Greening metropolitan growth: Integrating nature recreation, compactness and spaciousness in regional development planning

International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development

Volumn 2, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 64-84

  Ståhle, Alexander ^a   Caballero, Leandro ^b  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Greenbelt; Landscape morphology; Nature recreation; Socio economics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955259496     PISSN: 19463138     EISSN: 19463146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2010.512496     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Abercrombie, P., 1944. Greater London Plan, London:His Majesty's Stationery Office.
2. Anas, A, and Rhee, H-J., 2006. Curbing excess sprawl with congestion tolls and urban boundaries. Reg Sci Urban Econ., 36 (4):510–541.
3. Batty, M., 2008. The Size, Scale, and Shape of Cities. Science., 319:769–771.
4. Bengston, DN, and Youn, YC., 2006. Urban containment policies and the protection of natural areas:the case of Seoul's greenbelt. Ecol Soc., 11 (1):3
5. Boentjea, JP, and Blinnikov, MS., 2007. Post-Soviet forest fragmentation and loss in the Green Belt around Moscow, Russia (1991–2001):a remote sensing perspective. Landsc Urban Plan., 82 (4):208–221.
6. Brueckner, JK., 2007. Urban growth boundaries:an effective second-best remedy for unpriced traffic congestion?. J Hous Econ., 16 (3–4):263–273.
7. Boverket. 2007a. Boverket:Bostadsnära natur Karlskrona
8. Boverket. 2007b. Landskapets upplevelsevärden:Vilka är de och var finns de? Karlskrona
9. COST. 2005. Green structure and urban planning:Final report. COST Action C11, Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
10. Czerniak, J, and Hargreaves, G, eds. 2007. Large parks, New York:Princeton Architectural Press.
11. Erixon, H, and Ståhle, A., 2008. Regionens täthet och grönstrukturens potential:det suburbana landskapets utvecklingsmöjligheter i en växande storstadsregion, KTH Arkitekturskolan. Stockholm
12. Ewing, R., 1995. Beyond density, mode choice, and single purpose trips. Transp Q., 49:15–24.
13. Frank, LD, Andresen, MA, and Schmid, TL., 2004. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med., 27 (2):87–96.
14. Frenkel, A, and Ashkenazi, M., 2008. Measuring urban sprawl. Environ Plann B Plann Des., 35:56–79.
15. Grahn, P, and Stigsdotter, U., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Greening., 2 (1):1–18.
16. Hörnsten, L, and Fredman, P., 2000. On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landsc Urban Plann., 51:1–10.
17. Hottenstein, A, Turner, S, and Shunk, G., 1997. Bicycle and pedestrian travel demand forecasting:summary of data collection activities, Texas:Texas Transportation Institute, Department of Transportation.
18. Howard, E., 1945. Garden cities of to-morrow, London:Faber and Faber. [1898]
19. Jenks, M, and Jones, C., 2010. Dimensions of the sustainable city 2, London:Springer.
20. Kelly, ED., 1993. Managing community growth:policies, techniques and impacts, Westport:Praeger.
21. Kerr, J, Frank, L, Sallis, JF, and Chapman, J., 2007. Urban form correlates of pedestrian travel in youth:differences by gender, race-ethnicity and household attributes. Transp Res D Transp Environ., 12 (3):177–182.
22. Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län. 2003. Aldrig långt till naturen:skydd av tätortsnära natur i Stockholmsregionen. Rapport, 2003:20
23. Lee, C, and Moudon, AV., 2006. The 3Ds + R:quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transp Res D Transp Environ., 11 (3):204–215.
24. Litman, J., 2003. “ Economic value of walkability ”. In Transportation Research Record 1828, 3–11. Transportation Research Board.
25. Miller, HJ., 2007. Place-based versus people-based geographic information science. Geogr Compass., 1 (3):503–535.
26. Montgomery, DC., 1991. Design and analysis of experiments, 3rd, New York:John Wiley and Sons.
27. Moudon, AV., 1997. Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban Morphol., 1:3–10.
28. Naturvårdverket. 2004. “ Kartering av skyddade områden:Kontinuerlig naturtypskartering ”. In Rapport 5391, Sandviken:Sandvikens Tryckeri.
29. Nelson, AC., 1994. “ Oregon's urban growth boundary policy as a landmark planning tool ”. In Planning the Oregon way:a 20–year evaluation, Edited by:Abbott, C., Howe, D., and Adler, S., Corvallis, OR:Oregon State University Press.
30. Nelson, AC., 1999. Comparing states with and without growth management analysis based on indicators with policy implications. Land Use Policy., 16 (2):121–127.
