Introduction
Special Issue on Green Infrastructure
for Urban Sustainability
Jürgen Breuste, Ph.D.
Professor, Dept. of Geography and Geology, Paris-Lodron-Univ. Salzburg,
5020 Salzburg, Austria. E-mail: juergen.breuste@sbg.ac.at
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Martina Artmann, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral, Dept. of Geography and Geology, Paris-Lodron-Univ.
Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria (corresponding author). E-mail:
Martina.Artmann@sbg.ac.at
Junxiang Li, Ph.D.
Professor, School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, East China
Normal Univ., Shanghai 200241, China.
Miaomiao Xie, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of Land Science and Technology, China Univ.
of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000291
Background
More than 50% of the world population now lives in urban areas,
and the urban population is projected to reach 6.3 billion in 2050,
most of which will reside in less developed countries (United
Nations 2012). Urban green infrastructure as parks, forests, street
trees, green roofs, gardens, and cemeteries is especially in an urban-
ized world of crucial importance as it is the main carrier of ecosys-
tem services and improves the quality of life for urban residents.
For instance, it supports regulating ecosystem services by increas-
ing water infiltration (Haase and Nuissl 2007; Pauleit and Duhme
2000) and has positive impacts on the microclimate regulation (Gill
et al. 2007; Hamada and Ohta 2010). Furthermore, urban green
provides recreational facilities and offers urban residents the pos-
sibility to get in touch with nature (Matsuoka and Kaplan 2008) and
supports the local food supply through allotment gardens (Barthel
et al. 2013).
Green infrastructure as a concept has been developed within the
last two decades. It commonly refers to the connective matrices of
green spaces that can be found in and around urban and urban-
fringe landscapes (Mell 2008) or is simply defined as urban and
periurban green space systems (Tzoulas et al. 2007). Due to its
provision of numerous complementary ecological, economic, and
social benefits, green infrastructure not only enables planners to
develop multifunctional, innovative, and sustainable places (Mell
2008), but also promotes ecosystem and human health and well-
being (Tzoulas et al. 2007) and provides abiotic, biotic, and cul-
tural functions to advance and contribute to urban sustainability
(Ahern 2007).
Urban green infrastructure is closely related to human well-
being and biodiversity in urban areas (Gaston 2010; Richter and
Weiland 2012) and plays an important part in urban ecology.
In recent years, in some published books on urban ecology, urban
green was factored into investigations regarding how cities and
their sociocultural, economic, and environmental systems can
© ASCE A2015001-1
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001
be managed in a way that allows producing sustainable cities
(Alberti 2008; Endlicher 2011; Gaston 2010; Niemelä et al. 2010;
Richter and Weiland 2012). However, urban green mostly plays just
a minor part when talking about atmospheric processes such as ur-
ban heat islands or climate change (Alberti 2008; Endlicher 2011).
The studies on urban green infrastructure also focus on human
perception, educational values of urban wilderness as part of urban
green or social benefits by urban gardening (Richter and Weiland
2012; Endlicher 2011). However, only a few papers have investi-
gated the recreational services in developing countries (Jim and
Chen 2006, 2009). In some regional case studies, for instance,
designers have paid more attention to implementing theoretical
principles and government requirements in urban planning or land-
scape architecture, but lack technical support from ecological and
geographical perspectives (Li et al. 2005; Jim and Chen 2003).
Therefore, it is urgently necessary to improve the research scope
and methods linking function, ecosystem services, planning, and
the design of urban green infrastructure in the pursuit of urban sus-
tainable development (Mao et al. 2012; Chang et al. 2007).
