Abstract
Integrating urban green infrastructure (UGI) into cities is receiving increasing attention owing to its potential to provide various urban ecosystem services (UES). This review assesses the multifaceted services of UGI as benefits and co-benefits. By combining systematic and narrative review processes, we aim to synthesise existing knowledge along six current themes and identify research gaps. A total of 690 peer-reviewed articles published during 2000–2020 from Web of Science were selected, followed by bibliometric and full-text analysis. Based on the frequency of appearance in the network visualisation of keywords, six themes of current trends were identified, namely: (1) benefits of UGI as UES; (2) mitigating climate and urban climate impacts by UGI; (3) UGI contribution to sustainable development goals; (4) reconceptualising greenspaces as ‘safe havens’; (5) public acknowledgement and supportive governance for UGI; and (6) rethinking the operationalisability of UGI. The first two themes represent existing focus on categories of ecosystem services, the next two encompass broader emerging co-benefits and the last two focus on how to operationalise UGI and support widespread adoption and implementation. Within Theme 2, the most frequently discussed service with the largest number of research, we conducted a detailed analysis of the methods and content focus in the existing literature. Through a narrative review, we identified 15 research gaps throughout these 6 themes. This review provides a comprehensive overview for urban researchers and practitioners to inform the integration of urban green infrastructure into urban planning and management.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Over half of the world’s population lives in cities, and this number is estimated to increase to 68% by 2050 (UN DESA 2018). Rapid urbanisation has been linked with various environmental, social, and economic impacts on a local and global scale (Bai et al. 2017; Grimm et al. 2008). For example, urbanisation-induced land-use change, mainly through replacing vegetated land with impervious and heat-absorbing surfaces, alters the urban energy and water balance (ADB 2015; Jiang et al. 2018). Such alterations lead to unique conditions in urban climates, such as the urban heat island (UHI) effect, while intensifying the impact of extreme heat events (Patricola and Wehner 2018; Shi et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2018), decreasing thermal comfort in urban areas, driving energy demand for cooling and heating (Li et al. 2019b; Lundgren and Kjellstrom 2013; Waite et al. 2017), and contributing to increased health issues and mortality due to heat stress (Lam et al. 2018; Lemonsu et al. 2015).
Cities are actively searching for climate mitigation and adaptation interventions using concepts, such as climate proofing, low- and zero-carbon urban development, and other sustainable city initiatives (Albers et al. 2015; Bai et al. 2018; DTI 2003; Kamal-chaoui and Robert 2009; Lam et al. 2018; Lemonsu et al. 2015; OECD 2020; Revi et al. 2014; Satterthwaite 2010; UN 2013). Urban green infrastructure (UGI), such as public parks, forests, green spaces, private gardens, urban wetlands, agricultural lands, ponds, streams, and single green elements (vertical greenery, green roofs, and street trees), has recently gained increasing attention from research communities, local governments, and the general public (UN 2013). As defined by ClimateADAPT (2023), UGI planning is a strategic approach which involves developing interconnected and multifunctional networks of blue and green spaces to offer a diverse array of advantages across environmental, social, and economic domains. Building UGI has the potential to simultaneously enhance the liveability and climate resilience of cities (Climate ADAPT 2023). Hence, UGI is increasingly becoming an essential component of the urban fabric (Meerow and Newell 2017; Mell 2013).
An increasing number of studies have focused on the benefits of UGI from the perspective of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are a subset of ecological functions and the benefits people receive from physical, chemical, and biological processes in the ecosystem (MEA 2005; Haase et al. 2014). There are many reviews focusing on the ecosystem services of UGI. Yet, several key gaps can be identified, including a limited scope that focuses on only one of the urban ecosystem services (UES) or benefits, such as temperature regulation (Bowler et al. 2010; Yu et al. 2020), air quality regulation (Abhijith et al. 2017), climate change adaptation (Ramyar et al. 2021), and human well-being [30], or on only a single UES category, such as cultural UES (La Rosa et al. 2016) and provisioning UES (Haase et al. 2014). Some reviews focused on a single UGI type (Roy et al. 2012), or on UES in indoor environments (Wang et al. 2014), while some reviews had limited geographic cover (Amorim et al. 2021; DasGupta et al. 2019; Lindley et al. 2018). Veerkamp et al. (2021) focused on multiple UES, but stopped at six (Veerkamp et al. 2021).
