The potential of school green areas to improve urban green connectivity and multifunctionality

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 704-713

  Iojă, Cristian Ioan ^a   Grădinaru, Simona Raluca ^a   Onose, Diana Andreea ^a   Vânău, Gabriel Ovidiu ^a   Tudor, Alina Constantina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

Author keywords

Connectivity; Educational services; Multifunctionality; School green area; Urban green infrastructure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922657039     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Ahern J. Green Infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. Cities of the Future: Towards Integrated Sustainable Water and Landscape Management 2007, 267-283. IWA Publishing, London. V. Novotny, L. Breckenridge, P. Brown (Eds.).
2. Bastin G.N., Ludwig J.A., Eager R.W., Chewings V.H., Liedloff A.C. Indicators of landscape function: comparing patchiness metrics using remotely-sensed data from rangelands. Ecol. Indic. 2002, 1:247-260.
3. Blair D. The child in the gard: an evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. J. Environ. Educ. 2009, 40:15-38.
4. Boldemann C., Dal H., Mårtensson F., Cosco N., Moore R., Bieber B., Blennow M., Pagels P., Raustorp A., Wester U., Söderström M. Preschool outdoor play environment may combine promotion of children's physical activity and sun protection. Further evidence from Southern Sweden and North Carolina. Sci. Sports 2011, 26:72-82.
5. Botequilha L.A., Miller J., Ahern J., McGarrigal K. Measuring Landscapes - A Planner's Handbook 2006, Island Press, Washington DC, USA.
6. Braaker S., Ghazoul J., Obrist M.K., Moretti M. Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities - the key role of green roofs. Ecology 2014, 95:1010-1021.
7. Breuste J., Qureshi S. Urban sustainability, urban ecology and the Society for Urban Ecology (SURE). Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14:313-317.
8. Education Status 2010-2011 2012, BSI, Bucharest School Inspectorate, Ministry of Education, Research, Youth and Sport, Bucharest.
9. Cameron R.W.F., Blanusa T., Taylor J.E., Salisbury A., Halstead A.J., Henricot B., Thompson K. The domestic garden - its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11:129-137.
10. Charlesworth S.M., Booth C.A. The benefits of green infrastructure in towns and cities. Solut. Clim. Chang. Chall. Built Environ. 2011, 9:163.
11. Cheval S., Dumitrescu A. The July urban heat island of Bucharest as derived from modis images. Theor. Appl. Clim. 2009, 96:145-153.
12. Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68:129-138.
13. Conway T.M., Bourne K.S. A comparison of neighborhood characteristics related to canopy cover, stem density and species richness in an urban forest. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 113:10-18.
14. Davison K.K., Lawson C.T. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2006, 3:19.
15. Dyment J.E. The Power and Potential of School Ground Greening in the Toronto District School Board 2005, Evergreen, Toronto, Ontario. A.C. Bell (Ed.).
16. Dyment J.E., Bell A.C. Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Educ. Res. 2008, 23:952-962.
17. Dyment J.E., Bell A.C., Lucas A.J. The relationship between school ground design and intensity of physical activity. Child. Geogr. 2009, 7:261-276.
18. EEA Towards an Urban Atlas: Assessment of Spatial Data of 25 European Cities and Urban Areas 2002, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. E. report (Ed.).
19. EEA The European Environment-State and Outlook 2010. Urban Environment 2010, European Environment Agency.
20. EEA Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion. The Concept of Green Infrastructure and Its Integration into Policies Using Monitoring Systems 2011, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
21. European Commission The Urban Audit, Towards the Benchmarking of Quality of Life in 58 European Cities 2000, http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/urban2/urban/audit/src/publics.html.
22. EUROSTAT Population on 1 January by Age and Sex 2009, European Commission.
23. Evenson K.R., Wen F., Golinelli D., Rodríguez D.A., Cohen D.A. Measurement properties of a park use questionnaire. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45:526-547.