Scope of the Special Issue
The special issue (SI) “Green Infrastructure for Urban Sustainabil-
ity” in the Journal of Urban Planning and Development (JUPD)
aims to bridge the knowledge gap between urbanization and its
quantitative and qualitative impacts on urban green; challenges
and opportunities for urban green infrastructure facing climate
and demographic change; and to showcase best practices of plan-
ning and managing urban green infrastructure. By systematically
integrating new findings on the function, ecosystem services, and
practices of green infrastructure, the SI aims to link the patterns,
functions, and management of urban green infrastructure at differ-
ent scales. The SI contributes to conceptual and scientific method-
ologies of current urban green studies and supports sustainable
urban green planning and sustainable management in practice in an
urbanizing and environment changing background by involving
international case studies. The SI addresses international research
communities, urban ecologists and planners, landscape architects,
biologists, modelers, governance researchers, sociologists as well
as planning practitioners and policy makers dealing with urban and
landscape ecology.
To further develop the discussion on the green infrastructure and
show how this can be an important tool for urban planning and
urban development considering international case studies, this SI
relates to following main aspects of urban green infrastructure:
1. People’s perception and use of urban green infrastructure;
2. Methods to analyze and evaluate urban green infrastructure;
3. Functions and ecosystem services of urban green infrastruc-
ture; and
4. Management of urban green infrastructure and urban soil
sealing.
These research fields are mirrored by 14 papers presented in this
SI and were extensively discussed at the first World Congress of
the Society for Urban Ecology (SURE), which took place from
July 25–27, 2013 in Berlin, Germany. The Congress was organized
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 by the Landscape Ecology working group of Humboldt-University
Berlin hosting 210 participants from 30 countries. This SI is
the output of the SURE congress symposium “Urban Green and
Urban Development—Multifunctional Urban Green Infrastructure:
Theory and Practice” organized by the symposium chairs Jürgen
Breuste, Martina Artmann, and Junxiang Li. Within this sympo-
sium, 21 talks and 18 posters were presented proving the high
research relevance of the topics presented in this SI.
Structure and Contents of the Special Issue
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The 14 papers presented in this special issue relate to four topics
within the field of urban green infrastructure. The SI consists of
technical papers as well as case study cities. The papers deal with
a variety of conceptual and theoretical backgrounds as well as ap-
plied methodological approaches focusing on regional to site scales
of case studies placed in Argentina, Austria, China, Germany,
Poland, South Africa, and the U.S.
Part 1: People’s Perception and Use of Urban Green
Infrastructure
Urbanization can be considered the most drastic form of land trans-
formation, reducing the ecosystem’s capacity for providing ecosys-
tem services and biodiversity (Wu 2010). In particular, the loss of
urban green infrastructure due to urbanization processes threatens
the physical and psychological well-being of urban residents, for
instance, due to intensification of heat stress (Lafortezza et al.
2009), noise pollution (Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström 2007),
and loss of spaces promoting public mental health (Grahn and
Stigsdotter 2010). People’s perception and use of urban green infra-
structure is the fundamental condition to bridge the knowledge gap
between urbanization and its impacts on urban green infrastructure
and its related urban quality of life.
There are two studies in this SI with questionnaires about peo-
ple’s perception and use of urban green infrastructure (Johnson et al.
2014; Breuste and Artmann 2014). Johnson et al. (2014) explored
how residents living along streams of the Matanza-Riachuelo
watershed (Argentina) perceived their present condition and envis-
aged the potential improvement. Their findings showed that resi-
dents’ perceptions were generally determined by what they saw or
smelled. At the same time, locations of their dwellings in the basin,
distances from the watercourse, and also gender were key impact
factors. A surprising finding was the perceived connection between
environmental degradation and certain social issues, e.g., danger
linked to social vulnerability. Most of the interviewees did not
use these areas for recreation, but they have the desire to improve
the recreational function of the streams. The local governments
should take the difference in opinions and attitudes into account
to guarantee conservation and an increase of ecosystem services
through urban planning.
In contrast to the results above, surveys of allotments in
Salzburg, Austria, showed some important services of recreation
and nature experience provided by allotments as one important
part of urban green (Breuste and Artmann 2014). In four allotment
associations, 156 allotment gardeners were interviewed to examine
how urban allotment gardens contribute to ecosystem services.