In light of these considerations, this review aims to investigate comprehensive, multifaceted benefits and co-benefits offered by UGI. An ecosystem service framework is adopted to identify and categorise these benefits and co-benefits. The review aims to consolidate and synthesise an often fragmented body of knowledge by casting a wide net to encompass the full spectrum of UGI benefits and co-benefits. Combining a systematic and narrative review, it identifies current and emerging hot topics and remaining gaps through in-depth qualitative analysis. The findings may inform researchers, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to integrate UGI into urban planning and management.
Methods
Systematic literature reviews have been recognised as the standard for accessing, appraising, and synthesising scientific information (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2013). This review combines a systematic review in literature search, filtering, and bibliometric analysis to identify key themes, following guidelines from Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2013), and a narrative review within each theme to synthesise and identify gaps. We used a set of keywords related to urban and green infrastructure and their role in environmental, economic, and social benefits and ecosystem services. Keywords for green infrastructure appeared in literature in multiple terminologies, including (but not limited to) urban green infrastructure (UGI), nature-based solutions (NbS), ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), and blue-green infrastructure (BGI). These terms have similarities and disparities with their functional variance. For instance, NbS acts as an umbrella for all the other concepts. EbA includes adaptations with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem services, whereas UGI focuses on various interconnected green spaces in urban areas (Pauleit et al. 2017). BGI is defined as a network of interconnected natural and designed landscape components, including water bodies and green and open spaces (Ghofrani et al. 2017). In this study, we use the general term UGI to refer to both urban vegetation and water structures. Accordingly, all of these related keywords were combined in the Web of Science (WOS) core collection using Booleans AND OR, as necessary (search query is presented in the appendix). The expanded search across 22 years rendered 5812 publications, which were filtered through the framework presented in Fig. 1.
In Tier 1, we screened articles published in English from 2000 to 2022 using the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), which included in-scope keywords. Furthermore, quick filtering assisted in screening reviews and conference proceedings to focus on original and peer-reviewed publications. This step yielded 3144 articles, and they were directed to Tier 2 for title and abstract screening. Tier 2 screening facilitated filtering out duplicates and identifying studies that focus on the benefits of UGI in cities. This step filtered 706 articles and subjected them to full-text screening in Tier 3. The full texts of 706 articles were carefully assessed to identify case studies that presented empirical evidence. The filtered articles at this tier accounted for 690 original articles with individual and comparative case studies discussing the benefits of UGI from an environmental, social, and economic perspective. Those selected articles were then subjected to bibliometric and content analysis, and the keywords were visualised to represent the networks and co-occurrence in data extraction and synthesis. Based on the frequency of appearance in the network visualisation of keywords in all the 690 articles in VOSviewer, we identified the key areas which have co-occurred frequently with spotlight attention, which were later reorganised as six key themes. Content was extracted regarding UGI intervention, key benefits, other co-benefits, quantified modelling outcomes, etc. A narrative review of the six key themes highlighted current trends and identified knowledge gaps in research on the benefits and co-benefits of UGI. These findings are detailed in “Results and discussion”.
Results and discussion
Identifying key themes
Through the screening process, we identified 690 articles on UGI that discuss different UES. These selected articles represent a wide range of research areas, including environmental sciences, ecology, urban studies, forestry, engineering, water resources, geography, and green sustainable science technology. This spectrum of research areas demonstrates the diverse functionality and applicability of UGI in different environmental, economic, and social domains.
The geographic distribution patterns of published articles agree well with previous literature findings—two-thirds of the reviewed studies were from the Global North, consistent with existing deficiencies in, and biases against, urban research in the Global South (Nagendra et al. 2018). Europe had the highest share of publications (38.6%), followed by Asia (29.3%) and North America (19.5%). Studies from Oceania, Africa, and South America exhibited the lowest shares of 5.5%, 3.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. China had the highest number of case studies (18.2%) across all categories, followed by the USA (17.3%). Over 90% of studies in Oceania had been conducted in Australia.