24. Fagan W.F., Calabrese J.M. Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric performance with data requirements. Connectivity Conservation 2006, 297. Cambridege University Press, Cambridge, UK. K.R. Crooks, M. Sanjayan (Eds.).
25. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS 2009, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
26. Fischer L.K., von der Lippe M., Kowarik I. Urban land use types contribute to grassland conservation: the example of Berlin. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12:263-272.
27. Fjørtoft I. The natural environment as a playground for children: the impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Child. Educ. J. 2001, 29:111-117.
28. Fjørtoft I. Landscape as playscape: the effects of natural environments on children's play and motor development. Child. Youth Environ. 2004, 14:21-44.
29. Giles-Corti B., Wood G., Pikora T., Learnihan V., Bulsara M., Van Niel K., Timperio A., McCormack G., Villanueva K. School site and the potential to walk to school: the impact of street connectivity and traffic exposure in school neighborhoods. Health Place 2011, 17:545-550.
30. Graham H., Beall D.L., Lussier M., McLaughlin P., Zidenberg-Cherr S. Use of school gardens in academic instruction. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2005, 37:147-151.
31. Hersperger A.M., Langhamer D., Dalang T. Inventorying human-made objects: a step towards better understanding land use for multifunctional planning in a periurban Swiss landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105:307-314.
32. Intergraph Geomedia Professional 2013, Madison, Madison County, Alabama, USA.
33. Iojă C., Pătroescu M., Niţă M., Rozylowicz L., Iojă A., Onose D.A. Categories of residential spaces after their accessibility to urban parks - an indicator of sustainability in human settlements. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2010, 5:307-314.
34. Iojă C.I., Niţă M.R., Vânău G.O., Onose D.A., Gavrilidis A.A. Using multi-criteria analysis for the identification of spatial land-use conflicts in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 42:112-121.
35. Iojă C.I., Onose D.A., Grădinaru S.R., Şerban C. Waste management in public educational institutions of Bucharest City, Romania. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 14:71-78.
36. Iojă C.I., Rozylowicz L., Pătroescu M., Niţă M.R., Vânău G.O. Dog walkers' vs. other park visitors' perceptions: the importance of planning sustainable urban parks in Bucharest, Romania. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103:74-82.
37. Jabareen Y. Planning the resilient city: concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities 2013, 31:220-229.
38. Kabisch N., Haase D. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110:113-122.
39. Kambites C., Owen S. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK 1. Plan. Pract. Res. 2006, 21:483-496.
40. Kendal D., Williams N.S., Williams K.J. Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11:257-265.
41. Kong F., Yin H., Nakagoshi N., Zong Y. Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95:16-27.
42. Kuo F.E., Sullivan W.C. Environment and crime in the inner city does vegetation reduce crime?. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33:343-367.
43. Lafortezza R., Davies C., Sanesi G., Konijnendijk C.C. Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iFor. - Biogeosci. For. 2013, 6(3):102-108.
44. Landscape Institute Green Infrastructure: Connected and Multifunctional Landscapes 2009, Landscape Institute, London, UK.
45. Larondelle N., Haase D. Valuing post-mining landscapes using an ecosystem services approach-an example from Germany. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18:567-574.
46. Light D. Gazing on communism: heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tour. Geogr. 2000, 2:157-176.
47. Loram A., Tratalos J., Warren P.H., Gaston K.J. Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:601-615.
48. Lucas A.J., Dyment J.E. Where do children choose to play on the school ground? The influence of green design. Education 2010, 3-13(38):177-189.
49. Luck G.W., Smallbone L.T., O'Brien R. Socio-economics and vegetation change in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 2009, 12:604-620.
50. Madureira H., Andresen T., Monteiro A. Green structure and planning evolution in Porto. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10:141-149.
51. Magle S.B., Theobald D.M., Crooks K.R. A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24:267-280.
52. Malone K., Tranter P.J. School grounds as sites for learning: making the most of environmental opportunities. Environ. Educ. Res. 2003, 9:283-303.