The survey showed a very intensive use of the allotment gardens
by frequency and duration of stay. Besides recreation and rest, the
main reasons for the use of allotments were the connectedness to
nature and escaping stressful urban life, whereas another main rea-
son for visiting the allotment is gardening. With the increasing
importance in recreation and nature experience, traditional food
production was declining. As for a range of ecosystem services
© ASCE A2015001-2
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001
provided by allotments, urban planners and city management should
be aware of the value of allotment gardens in the urban planning.
Part 2: Methods to Analyze and Evaluate Urban Green
Infrastructure
Many previous studies have demonstrated that urbanization affects
not only the spatial pattern of urban green infrastructure (Zhou et al.
2011, 2014) but also the urban landscape itself (Li et al. 2013;
Wu et al. 2011), which, in turn, influences its ecosystem services
such as mitigating urban heat island (Kong et al. 2014; Li et al.
2011). To analyze and evaluate urban green infrastructure, its spa-
tial patterns and influence on urban sustainability we need appro-
priate approaches.
To better understand the contributions of green infrastructure
to urban sustainable development, this SI selected two papers
investigating the spatial pattern of green infrastructure in urban
area. One focuses on the identification of green infrastructure and
the configuration of diversity in Lodz, Poland (Dlugonski and
Szumanski 2015) by extracting structural elements of green infra-
structure and their functional diversity associated with different
urban zones in the city. The paper presents a reliable way to identify
spatial structure of urban green infrastructure for spatial planning,
particularly in the processes of modeling and decision-making.
The other paper deals with how urban land use influences the dis-
tribution of green space in Shanghai, China (Li et al. 2014). In this
paper, the authors examined the linkage of urban green space dis-
tribution to anthropogenic activities at very fine scales. Through
investigating the compositional and configurational variations of
green space among five dominant land use types, namely, new res-
idential, old residential, villa residential, industrial, and institutional
within the central area of Shanghai, the authors revealed that
green space coverage and configuration varied with land-use types
at the city level, while the variation was consistent with the spatial
changes of human activities. Their results highlight the anthropo-
genic impacts on green space planning and management.
The urban park is an essential component of urban green infra-
structure and serves the mitigation of the urban heat island (UHI)
effect. However, how park size and surrounding landscape pattern
influence its cooling effect remains unclear. Cheng et al. (2014),
using 39 parks in Shanghai, China, revealed a nonlinear relation-
ship between park size and its cooling effect. The parks’ land sur-
face temperature (LST) decreased logarithmically with park size,
the cooling efficiency of large parks is not higher than that of
the small ones, and both the class and landscape level patterns sur-
rounding the parks influence the cooling effect. Their findings are
valuable for landscape and urban planning.
Another paper selected for this SI, although not directly pertain-
ing to urban green infrastructure, analyzes the impacts of urban
form on surface urban heat island (SUHI) (Schwarz and Manceur
2015). In this paper, the authors selected 274 large urban zones in
Europe to explore how urban form, i.e., composition and spatial
configuration of cities, influences urban SUHI. They found that
the urban forms affect SUHI depending upon the ways of quantify-
ing SUHI. Increasing the share of build-up and forest both increase
the SUHI. Therefore, spatial planning aiming to mitigate SUHI
should consider the landscape element, which can actually increase
mean temperatures.
Part 3: Functions and Ecosystem Services of Urban
Green Infrastructure
Ecosystem services describe how humans benefit from ecosystem
functions and processes. The benefit can be economic or related to
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 living quality (e.g., Breuste et al. 2013a; Costanza et al. 1997). With
the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA
2005), the discussion on ecosystem services was further extended
to urban ecosystems. Urban residents benefit at a local scale
(Breuste et al. 2013b, c; McDonald 2009), e.g., from water and
climate regulation, biodiversity, food provision, and aesthetic and
recreational services. The beneficiaries of ecosystem services can
be single persons, groups, or the society as a whole. All kinds of
urban green areas can comprise a green infrastructure contributing
to ecosystem services (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Ergen 2014; Gómez
et al. 2004, 2011; Naumann et al. 2011; Niemelä et al. 2010;
Tzoulas et al. 2007). People can benefit in many ways from more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
urban nature of different types integrated into a targeted developed
urban green infrastructure. Following the classification of ecosys-
tem services by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005)
and Costanza et al. (1997) provisioning services (e.g., habitat ser-
vice: Mathey et al. 2015; Rega et al. 2015), regulating services
(e.g., climatic regulation: Mathey et al. 2015; Henseke and Breuste
2014; Xie et al. 2014), and cultural services (e.g., recreation:
Mathey et al. 2015) were investigated in this SI.