31. Nelson, AC, and Moore, T., 1993. Assessing urban growth management:the case of Portland, Oregon, the USA's largest urban growth boundary. Land Use Policy., 10 (4):293–302.
32. Openshaw, S., 1984. The modifiable area unit problem, Norwich, UK:Geo Books.
33. Rådberg, J., 1988. Doktrin och täthet i svenskt stadsbyggande 1875–1975, Stockholm:Statens råd för byggnadsforskning.
34. SCB. 2006. Demografi och inkomstdata, kommuner i Stockholms län och stadsdelar i Stockholms stad. database at Statistiska Centralbyrån, Statistics Sweden; [cited]. http://www.scb.se (http://www.scb.se) (Accessed:February 2008).
35. SLL. 2007. “ Folkhälsan i Stockholms län ”. In Folkhälsorapport 2007, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
36. Soja, E., 2000. “ Sprawl is no longer what it used to be ”. In Post ex sub dis:Urban fragmentations and constructions, Edited by:Ghent Urban Studies Team GUST. Rotterdam:010 Publishers.
37. Stadsbyggnadskontoret. 2003. Sociotophandboken:Planering av det offentliga uterummet med Stockholmarna och sociotopkartan. Stadsbyggnadskontoret, rapport 2003:2. Stockholm
38. Ståhle, A., 2005. “ Mer park i tätare stad:teoretiska och empiriska undersökningar av ”. In stadsplaneringens mått på friytetillgång, Stockholm:Licentiate thesis, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan.
39. Ståhle, A., 2008. Compact sprawl:exploring public open space and contradictions in urban density, Stockholm:Dissertation, School of Architecture KTH.
40. Ståhle, A, Caballero, L, and Nordström, P., Nära naturens upplevelsevärden:Naturtypers och bebyggelsestrukturers betydelse för människors tillgång till fyra grundläggande naturupplevelser i norra Storstockholmsregionen. Rapport 2007:34 bilaga 3, Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län. 2007.
41. Ståhle, A, Marcus, L, and Karlström, A., Place syntax:geographic accessibility with axial lines in GIS. Proceedings of the 5th Space Syntax Symposium. June, Delft. pp. 13–17.
42. Tanga, B, Wongb, S, and Leec, AK., 2007. Green belt in a compact city:a zone for conservation or transition?. Landsc Urban Plann., 79 (3–4):358–373.
43. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 1990. “ Storstockholms gröna bälte ”. In Region-och Trafikplanekontoret, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
44. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 1992. “ Storstockholms gröna kilar ”. In Region- och Trafikplanekontoret, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
45. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 2001. “ Regional utvecklingsplan 2001 för Stockholmsregionen ”. In Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
46. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 2003. “ Djupintervjuer om upplevelsevärden i Hanveden:Underlag till rapport “Upplevelsevärden 4:2001”. In PM 14:2003 Kvalitativ undersökning, Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
47. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. Upplevelsevärden i Stockholmsregionens gröna kilar. Rapport 1-10:2004, Regionplane- och trafikkontoret. 2004. Stockholms Läns Landsting, Stockholm
48. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 2007. “ Bebyggelseområden och vägar i Stockholms län ”. In Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
49. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 2008. “ Regional utvecklingsplan 2010 för Stockholmsregionen:Samrådsförslag ”. In Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholm:Stockholms Läns Landsting.
50. The Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation in Stockholm. 2010. RUFS 2010, Stockholm:Regionplanekontoret, Stockholms Läns Landsting.
51. Turner T. 2008. Introduction to John Claudius Loudon's 1829 plan for London; [cited ]. http://www.londonlandscape.gre.ac.uk/1829.htm (http://www.londonlandscape.gre.ac.uk/1829.htm) (Accessed:February 2008).
52. Tyrväinen, L., 2001. Use and valuation of urban forest amenities in Finland. J environ manage., 62:75–92.
53. Tyrväinen, L, and Miettinen, A., 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. J Environ Econ Manage., 39 (2):205–223.
54. Tyrväinen, L, and Vaananen, H., 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities:an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc Urban Plann., 43 (1):105–118.
55. Waldheim, C, ed. 2006. Landscape urbanism reader, New York:Princeton Architectural Press.
56. Xaveer De Geyter Architects. 2002. After-sprawl:research for the contemporary city, Rotterdam:Nai.
57. Yang, J, and Jinxing, Z., 2007. The failure and success of greenbelt program in Beijing. Urban For Urban Greening., 6 (4):287–296.