The increasing number of articles published since 2015 indicates a growing recognition of the benefits of UGI (see Fig. 2a). The observation of a low number of articles from 2000 to 2013 agrees with the findings of Escobedo et al. (2019) (Escobedo et al. 2019) about the appearance of each term with time: ES in 2006, green infrastructure in 2007, and NbS in 2015. Figure 2b shows the fifteen most frequently discussed UGI types in the reviewed studies; the most frequently mentioned types comprised green roofs (10%), green spaces (7.5%), and trees (in terms of street trees: 5.8%, and urban trees: 5.3%), indicating their popularity in urban areas. However, half of these types were discussed only once, whereas certain UGI types, such as rooftop farming and urban agricultural land, appeared to garner less attention.
Figure 3 illustrates the network visualisation of the co-occurrence of all keywords assembled by VOSviewer using network-analytic methods. Since the circle size shows the frequency of co-occurrence, this illustration helped us to identify hot research topics/areas with spotlight attention in the existing literature. By observing the frequency, links, and cluster arrangement of keywords, six key areas were identified. Those were reorganised as key research themes of current trends, namely: (1) benefits of UGI as urban ecosystem services; (2) mitigating climate and urban climate impacts by UGI; (3) UGI contribution to sustainable development goals (SDGs); (4) reconceptualising greenspaces as ‘safe havens’; (5) public acknowledgement and supportive governance for UGI, and (6) rethinking the operationalisability of UGI. The first two themes represent the ‘categories of ecosystem services of UGI and the most prominent focus’, the following two themes encompass ‘broader and emerging co-benefits of UGI’, and the last two themes focus on ‘how to operationalise UGI and support widespread adoption and implementation in cities’ (Fig. 4). For each of the six key themes, an in-depth content analysis was performed to identify the current trends and knowledge gaps in the related research area. Within Theme 2, which was the most frequently discussed category and, therefore, with the largest number of research, we further analysed the methods used and the content focus of existing literature.
State of the art and remaining gaps within each theme
Theme 1: Benefits of UGI as urban ecosystem services
The possibility of reassessing the benefits of UGI under the purview of ecosystems has been implied during the last decade (Bai 2018; Di Marino et al. 2019; Giedych and Maksymiuk 2017); however, it has been limited to specific areas. Di Marino et al. (2019) discussed integrating the concepts of UGI and ES into land-use policy and planning strategies. To identify all interconnections between nature and cities, adopting the categorisation of ES in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) is possible (Alcamo et al. 2005; MEA 2005), which entails provisioning, regulatory, cultural, and supporting services. Giedych and Maksymiuk (2017) studied the benefits of urban parks, although the study was limited to regulatory and cultural ES. Therefore, in this theme we explored the comprehensive benefits of UGI by linking them to MEA categorisation. The empirical data extracted from all 690 articles were categorised into the traditional MEA ecosystem categories using a treemap (Fig. 5). The treemap represents the number of cases discussing each UES to support the investigation on how different UES categories have been covered in the literature.
Through this visualisation, we identified uneven coverage of UES categories1 as the first research gap in the literature (Table 1). Regulatory services provided by urban ecosystems were the most frequently discussed category, appearing in 77.5% of the selected publications. Support for UES was present in 7.8% of the cases as the second-highest category. Provisioning and cultural UES accounted for 7.4% of all cases. Studies that focused on more than one UES within the same category were counted multiple times.