Sustainable urban development faces a series of challenges re-
lated to the mitigation and adaptation to climate change, which are
the subject of the papers of Henseke and Breuste as well as of Xie
et al. The latter analyzed the dynamics of urban green connectivity
in a case study of Shenzhen, China, from 1986 to 2010 and exam-
ined temperature regulation. The results demonstrate the depend-
ency of temperature regulation potential by that pattern of urban
green infrastructure and its changes. It shows that perforation
of urban built-up patterns keep thermal environments stable and
comfortable for people. This is a useful contribution to urban de-
velopment by planning green infrastructure development by green
corridors and embedding densely built-up areas within surrounding
larger green areas.
The number of people who will be affected by increasing tem-
peratures will rise, especially those in the heat sensitive group of
elderly people. Henseke and Breuste investigated climate change
sensitivity in residential areas and their adaption capacities in a case
study in Linz, Austria. To limit negative effects of climate change
on urban residents, urban green infrastructure can play an important
role. Those urban patterns, which are densely built-up and inhab-
ited by sensitive residents, should be identified and managed for
climate adaptation first. The potential to develop the green infra-
structure there was identified and climate adaptive strategies based
on people’s perception were developed. The results show an infor-
mation deficit on local effects of climate change on people as well
as a good knowledge of global effects and still unused opportunities
by local planning bodies.
Brownfields can be valuable elements of urban green infrastruc-
ture by their ecosystem services, showed by Mathey et al. In shrink-
ing cities, reintegrating brownfield into the urban pattern is an
important subject. A paper based on European experiences demon-
strated the high ecosystem service potential for habitat services pre-
venting a loss of biodiversity, for microclimate regulation, adapting
to climate change and for recreation fostering healthy urban envi-
ronments. Various types of brownfields were investigated based
on a literature review. Scenario models and people’s perceptions
to these areas are an important subject for successful integration
of brownfields into urban green infrastructure.
Small urban green spaces, such as neighborhood parks and pri-
vate gardens, have often been underestimated in the ecosystem
services they can provide. The focus of the majority of studies
is on public land, but about two-thirds of urban green infrastructure
in most cities is private. Rega et al. showed the high potential of
small and often private green in cities as habitats and for urban
© ASCE A2015001-3
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001
biodiversity. Distribution and abundance of four common songbird
species in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S., in different land use types
indicates this impressively. Abundance modeling was used to de-
termine which land cover types best predicted the abundance values
of each species. It showed that small public parks and vacant land
are preferred by distinct species and are both important for urban
biodiversity.
Part 4: Management of Urban Green Infrastructure and
Urban Soil Sealing
Ongoing worldwide urbanization is connected with the loss and
degradation of urban and periurban green. These trends put pres-
sure on ecosystems and the quality of life for urban residents.
