respective types of green infrastructure and the ecosystem services (ESS) provided by them on one hand, and their impacts on biodiversity, human health and well-being, social 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 panEuropean dataset of the Urban Atlas we show which UGS elements can be identified and quantified 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 allotment 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 diversity, 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, community gardens and urban farms; outdoor sport facilities; amenity green spaces; provision for children 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 Byrne, 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, environmental 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, constructed 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 inventories. 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 supporting 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 outputs from ecosystems. They include:
Raw materials: Ecosystems provide a diversity of materials for fuel and construction (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 medicines 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 greenhouse gases, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, improve the capacity 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,...), ecosystems 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 psychological and cognitive benefits) people obtain from contact with the environment.
Recreation, physical and mental health (for example walking or playing sports in green areas)
Tourism
Aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art and design
Spiritual experience and sense of place: different sacred places or places 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 worlds ecosystems are degraded 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 wellbeing 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 facilitating transformations needed to address these challenges. Understanding how urban ecosystems work, how they change, and what limits their performance can add to the general understanding 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 landscapes to build adaptive capacity and cope with problems such as increased risks of heat waves
and flooding.
Although urban socialecological system analyses have been found to be promising for enhancing 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 present. For example, urban ecosystems were vastly underrepresented in the worlds largest assessment 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 discussion 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 services 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 environment, 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; Vlker 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 provide the primary contact with local flora and fauna and the natural environment for urban residents and thus increase environmental learning (Krasny et al., 2013).
Because of the many benefits green spaces provide, their availability and accessibility to residents 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
Dragievi (2005) used multiple methods involving semi-structured interviews and a collaborative 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 m urban
green per person (Senatsverwaltung fr Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt, 2013), while Leipzig,
Germany, aims at 10 m 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). Berlins Department of Urban Development 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) recommend green space of 1.0 10 ha for every resident within 500 m.
METHODOLOGY
2.1
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 current 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 elements. 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, cooperations, 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 (Urban Atlas) and habitat types (EUNIS);
urban ecosystem services based on the TEEB for city categories (TEEB 2011). The columns contain empirical evidence from the literature for functional links between the UGS
elements and ESS.
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); Niemel et al. (2010); Pfoser (2012); Rupprecht et al. (2014); Sadler et al.
(2010); Sandstrm et al. (2002); Swanwick et al. (2003); Tzoulas et al. (2007); Van Herzele and
Wiedemann (2003); Van Leeuwen et al. (2010); Vlker and Kistemann (2013); Wooley (2003)
We include the corresponding Urban Atlas and Corine land cover classes, because these two publicly available land use/cover data sets are used for UGS and related ESS analysis and quantification 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
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 inhabitants. 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 important 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/dataand-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 km 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 GeoStatistics (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
Administrative city boundaries
Temporal scale
2004
Source
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 1111124)
2006
Urban Atlas 2006 (EEA, 2010)
Data for calculating the demand of the case study cities reflect land use/cover data and demographic 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 include population number for specific years. District data is available for the ULLs Berlin (Germany) and Ljubljana (Slovenia). Although not being a case study city, we also included the Polish
city of d 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 statistical agencies
Demographic data (population number)
2013
Local communal statistical agencies
Land cover/use data (class 141 and class

forest areas class 30)
2006
Urban Atlas 2006

(EEA, 2010)
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 terraces, planted mostly in

pots.
02 ground based green wall
Ground based climbing

plants intended for ornamental (and sometimes
food production) purposes.
03 facade-bound green wall
Plants growing in facadebound substrate, e.g. containers or textile-systems.
No. UGS element
Description
04 extensive green roof
Roof vegetation on thin

substrate with little or no
irrigation and management.
Vegetation established either artificially by seeding or
planting or naturally: mosses, 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, grasses, small tress, rooftop
farming.
06 atrium
Green area surrounded /

enclosed in a building
planted mostly with ornamental plants.
07 bioswale
Vegetated and gently

sloped pit for filtering surface runoff.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
08 tree alley and street tree,

hedge
Trees planted along roads

and paths either solitary or
in rows. Hedges along roads
or paths.
street green and green

verge
Non-tree, mostly shrubby or

grassy verges along roads or
other built or natural element
10 house garden
Areas in immediate vicinity