53. Mårtensson F., Jansson M., Johansson M., Raustorp A., Kylin M., Boldemann C. The role of greenery for physical activity play at school grounds. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 13(1):103-113.
54. McGarigal K., Cushman S.A., E E. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps 2012, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
55. Ecosystems and Human Well-being 2005, MEA, Island Press, Washington, DC.
56. Moore R., Goltsman S.M., Iacofano D. Play for all Guidelines: Planning, Designing and Management of Outdoor Pay Settings for all Children 1992, MIG Communications, Berkeley. second ed.
57. Nae M., Turnock D. The new Bucharest: two decades of restructuring. Cities 2011, 28:206-219.
58. Niţă M.R. Mapping favorability for residential development. Case study: Bucharest metropolitan area. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2012, 14:59-70.
59. Niţă M.R., Iojă I.C., Rozylowicz L., Onose D.A., Tudor A.C. Land use consequences of the evolution of cemeteries in the Bucharest metropolitan area. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2013, 57(7):1066-1082.
60. Patroescu M., Iojă C., Necsuliu R., Brăilesci C. The quality of oxygenating surfaces. The green areas of Bucharest. A case studies. Rev. Roum. Geogr. 2004, 47-48:205-216.
61. Patroescu M., Iojă C., Rozylowicz L., Vânău G.O., Niţă M.R., Pătroescu-Klotz I., Iojă A. Integrated Assessment of Environmental Quality in Residential Area 2012, Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest.
62. Peschardt K.K., Schipperijn J., Stigsdotter U.K. Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11:235-244.
63. Rafiee R., Mahiny A.S., Khorasani N. Assessment of changes in urban green spaces of Mashad city using satellite data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform. 2009, 11:431-438.
64. Romanian Government Decision no. 525 from 27 June 1996 for aproving General Urbanism Regulations. Monitorul Oficial nr. 149/16 iul 1996.
65. Sanesi G., Lafortezza R., Bonnes M., Carrus G. Comparison of two different approaches for assessing the psychological and social dimensions of green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 5:121-129.
66. Schäffler A., Swilling M. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure - the Johannesburg case. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:246-257.
67. Snepa R., Van Ierlandb E., Opdam P. Enhancing biodiversity at business sites: what are the options, and which of these do stakeholders prefer?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91:26-35.
68. Strohbach M.W., Lerman S.B., Warren P.S. Are small greening areas enhancing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greening projects in Boston. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 114:69-79.
69. Studenmund A.H. Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide 2000, Addison Wesley, New York, USA. fourth ed.
70. Thaiutsa B., Puangchit L., Kjelgren R., Arunpraparut W. Urban green space, street tree and heritage large tree assessment in Bangkok, Thailand. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7:219-229.
71. Tudor C.A., Iojă C.I., Hersperger A.M., Pătru-Stupariu I. Is the residential land use incompatible with cemeteries location? Assessing the attitudes of urban residents. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013, 8:153-162.
72. Tudor C.A., Iojă I.C., Pătru-Stupariu I., Nită M.R., Hersperger A.M. How successful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparison of cases from Switzerland and Romania. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 47:125-136.
73. Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemela J., James P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81:167-178.
74. UNESCO World Education Report 2000.
75. Van Herzele A., Wiedemann T. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63:109-126.
76. Wells N.M. At home with nature effects of "greenness" on children's cognitive functioning. Environ. Behav. 2000, 32:775-795.
77. Wolch J.R., Byrne J., Newell J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities 'just green enough'. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125:234-244.
78. Zhang L., Wang H. Planning an ecological network of Xiamen Island (China) using landscape metrics and network analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78:449-456.
79. Zhou X., Wang Y.-C. Spatial-temporal dynamics of urban green space in response to rapid urbanization and greening policies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100:268-277.