Therefore, a comprehensive management of urban green infrastruc-
ture under the umbrella of human-social systems is crucial when
aiming for sustainable development (Elmqvist et al. 2013; Pickett
et al. 2011; Tzoulas et al. 2007; Young 2009). In this regard,
the concept of green infrastructure can be regarded as a natural
life-support system targeting to sustain ecosystem functions within
a network of natural and open spaces (Benedict and McMahon
2006, p. 2). Despite the mostly well-investigated positive impacts
provided by urban green infrastructure (see also “Part 3” of this SI),
its protection and integrative management in urban planning is still
challenging. Conflicts between different urban land uses (e.g., be-
tween residential or commercial areas developed on urban forests
or recreational areas) and related land covers shape the degree of
impervious surfaces (Artmann 2014b), a key factor in the reduction
of urban ecosystem services (Larondelle et al. 2014). Human ac-
tivities are the main factor in providing, shaping and efficiently de-
signing urban green infrastructure, and there is a call for the active
management, restoration, and protection of manmade and natural
urban green infrastructure according to the needs of people and
nature (Benedict and McMahon 2006). To achieve such a compre-
hensive planning, it is argued that a range of interdisciplinary actors
from all sides must be addressed for an active management of urban
green, such as land use, green, and landscape planning (Andersson
and Bodin 2008; United Nations Human Settlements Programme
2009) as well as urban residents, communities, and practitioners
such as landscape designers (Artmann 2014a; Ernstson et al. 2008).
The role of landscape designers in promoting a balanced ap-
proach of green infrastructure is also the focus of the paper by
Breed et al. (2014). The authors argue that there is the need to
operationalize social norms and values to improve the conditions
of green infrastructure in South Africa and that landscape designers
need to take responsibility to articulate such values. By reviewing
design projects featured in three prominent profession-focused
magazines in the nine years following 2004, the authors found that
design practitioners value cultural and regulating services as being
more important than provisioning or supporting services. This val-
uation was driven by environmental law, ratings systems, and
award systems. To reorient values and promote a well-balanced in-
clusion of ecosystem services in green infrastructure the authors
suggest using award systems for achieving value changes. In this
regard, landscape designers can play an active role in changing the
quality of green infrastructure to provide multiple ecosystem serv-
ices and to (re)connect local users to their dependence on nature.
The fact that urban residents also play a vital role in manag-
ing urban soil sealing and urban green is shown in the paper by
Artmann and Breuste (2014). They argue that urban residents im-
pact urban green and grey by their choice on how and where to live
within a city as well as by reducing sealing at the building or green-
ing buildings. By conducting an online survey in two cities in
Germany, the authors showed that information plays a vital role for
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 residents to reduce soil sealing at the site and promote compact
cities. The authors further conclude that urban decision takers also
must take responsibility in achieving compact cities by securing a
sufficient supply of a high living quality even in the highly sealed
centers including appropriate recreational areas and reduction in
motorized traffic. To guarantee a high acceptance of residents to-
ward compact cities, the study suggests applying a sealing gradient
taking into account the importance and satisfaction of built-up envi-
ronment qualities based on the concept of ecosystem services.
Presenting a case study in China, Chang et al. (2014) developed
a working framework aiming to support urban practitioners by
planning and managing urban green infrastructure under the um-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
brella of urban sustainability. The authors integrated morphological
spatial pattern analysis into landscape ecological planning princi-
ples using geographic information systems. By doing so, they iden-
tified which green patches should be brought into the network
system as well as their functional roles within the network. Results
showed that conservation boundaries, preservation nodes and retro-
fitted greenways should be focus areas in urban green infrastructure
management. The authors conclude that applying the developed
framework in practice can support the spatial navigation of urban
green-space system planning and urban sustainability in China.
Guo et al. (2015) also conducted a case study in China, exam-
ining the near-natural silvicultural approach and its role in a sus-
tainable future for urban renaturalization. The authors examined the
10-year dynamics of a near-natural forest in the Pudong New Area
of Shanghai, China and compared eco-benefits with natural forests
and artificial urban forests. Results showed that the site that had
been revegetated using a near-natural silvicultural approach formed
a stable forest with a more complex structure and beautiful land-
scape after 10 years, with eco-benefits similar to natural forests and
more economical than artificial forests. The authors conclude that
using a near-natural method to construct an urban green living
landmark with a zonal vegetation community can play a positive
role in the conservation of local biodiversity and the construction of
a locally-characteristic landscape.