of private houses cultivated
mainly for ornamental purposes and/or noncommercial food production.
11 railroad bank
Green space along railroads.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
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 recreational use by urban population, 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 management due to heritage status.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
16 pocket park
Small park-like areas around

and between buildings vegetated by ornamental trees
and grass, publicly accessible.
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.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
20 institutional green space
Green spaces surrounding

public and private institutions and corporation buildings.
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 tolerant to frequent trampling
for sport activities (e.g.,
golf courses, football
fields).
23 camping area
Green areas reserved for

camping.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
24 allotment
Small garden parcels cultivated by different people,

intended for noncommercial 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.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
28 tree meadow/ meadow

orchard
Fruit and nut trees, mixed

agricultural and fruit or
biofuel production.
29 biofuel production / agroforestry
Land devoted to dedicated

biofuels like short rotation
coppice.
30 horticulture
Land devoted to growing

vegetables, flowers, berries,
etc.
Example
31 forest (remnant woodland, Natural or planted areas of

managed forest, mixed
dense tree vegetation.
forms)
No. UGS element
Description
32 shrubland
Natural or secondary shrubland, e.g., heath, macchia,

etc.
33 abandoned, ruderal and

derelict area
Recently abandoned areas,

construction sites, etc. With
spontaneously occurring
pioneer or ruderal vegetation.
34 rocks
Areas covered by sparsely

vegetated rocky areas.
35 sand dunes
Areas covered by sparsely

vegetated sandy areas,
shaped by wind or water.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
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 characteristic flora and fauna.
38 lake, pond
Natural and artificial standing water bodies containing

non-saline water with
(semi)natural aquatic communities, banks artificial/managed or natural.
39 river, stream
Running waters, including

springs, streams and temporary water courses,
riverbanks artificial/ managed 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 often used for recreation.
Example
No. UGS element
Description
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) between the sea and the land

of different characteristics,
e.g. sand beaches, cliffs,
coastal dunes.
Example
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 detail, 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 semiquantitative, 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 references 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.
building greens
Category No. Green space element
balcony green
ground based green wall
facade-bound green wall
extensive green roof

intensive green roof
private, commercial, industrial, institutional

UGS and UGS connected to grey infrastructure
Food
Raw materials
Fresh water
Rooftop gardens could grow a large

share of Bolognas vegetables (Orsini
et al., 2014).
atrium
bioswale
tree alley and street tree,

hedge

verge
house garden
10
11
railroad bank
12
green playground, school

ground
Residential gardens make up the biggest part of Chicagos urban agriculture sites (Taylor and Lovell, 2012).
allotments and community gardens
parks and recreation
riverbank
green
Food
Raw materials
Fresh water
riverbank green
13
14
large urban park
15
historical park/garden
16
pocket park
17
botanical garden/arboreta
18
zoological garden
19
neighbourhood green
space
20
institutional green space
21
cemetery and churchyard
22
green sport facility
23
camping area
allotment
24
community garden
25
During WW II, neighbourhood green

was changed into tenant gardens
(Zerbe et al., 2003).
Large quantities of vegetables can be

grown in allotment and community
gardens. In Chicago, community gardens make up 20% of the urban agriculture area (TEEB, 2011; Taylor and
Lovell, 2012).
agricultural land
26
arable land
27
grassland
28
tree meadow / orchard
29
biofuel production / agroforestry
Raw materials
horticulture
Urban farms used for growth of vegetables make up 4.7% of Chicagos

urban agriculture area (Taylor and
Lovell, 2012).
31
forest (remnant woodland, managed forests,

mixed forms)
Forests provide food in urban areas

(Niemel et al., 2010; Yokohari and
Bolthouse, 2011).
Forests provide raw materials in urban areas (Niemel et al., 2010;