Regulatory services delivered by UGI play an essential role in human health and well-being in cities. As shown in Fig. 5, regulating urban microclimate impacts was the most frequently discussed UES, accounting for 20% of the total cases and has been separately discussed in Theme 2. Much research shows an increasing use of UGI in regulating floods and urban stormwater quantity (16.5%) and stormwater quality (9.1%), with various terms, including stormwater harvesting, integrated water management (IWM), water-sensitive urban design (WSUD), drained cities, and water-sensitive cities. This regulatory service directly addresses essential aspects of flood hazard reduction and the sustainable management of water resources (Green et al. 2021; Khodadad et al. 2023). Another important service is the regulation of air quality, including the reduction of pollutants, such as NO2, CO2, CO, SO2, O3, particulate matter, PM2.5, and PM10 from traffic emissions (Capotorti et al. 2019; Santiago et al. 2019; Simon et al. 2019) and carbon offsetting (Chen 2015). Regulation of human well-being through facilitating thermal comfort, waste management, water storage, and energy savings is another benefit described as regulatory services (Ghazalli et al. 2018, 2019; Santiago et al. 2019; Simon et al. 2019). Moreover, most UGI types, such as urban trees, green walls, green facades, green roofs, and other urban landscapes, support carbon sequestration as a ‘soft engineering’ strategy, which can be defined as supporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emission mitigation because CO2 is recognised as a primary GHG (Kim and Coseo 2018). In addition, natural vegetation in cities is known to improve the health and well-being of communities (Simon et al. 2019; Chen 2015), and improve life expectancy (Jonker et al. 2014). The high water retention ability of urban wetlands, water bodies, urban forests, rain gardens, and urban parks supports stormwater regulation, storage, flood resilience, water conservation, and filtering of polluted water (Herslund et al. 2018; Hettiarachchi et al. 2022; Liquete et al. 2016; Rodríguez-Rojas et al. 2018). Hybrid and fabricated UGI types (vegetated swales, bioretention cells, and rain barrels) mimic natural hydrological processes. They can increase surface permeability (Chen et al. 2019; Miller and Montalto 2019; Pierre et al. 2019) to promote infiltration and eventually reduce disaster risk by controlling urban flash floods (Fei et al. 2019; Gunnell et al. 2019; Kim and Kim 2017; Maragno et al. 2018; Shifflett et al. 2019; Tavakol-Davani et al. 2019). Additionally, we observed limited discussions on important regulatory UES, such as the improvement of soil quality, by retaining sediments and accumulating organic matter within urban landscapes.
The second category consisted of supporting UES (7.8%). UGI provides habitats for urban flora and fauna (animals, insects, bats, native birds, beetles, bugs, and plants) (Threlfall et al. 2017). Urban green areas enhance biological processes while supporting the biodiversity of cities (Fattorini and Galassi 2016; Gopal et al. 2019; Lopez et al. 2021; Riley et al. 2018). For example, insects promote pollination even though urban habitats are highly heterogeneous and occur in isolated patches (Lewis et al. 2019). Empirical evidence from Berlin highlighted the promotion of biodiversity and cultural heritage in its green landscape (Kowarik 2019). The presence of urban flora and fauna in cities, in turn, helps increase citizens’ awareness of efforts towards biodiversity conservation (Landor-Yamagata et al. 2018). However, negative impacts on health and well-being, such as ecosystem disservices, have also been identified (Azmy et al. 2016; Lyytimäki et al. 2008), as these sites can be habitats for harmful insects, mosquitoes, and fruit flies. By providing habitats for soil microorganisms, UGI promotes soil quality, which is also considered a regulatory UES. With fewer reports in the existing literature, an understanding of the ability of UGI to enhance the nutrient cycle by storing, processing, acquiring, and recycling soil nutrients in urban systems remains a knowledge gap.
Provisioning UES accounts for 7.4%, which covers the consumptive use of urban greenery. These services involve the provision of firewood, medicinal plants, craft materials, timber, and peat. Providing food sources, including leafy vegetables, mushrooms, and edible insects often cultivated through rooftop farming, urban agricultural lands, community gardens, and allotments, is considered a significant provisioning UES. Provisioning UES extends beyond tangible resources to encompass sustainable provisioning of water, nutrient cycling, and genetic resources (Alves et al. 2019; Grard et al. 2018; Kim and Coseo 2018; Matos Silva et al. 2019; Säumel et al. 2019; Shackleton et al. 2018; Zhang and Dong 2018). Furthermore, this category considers the direct and indirect impacts of these services on commercial activities and local economy. For instance, green spaces have demonstrated their ability to boost the business volumes and revenues of retail companies, attracting residents and shop owners to locations near green spaces due to the enhanced sense of space usability (Koppelaar et al. 2021). Some literature suggests that higher property values are associated with proximity to green spaces as economic rewards (Combrinck et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2021). Moreover, the provision of fruits, seeds, blossoms, and leaves has been documented in research, and discussions have been conducted on equity in distribution and accessibility among different communities (Feng et al. 2019b; Lin et al. 2017; Orsini et al. 2020; Shi et al. 2020). Cities provide ‘green collar jobs’ for skilled and unskilled employees, which are rarely examined as provisioning UES. King and Shackleton (2020) identified 17,429 jobs related to the maintenance of UGI in Eastern Cape towns, South Africa, generating approximately US$37 million per year (King and Shackleton 2020).