Concluding Remarks
The papers presented in this SI demonstrate the importance of ur-
ban green infrastructure for sustainable development. Its vital role
for a healthy urban ecosystem and high living quality for urban
residents is showcased by different international case study cities,
concepts and methods of evaluation and analyses conducted by
a variety of disciplines. The contributions of the SI clearly show
that there is the need by science and practice to reposition urban
green from a passive, urbanization-affected role to urban green
infrastructure—an active, stable element steering cities toward
sustainable development.
References
Ahern, J. (2007). “Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension.”
Cities of the future: Towards integrated sustainable water and land-
scape management, V. Novotny, and P. Brown, eds., IWA Publishing,
London, 267–283.
Alberti, M. (2008). Advances in urban ecology. Integrating humans and
ecological processes in urban ecosystems, Springer, New York.
Andersson, E., and Bodin, Ö. (2008). “Practical tool for landscape plan-
ning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat
fragmentation.” Ecography, 32(1), 123–132.
Artmann, M. (2014a). “Assessment of soil sealing management responses,
strategies, and targets toward ecologically sustainable urban land use
management.” AMBIO J. Human Environ., 43(4), 530–541.
© ASCE A2015001-4
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001
Artmann, M. (2014b). “Institutional efficiency of urban soil sealing
management—From raising awareness to better implementation of
sustainable development in Germany.” Landscape Urban Plann.,
131, 83–95.
Artmann, M., and Breuste, J. (2014). “Cities built for and by residents: Soil
Sealing management in the eyes of urban dwellers in Germany.” J. Ur-
ban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000252, A5014004.
Barthel, S., Parker, J., and Ernstson, H. (2013). “Food and green space
in cities: A resilience lens on gardens and urban environmental move-
ments.” Urban Stud., 1–18.
Benedict, M. A., and McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green infrastructure Linking
landscapes and communities, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Breed, C., Cilliers, S., and Fisher, R. (2014). “Role of landscape designers
in promoting a balanced approach to green infrastructure.” J. Urban
Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000248, A5014003.
Breuste, J., and Artmann, M. (2014). “Allotment gardens contribute to ur-
ban ecosystem service: Case study Salzburg, Austria.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000264, A5014005.
Breuste, J., Haase, D., and Elmqvist, T. (2013a). “Urban landscapes and
ecosystem services.” Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban
landscapes, S. Wratten, H. Sandhu, R. Cullen, and R. Costanza, eds.,
Wiley, Oxford, 83–104.
Breuste, J., Qureshi, S., and Li, J. (2013b). “Scaling down the ecosystem
services at local level for urban parks of three megacities.” Hercynia,
46, 1–20.
Breuste, J., Schnellinger, J., Qureshi, S., and Faggi, A. (2013c). “Urban
ecosystem services on the local level: Urban green spaces as providers.”
Ekologia (Bratislava), 32(3), 290–304.
Chang, Q., Li, S., Li, H., Peng, J., and Wang, Y. L. (2007). “Research
progress on urban green space.” Chin. J. Appl. Ecol., 15(3), 527–531.
Chang, Q., Liu, X., Wu, J., and He, P. (2014). “MSPA-based urban green
infrastructure planning and management approach for urban sustain-
ability: Case study of Longgang in China.” J. Urban Plann. Dev.,
10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000247, A5014006.
Cheng, X., Wei, B., Chen, G., Li, J., and Song, C. (2014). “Influence of
park size and its surrounding urban landscape patterns on the park cool-
ing effect.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444
.0000256, A4014002.
Costanza, R., et al. (1997). “The value of the world’s ecosystem services
and natural capital.” Nature, 387, 253–260.
Długoński, A., and Szumańsk, M. (2015). “Grounds for the analysis
of green infrastructure on the example of the city of Lodz, Poland.”
J. Urban Plann. Dev., in press.
Elmqvist, T., et al. (2013). Global urbanisation, biodiversity and ecosys-
tem services: Challenges and opportunities, Springer, Heidelberg,
New York.
Endlicher, W. (2011). Perspectives in urban ecology: Ecosystems and
interactions between humans and nature in the Metropolis of Berlin,
Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ergen, B. (2014). “Euclidean distance mapping and the proposed greenway
method in Malta.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-
5444.0000163, 04013002.
Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., and Elmqvist, T. (2008). “Social movements and
ecosystem services: The role of social network structure in protecting
and managing urban green areas in Stockholm.” Ecol. Soc., 13(2), 39.
Gaston, K. J. (2010). Urban ecology (ecological reviews), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., and Öhrström, E. (2007). “Noise and well-being
in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived
availability to nearby green areas.” Landscape Urban Plann., 83(2–3),
115–126.
Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., and Pauleit, S. (2007). “Adapting
cities to climate change: The role of the green infrastructure.” Built
Environ., 33(1), 115–133.
Gómez, F., Jabaloyes, J., Montero, L., De Vicente, V., and Valcuende, M.
(2011). “Green areas, the most significant indicator of the sustainability
of cities: Research on their utility for urban planning.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000060, 311–328.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 Gómez, F., Jabaloyes, J., and Vano, E. (2004). “Green zones in the future
of urban planning.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488
(2004)130:2(94), 94–100.
Grahn, P., and Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). “The relation between perceived
sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration.”
Landscape Urban Plann., 94(3–4), 264–275.
Guo, X., Li, W., and Da, L. (2015). “Near-natural silviculture: Sustainable
Approach for urban renaturalization? assessment based on 10 years
recovering dynamics and eco-benefits in Shanghai.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000276, A5015001.
Haase, D., and Nuissl, H. (2007). “Does urban sprawl drive changes in the
water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870–2003.”
Landscape Urban Plann., 80(1–2), 1–13.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GADJAH MADA UNIVERSITY on 11/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Hamada, S., and Ohta, T. (2010). “Seasonal variations in the cooling effect
of urban green areas on surrounding urban areas.” Urban For. Urban
Greening, 9(1), 15–24.
Henseke, A., and Breuste, J. (2014). “Climate-change sensitive residential
areas and their adaptation capacities by urban green changes: Case
study of Linz, Austria.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP
.1943-5444.0000262, A5014007.
Jim, C. Y., and Chen, S. S. (2003). “Comprehensive greenspace planning
based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing City, China.”
Landscape Urban Plann., 65(3), 95–116.
Jim, C. Y., and Chen, W. Y. (2006). “Recreation-amenity use and contin-
gent valuation of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China.” Landscape
Urban Plann., 75(1–2), 81–96.
Jim, C. Y., and Chen, W. Y. (2009). “Ecosystem services and valuation of
urban forests in China.” Cities, 26(4), 187–194.
Johnson, B., Faggi, A., Voigt, A., Schnellinger, J., and Breuste, J. (2014).
“Environmental perception among residents of a polluted watershed in
Buenos Aires.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444
.0000250, A5014002.
Kong, F., Yin, H., James, P., Hutyra, L. R., and He, H. S. (2014). “Effects of
spatial pattern of greenspace on urban cooling in a large metropolitan
area of eastern China.” Landscape Urban Plann., 128, 35–47.
Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., and Davies, C. (2009). “Benefits and
well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat
stress.” Urban For. Urban Greening, 8(2), 97–108.
Larondelle, N., Haase, D., and Kabsich, N. (2014). “Mapping the diversity
of regulating ecosystem services in European cities.” Global Environ.
Change, 26, 119–129.
Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J., and Liu, X. (2005). “Comprehensive con-
cept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: A case
study in Beijing, China.” Landscape Urban Plann., 72(4), 325–336.
Li, J., Li, C., Zhu, F., Song, C., and Wu, J. (2013). “Spatiotemporal
pattern of urbanization in Shanghai, China between 1989 and 2005.”
Landscape Ecol., 28(8), 1545–1565.
Li, J., Song, C., Cao, L., Zhu, F., Meng, X., and Wu, J. (2011). “Impacts
of landscape structure on surface urban heat islands: A case study of
Shanghai, China.” Remote Sens. Environ., 115(12), 3249–3263.