Yokohari and Bolthouse, 2011).
32
shrubland
Land conversion on brownfields offers great potential for food production, except for on polluted sites. In
Chicago, gardens on vacant lots
make up 27% of Chicagos urban agriculture area (Taylor and Lovell,
2012; Haase et al., 2014).
Marginal land can be sustainably

used for biofuel production under
certain conditions, e.g., low contamination (Zhao et al., 2014).
30
natural, semi-natural and feral areas
Food
abandoned, ruderal and

derelict area
33
34
rocks
35
sand dunes
36
sand pit, quarry, open cast
Fresh water
Food
Raw materials
Fresh water
blue spaces
mine
37
wetland, bog, fen, marsh
38
lake, pond
39
river, stream
40
dry riverbed, rambla
41
canal
42
estuary
43
delta
44
sea coast
Fresh water and sea ecosystems provide food in urban areas (Niemel et
al., 2010).
Fresh water and sea ecosystems provide food in urban areas (Niemel et
al., 2010).
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.
building greens
balcony green
Local climate and air quality
Carbon sequestration and stor- Moderation of extreme
regulation
age
Enhance air quality, reduce

urban heat island effect,
reduce heating and cooling
costs (Bohemen et al.,
2008; Cook-Patton and
events
Green roofs have great

potential to reduce storm
Waste-water treatment
Green roofs can take up

pollution form rainwater
regulation
age
Bauerle, 2010; Sternberg

et al. 2010 and 2011;
Wong et al. 2010).
private, commercial, industrial, institutional UGS and UGS connected to grey infrastructure
bioswale
water runoff in low rainfall

events (Mentens et al.,
2006; Cook-Patton and
Bauerle, 2010).
(Cook-Patton and Bauerle,

2010).
Bioswales reduce the

amount of stormwater
runoff (Pataki et al., 2011).
Bioswales reduce the pollution load of stormwater

runoff (Pataki et al., 2011).
atrium
events

hedge
Provide cooling, wind control and air pollution removal (Tyrvinen et al.,
2005).
Street trees can store carbon under certain conditions (Novak, 2002).
Gardens improve localised

air cooling (Cameron et al.,
2012).
Private gardens store low

amounts of carbon in trees
in Leicester, UK, and Leipzig, Germany (Davies et al.,
2011, Strohbach and
Haase, 2012).

verge
house garden
10
11
railroad bank
12

ground
Gardens help mitigate

flooding (Cameron et al.,
2012).
riverbank
green
regulation
age
events
riverbank green
13
large urban park

14
15
16
pocket park
17
18
zoological garden
19
neighbourhood green
space
20
21
22
23
camping area
The Cascine Park in Florence, Italy, was shown to

have retained its capacity to
remove pollutant (TEEB,
2011).
allotments
and
community gardens
allotment
24
regulation
age
events
community garden
agricultural land
25
26
arable land
27
grassland
28
29
30
horticulture
31

mixed forms)
32
shrubland
33

derelict area
34
rocks
35
sand dunes
36

mine
37
Forests provide cooling,

wind control and air pollution removal (Tyrvinen et
al., 2005).
Forests in cities can store

large amounts of carbon
(Strohbach and Haase,
2012).
Wetlands in Berlin are

used for carbon mitigation
Upstream wetlands reduce

flooding after heavy rain-
Functioning urban wetlands contribute strongly
regulation
age
blue spaces
(Klingenfu, 2013).
38
lake, pond
39
river, stream
40
41
canal
42
estuary
43
delta
44
sea coast
events
fall events (TEEB, 2011).
to waste water treatment

(Cairns and Palmer, 1995;
Niemel et al., 2010; TEEB,
2011).
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.
building greens
1
2
balcony green
Balconies provide habitat for wild bees in Leipzig, Germany (Everaars et al., 2011).
Green walls enhanced the habitat of house sparrows and European starlings in Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-underLyme, UK, (Chiquet et al., 2012).
Diverse roofs can support diverse communities (Cook-Patton and Bauerle, 2010; Fernandez-Canero and Gonzales-
atrium
private, commercial, industrial, institutional UGS and UGS connected to grey

infrastructure
Redondo, 2010).
bioswale

hedge
Streetscapes with old trees supported a higher abundance and richness of bird species than other streets in Melbourne, Australia (White et al., 2005).

