Special Issue on Green Infrastructure for Urban Sustainability

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 54.162.69.248 on 07/16/20. 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 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 urban 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 investigated 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 landscape 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 sustainable development (Mao et al. 2012; Chang et al. 2007). Background Scope of the Special Issue 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 urbanized world of crucial importance as it is the main carrier of ecosystem services and improves the quality of life for urban residents. For instance, it supports regulating ecosystem services by increasing 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 possibility 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 urbanfringe 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 wellbeing (Tzoulas et al. 2007) and provides abiotic, biotic, and cultural functions to advance and contribute to urban sustainability (Ahern 2007). Urban green infrastructure is closely related to human wellbeing 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 The special issue (SI) “Green Infrastructure for Urban Sustainability” 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 planning 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 different scales. The SI contributes to conceptual and scientific methodologies 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 infrastructure; 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 © ASCE A2015001-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001 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 symposium, 21 talks and 18 posters were presented proving the high research relevance of the topics presented in this SI. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.162.69.248 on 07/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Structure and Contents of the Special Issue 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 applied 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 transformation, reducing the ecosystem’s capacity for providing ecosystem 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 infrastructure 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 people’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 envisaged the potential improvement. Their findings showed that residents’ 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 reason 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 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 spatial patterns and influence on urban sustainability we need appropriate 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 infrastructure 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 distribution of green space in Shanghai, China (Li et al. 2014). In this paper, the authors examined the linkage of urban green space distribution 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 residential, 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 anthropogenic impacts on green space planning and management. The urban park is an essential component of urban green infrastructure 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 relationship between park size and its cooling effect. The parks’ land surface 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 surrounding the parks influence the cooling effect. Their findings are valuable for landscape and urban planning. Another paper selected for this SI, although not directly pertaining 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 quantifying 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 A2015001-2 J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001 J. Urban Plann. Dev. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.162.69.248 on 07/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 urban nature of different types integrated into a targeted developed urban green infrastructure. Following the classification of ecosystem services by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) and Costanza et al. (1997) provisioning services (e.g., habitat service: 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 related 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 examined temperature regulation. The results demonstrate the dependency 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 development 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 temperatures 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 inhabited by sensitive residents, should be identified and managed for climate adaptation first. The potential to develop the green infrastructure there was identified and climate adaptive strategies based on people’s perception were developed. The results show an information 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 infrastructure by their ecosystem services, showed by Mathey et al. In shrinking cities, reintegrating brownfield into the urban pattern is an important subject. A paper based on European experiences demonstrated the high ecosystem service potential for habitat services preventing a loss of biodiversity, for microclimate regulation, adapting to climate change and for recreation fostering healthy urban environments. 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 private 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 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 determine 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 pressure on ecosystems and the quality of life for urban residents. Therefore, a comprehensive management of urban green infrastructure 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., between 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 activities are the main factor in providing, shaping and efficiently designing 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 comprehensive 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 approach 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 valuation was driven by environmental law, ratings systems, and award systems. To reorient values and promote a well-balanced inclusion 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 services and to (re)connect local users to their dependence on nature. The fact that urban residents also play a vital role in managing urban soil sealing and urban green is shown in the paper by Artmann and Breuste (2014). They argue that urban residents impact 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 greening buildings. By conducting an online survey in two cities in Germany, the authors showed that information plays a vital role for A2015001-3 J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001 J. Urban Plann. Dev. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.162.69.248 on 07/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 toward compact cities, the study suggests applying a sealing gradient taking into account the importance and satisfaction of built-up environment 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 umbrella of urban sustainability. The authors integrated morphological spatial pattern analysis into landscape ecological planning principles using geographic information systems. By doing so, they identified 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 retrofitted 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, examining the near-natural silvicultural approach and its role in a sustainable 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 landscape 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 urban 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 landscape 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 planning? 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 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. Urban 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 movements.” 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 urban 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 sustainability: 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 cooling 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 ecosystem 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.19435444.0000163, 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. A2015001-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001 J. Urban Plann. Dev. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 54.162.69.248 on 07/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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. 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 contingent 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 concept 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 significantly affects the distribution of urban green space: Case study of Shanghai, China.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.19435444.0000246, 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 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 Infrastructure 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 performance of land cover types for urban planning.” Landscape Urban Plann., 52(1), 1–20. Pickett, S. T., et al. (2011). “Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations 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 human settlements 2009, United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Earthscan, London. United Nations. (2012). “World urbanization prospects: The 2011 revision.” 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). “Dynamics and temperature regulation function of urban green connectivity.” 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 configuration 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 variability and effects of spatial and thematic resolution of land cover data on predicting land surface temperatures.” Landscape Ecol., 29(1), 153–167. A2015001-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2015, 141(3): A2015001 J. Urban Plann. Dev.