Li, W., Bai, Y., Zhou, W., Han, C., and Han, L. (2014). “Land use signifi-
cantly affects the distribution of urban green space: Case study of
Shanghai, China.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-
5444.0000246, A4014001.
MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and
human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis, World Resources Institute,
Washington, DC.
Mao, Q. Z., Luo, S. H., Ma, K. M., et al. (2012). “Research advances in
ecological assessment of urban greenspace.” Acta Ecol. Sin., 32(17),
5589–5600.
© ASCE A2015001-5
J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001
Mathey, J., Rößler, S., Banse, J., Lehmann, I., and Bräuer, A. (2015).
“Brownfields as an element of green infrastructure for implementing
ecosystem services into urban areas.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10
.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000275, A4015001.
Matsuoka, R. H., and Kaplan, R. (2008). “People needs in the urban
landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions.”
Landscape Urban Plann., 84(1), 7–19.
McDonald, R. (2009). “Ecosystem service demand and supply along the
urban-to-rural gradient.” J. Conserv. Plann., 5, 1–14.
Mell, I. C. (2008). “Green infrastructure: Concepts and planning.”
FORUM: Int. J. Postgraduate Stud. Archit. Plann. Landscape, 8(1),
69–80.
Naumann, S., McKenna, D., Kaphengst, T., Mav, P., and Rayment, M.
(2011). “Design, implementation and cost elements of green Infrastruc-
ture projects.” 〈http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/
pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport.pdf〉 (May 14, 2015).
Niemelä, J., et al. (2010). “Using the ecosystem services approach for
better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case
study.” Biodivers. Conserv., 19(11), 3225–3243.
Pauleit, S., and Duhme, F. (2000). “Assessing the environmental perfor-
mance of land cover types for urban planning.” Landscape Urban
Plann., 52(1), 1–20.
Pickett, S. T., et al. (2011). “Urban ecological systems: Scientific founda-
tions and a decade of progress.” J. Environ. Manage., 92(3), 331–362.
Rega, C., Nilon, C., and Warren, P. (2015). “Avian Abundance patterns in
relation to the distribution of small urban greenspaces.” J. Urban Plann.
Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000279, A4015002.
Richter, M., and Weiland, U. (2012). Applied urban ecology: A global
framework, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Schwarz, N., and Manceur, A. M. (2015). “Compact and hot?—Analyzing
the influence of urban form on surface urban heat islands in Europe.” J.
Urban Plann. Dev., in press.
Tzoulas, K., et al. (2007). “Promoting ecosystem and human health in
urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review.” Landscape
Urban Plann., 81(3), 167–178.
UN-HABITAT. (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Global report on hu-
man settlements 2009, United Nations Human Settlements Programme,
Earthscan, London.
United Nations. (2012). “World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revi-
sion.” Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
Wu, J. (2010). “Urban sustainability: An inevitable goal of landscape
research.” Landscape Ecol., 25(1), 1–4.
Wu, J., Jenerette, G. D., Buyantuyev, A., and Redman, C. L. (2011).
“Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization: The case of the
two fastest growing metropolitan regions in the United States.” Ecol.
Complexity, 8(1), 1–8.
Xie, M., Gao, Y., Cao, Y., Breuste, J., Fu, M., and Tong, D. (2014). “Dy-
namics and temperature regulation function of urban green connectiv-
ity.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000266,
A5014008.
Young, R. F. (2009). “Interdisciplinary foundations of urban ecology.”
Urban Ecosyst., 12(3), 311–331.
Zhou, W., Huang, G., and Cadenasso, M. L. (2011). “Does spatial configu-
ration matter? Understanding the effects of land cover pattern on land
surface temperature in urban landscapes.” Landscape Urban Plann.,
102(1), 54–63.
Zhou, W., Qian, Y., Li, X., Li, W., and Han, L. (2014). “Relationships
between land cover and the surface urban heat island: Seasonal vari-
ability and effects of spatial and thematic resolution of land cover
data on predicting land surface temperatures.” Landscape Ecol., 29(1),
153–167.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.