verge
Diverse streetscapes with native vegetation enhance abundance and richness of species (Leather, 2004; White et al.,
2005; Lososov et al. 2011).
house garden
Diverse gardens enhance abundance and richness of species (Smith et al., 2006; Goddard et al., 2010; Lososov et al.,
2011; Cameron et al., 2012).
riverbank
green
riverbank green
10
11
railroad bank
12

ground
13
14
large urban park
15
16
pocket park
17
18
zoological garden
19
neighbourhood green
Large parks have an outstanding value for urban biodiversity (Donnelly and Marzluff, 2004; Lososov et al. 2011;
Strohbach et al., 2013).
Pockets parks slightly increase number of observed bird species (Strohbach et al., 2013).
20
21
22
23
camping area
allotment
Tenant gardens showed relatively high plant species richness in a study in Berlin, Germany (Zerbe et al., 2003).
24
community garden
25
26
arable land
27
grassland
28
29
30
horticulture
In a study in Leipzig Germany, high bird species richness was associated with grassland (Strohbach et al., 2009).
Urban forests are biodiversity hot-spots (Tyrvinen et al., 2005; Strohbach et al., 2009).
31

mixed forms)
32
shrubland
Mid successional sites with grassland and shrub vegetation host diverse assemblages (Lososov et al., 2011).
33
natural, seminatural and feral

areas
agricultural land
space
derelict area
34
rocks
35
sand dunes
36

mine
37
38
lake, pond
In a study in Leipzig Germany, high bird species richness was associated with lakes and ponds (Strohbach et al., 2009).
river, stream
In a study in Leipzig Germany, high bird species richness was associated with rivers and streams (Strohbach et al.,
2009).
blue spaces
39
40
41
canal
42
estuary
43
delta
44
sea coast
Table 7: Empirical evidence for the connection between UGS and cultural services.
private, commercial, industrial, institutional UGS

and UGS connected to grey infrastructure
building greens
Category No.
Green space element
balcony green

5
6
atrium
bioswale
tree alley and street

tree, hedge

verge
house garden
10
11
railroad bank
12
green playground,
school ground
Recreation and mental and

physical health
Aesthetic appreciation and

Tourism
inspiration for culture, art and

design
Green roofs can enhance

overall human well-being
2010).
Green roofs can enhance

the aesthetic environment
2010).
Gardens can provide stress

relief (Cameron et al.,
2012).
Gardens are shaped by

aesthetic desires (Cameron
et al., 2012).
Spiritual experience and sense

of place
Positive memories of
childhood are often linked
to gardens and provide
strong sense of place
(Cameron et al., 2012).
riverbank
green
Category No.
Green space element

Tourism

design
Structurally rich riverbanks

are associated with psychological well-being (Dallimer et al., 2012).
large urban park
Parks contribute to the

physical and psychological
well-being (Fuller et al.,
2007; Niemel et al.,
2010).
14

of place
pocket park
physical health
riverbank green
13
15
16
17
18
zoological garden
19
neighbourhood green
space
20
21
22
Small public are used primarily for rest and restitution and socialising (Peschard et al., 2012).
agricultural land
Category No.
Green space element
23
camping area
24
allotment
community garden
25
26
arable land
27
grassland
28
29
30
horticulture
mixed forms)
31
32
shrubland
33

derelict area

physical health

Tourism

design
of place
Gardening in community
gardens and allotments
enhance social capital
(Yokohari and Bolthouse,
2011; Cameron et al.,
2012).
Gardening in community
gardens is associated with
health benefits (Yokohari
and Bolthouse, 2011;
Cameron et al., 2012).
Urban forests provide recreational opportunities,

and have a positive impact
on psychological wellbeing (Tyrvinen et al.,
2005; Niemel et al.,
2010).
Urban forests are important for tourism

(Tyrvinen et al., 2005).
Urban forests can improve

home and work environments and may have a
strong cultural and historical value (Tyrvinen et al.,
2005).
Category No.
Green space element
34
rocks
35
sand dunes
36
sand pit, quarry, open

cast mine
37
38
lake, pond
river, stream
blue spaces
39
40
41
canal
42
estuary
43
delta
44
sea coast

physical health

Tourism

design

of place
Recreational opportunities
are provided especially by
water ecosystems (Niemel et al., 2010).
Recreational opportunities
are provided especially by
water ecosystems (Niemel et al., 2010).
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 agricultural, 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
Malm.
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 Malm.
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 Malm.
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. Calculation 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: Senatsverwaltung fr 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
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 according 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
Western
Europe
Southern
Europe
Eastern
Europe
Northern
Europe
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
27.25
10.97
13.71
32.95
233.97
137.39
157.52
1277.95
32.52
28.01
27.05
229.18
Indicator
Total area (ha)
Per capita green space

(m per inh.)
Per capita green +forest
(m per inh.)
per capita water area
(m per inh.)
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 considerable 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 km grid and Urban Atlas land cover data.
The ULL cities in GREEN SURGE are Berlin, Malm, Ljubljana, Edinburgh, and Bari. In this Milestone, we additionally studied d 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 population number with more than 3.5 million inhabitants. Per capita green space (including forest and
urban green) is high with more than 60 m per inhabitant.
Malm 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 m 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. Ljubljanas population was
280,600 in 2013. Per capita green space is comparatively low with around 9 m per inhabitant
while it is very high when also forest areas are considered (422.30 m/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 m 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 inhabitants 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 m per inhabitants and even
higher is the value when forest areas are considered as well.
Finally, the city of d 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 m 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.
Berlin
Malm
Ljubljana
Edinburgh
Bari
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
5,727
1,029
248
1,515
182
898
15,578
107
11,602
1,379
3,417
Water area (ha)
5,077
184
273
260
59
Population nr. 2013 (in 1000)
3,502
313
281
483
313
719
per capita green (m/inh)
16.35
32.86
8.85
31.39
5.81
12.50
per capita green + forest (m/inh)
60.84
36.28
422.30
59.97
6.04
60.03
per capita water area (m/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
City
Green space (ha)

Forest (ha)
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 interpretation 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 Malm.
In d, 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 mentioned 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 birds 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 1km 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 m 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 exceptionally high in these areas.
Figure 14: Per capita green space (m/inh.) and population density at district level for the ULL
cities Berlin and Ljubljana.
DISCUSSION
4.1
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 gardens; agricultural land; natural, semi-natural and feral areas; blue infrastructure; private, commercial, 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 elements might be too broad for some purposes, in particular forests2. Here we recommend splitting 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, memorial 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 provide 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 management 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 representative 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. Additionally, 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.
Malm 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 reduces 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 diverse picture of green space provision and access.
d 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 preconditions are different according to location in Europe making comparisons between, for example, 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 Urban 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 cemeteries, 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 gardens) 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 analysis 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.
REFERENCES
Ahern, J. (2007). Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. Pp. 267283. 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 Dragievi, S. (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 71(2-4), 147162. 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 Priorities. 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: 103115
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: 319
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), 147155. 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 & Urban Greening VL - 11:129137.
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 Planning, 68(1), 129138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Stadt Leipzig. (2003). Umweltqualittsziele und -standards fr 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 Urban Planning, 86(1), 103114. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002
Cowling, R.M., Egoh, B., Knight, A.T., OFarrell, 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. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x (20th January 2015)
EEA - European Environment Agency (2010). Urban
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas
Atlas.
Retrieved
from
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), 313. doi:10.1016/S13899341(02)00067-9
Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgstrom, S., Breuste, J., GomezBaggethun, 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. AMBIO, 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 Implementation. 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 International 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 Mller, B. (2004). Handlungsanstze zur
Bercksichtigung der Umwelt-, Aufenthalts und Lebensqualitt im Rahmen der Innenentwicklung von Stdten und Gemeinden Fallstudien. Umweltbundesamt Texte 41. Berlin, Germany.
Kabisch, N., and Haase, D. (2013). Green spaces of European cities revisited for 19902006.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 110, 113122. 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,
129139.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016
Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., and Haase, D. (2015). Humanenvironment interactions in urban green
spaces A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 2534. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007
Kaplan, R. (1985). The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161176.
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 urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 111130.
Keeley, M., Koburger, A., Dolowitz, D. P., Medearis, D., Nickel, D., and Shuster, W. (2013). Perspectives on the Use of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Management in Cleveland and Milwaukee. Environmental Management 51:10931108.
Kowarik, I., Fischer, L. K., Sumel, 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. Endlicher (Ed.), Perspectives in Urban Ecology (pp. 135166). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Krasny, E. M., Lundholm, C., Shava, S., Lee, E., and Kobori, H. (2013). Urban Landscapes as Learning Arenas for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Management. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias,
J. Goodness, B. Gneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization,
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities, A global assessment (pp.
629665). 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), 2859.
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, 179190.
Larondelle, N., Haase, D., and Kabisch, N. (2014). Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem
services in European cities. Global Environmental Change, 26, 119129.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008
Martin, C. A., Warren, P. S., and Kinzig, A. P. (2004). Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded
small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 355368.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.034
McMahon, E. T. (2000). Green Infrastructure. Planning Commissioners Journal:47.
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, Environment and Urban Systems 48: 99-110.
Niemel J., Saarela S. R., Sderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Vre 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: 32253243
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 systematic 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.
Sandstrm 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 fr 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, 20852107.
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), 94106.
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem 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, 167178.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. a., and Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
United Nations Institute of Social Affairs. (2010). Composition of macro geographical (continental) 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), 109126.
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), 2025.
Voigt A., Kabisch N., Wurster D., Haase D., and Breuste J (2014). Structural diversity as a key factor for the provision of recreational services in urban parks a new and straightforward
method for assessment. AMBIO 43(4), 480491.
Vlker, S., and Kistemann, T. (2013). Im always entirely happy when I'm here! Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Dsseldorf, Germany. Social Science &
Medicine (1982), 78, 11324. 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., Jrgens C. (eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: p. 33-45.
Wooley, H. (2003). Urban Open Spaces. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
SUPPLEMENT
Bohemen, H.D., Fraaij, A.L.A., Ottel, 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 Thompson, 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. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(5), 1125-1134.
Donnelly, R., and Marzluff, J. M (2004). Importance of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 733-745.
Everaars, J., Strohbach, M. W., Gruber, B., and Dormann, C. F (2011). Microsite conditions dominate 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 conservation 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, 159169.
Klingenfu, 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 speciesarea relationship. Basic and Applied Ecology, 5(4), 367-377.
Lososov, Z., Horsk, M., Chytr, M., ejka, 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 , 217226,
Niemel, J., Saarela, S., Sderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Vre, 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). Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture: the potential impact 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). Coupling 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, 162168
Sternberg, T., Viles, H., Cathersides, A. 2011. Evaluating the role of ivy (Hedera helix) in moderating 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), 95104.
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: Ecosystem 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.
Tyrvinen, 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
Pittsburghs Sunflower Gardens. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 22-33.

D3.1 Typology of Urban Green Spaces 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

D3.1 Typology of Urban Green Spaces 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A TYPOLOGY OF URBAN GREEN SPACES, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVISIONING SERVICES

LIST OF CONTRIBUTING PARTICIPANTS TO WP3

No. Legal name (short name) and

Kobenhavns Universitet (UCPH)

Helsingin Yliopisto (UH)

Humboldt Universitt zu Berlin (UBER)

Technische Universitt Mnchen (TUM)

Wageningen University (WU)

Stockholms Universitet (SRC)

Forestry Commission Research Agency (FCRA)

ICLEI European Secretariat (ICLEI Europe)

Universit degli Studi di Bari 'Aldo Moro' (UNIBA) 1

Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU)

Fundao da Faculdade de Cincias

Univerza v Ljubljana (UL)

Technische Universitt Berlin (TUB)

General introduction to the deliverable D3.1

Urban green space elements inventory

Inventory of urban green space elements

Urban green space elements inventory

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

General introduction to the deliverable D3.1

Introduction to the urban green spaces inventory

Introduction to ecosystem service provisioning by urban green space

Introduction into the demand for urban green space

Urban green space elements inventory

2.2.1 European scale

Figure 3: Method for accessibility calculation in ARC GIS

Demography GEO STAT Grid

Urban green space (class 141 and class

Urban Atlas 2006 (EEA, 2010)

Urban residential area (classes 1111124)

Urban Atlas 2006 (EEA, 2010)

2.2.2 Urban Learning Lab scale

Administrative city boundaries

GISCO Urban Audit

District borders Berlin, Edinburgh, Ljubljana

Local communal statistical agencies

Demographic data (population number)

Local communal statistical agencies

Land cover/use data (class 141 and class

Urban Atlas 2006

Inventory of urban green space elements

3.1.1 Urban green space elements

Plants in balcony and terraces, planted mostly in

02 ground based green wall

Ground based climbing

03 facade-bound green wall

Plants growing in facadebound substrate, e.g. containers or textile-systems.

No. UGS element

04 extensive green roof

Roof vegetation on thin

05 intensive green roof

Roof vegetation on thick

Green area surrounded /

Vegetated and gently

No. UGS element

08 tree alley and street tree,

Trees planted along roads

street green and green

Non-tree, mostly shrubby or

Areas in immediate vicinity

Green space along railroads.

No. UGS element