The final category was cultural UES, the “intangible and non-material benefits that people enjoy from ecosystems” (MEA 2005). Among the four main categories, cultural UES has been inadequately identified and under-studied in the literature (Cabana et al. 2020). We found that 7.4% of publications reported evidence for this category. Well-managed greening strategies in urban settings provide aesthetic and recreational value to a city by improving regular visits and tourism, and facilitating picnics, outings, non-commercial hunting and fishing, water sports, and other activities. These strategies can considerably increase the outdoor time of city occupants by enhancing the perception of walking and cycling and, ultimately, the quality of life (Douglas et al. 2019). Developing UGI in urban areas can enhance the cultural heritage of a site. For example, the Berlin Belt adds value to a cultural site and increases people’s engagement and visits to the area (Kowarik 2019). Some studies have discussed how green spaces support people’s religious beliefs, providing spiritual rewards and inspiration as a result of the quietness. In Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, several visitors from religious gatherings in urban green spaces said that outdoor worship is part of their religious practices, as the majority (79%) pray in public green spaces 1–4 times per week (Ngulani and Shackleton 2019).
The mapping of existing empirical literature into the four MEA categories of UES clearly showed the multivarious benefits that UGI provides for cities. A comprehensive assessment for valuation and appraisal of UES is always necessary to transfer the knowledge of UES into practice, to address the gaps associated with methodological inadequacy and inconsistency among approaches and to overcome less institutional support (Cabana et al. 2020; Saarikoski et al. 2018). However, we identified overlaps between categories, as most services are interconnected with direct and indirect benefits. At times, it was debatable to distinguish and place some services in the targeted UES category. For instance, in the case of air temperature reduction, it directly aligns with climate and urban climate regulation, while also contributing to human health and well-being and economic rewards. Assessing the monetary values through tangible indices, such as replacement costs, carbon taxes, afforestation costs, and market price methods (Xu and Zhao 2021), can overlap provisioning UES with other categories. While a cascade approach (Potschin-Young et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2022) could be suitable for capturing these gaps, there are ongoing debates about this approach, as it simultaneously oversimplifies the complex reality and introduces unnecessary complexity to straightforward definitions (Costanza et al. 2017). Moreover, an evidence-based assessment of the effectiveness of UGI in comparison with that of traditional infrastructure is still required (Bai et al. 2018). Such a study would also be important for understanding the necessity, places, and people for whom UGI is required (Lopez et al. 2021).
Theme 2: Mitigation of climate and urban climate changes by UGI—the most frequently discussed function
Impacts from climate change challenge urban resilience, liveability, and justice; hence, cities require effective adaptation and mitigation planning. The existing literature identifies UGI as a climate change adaptation tool, environmental and land management planning tool, ecosystem-based planning tool, and nature-based solution to bridge the existing gaps in climate change mitigation and adaptation actions (Anderson and Gough 2021; Salata and Yiannakou 2020). UGI systems ensure sustainable, less vulnerable, and more resilient communities by delivering critical UES and climatic benefits.
Among regulatory services, nearly half of UES (44%) have focused on climate and urban climate regulating benefits. The most common expectations for urban greenery are the regulation of urban temperature and the provision of thermal comfort and air quality (Duan et al. 2018; Masoudi et al. 2019; Wong et al. 2017). Moreover, a well-planned UGI can provide UES related to climate adaptation and mitigation, including stormwater regulation and water storage (Salata and Yiannakou 2020), GHG emissions (Kim and Coseo 2018), and carbon storage and sequestration (Ariluoma et al. 2021). Heat-regulatory services dominate climate benefits as the most discussed service, with 108 articles. In Fig. 6, the methods and contents are summarised to illustrate the diversity of those studies across 12 dimensions. By following the discussion trends, we assessed the heat-regulatory climate benefits of UGI (from 108 heat-related case studies) at greater depths. Hereafter, we present an overview of Fig. 6 with a subsequent discussion while identifying key research gaps and limitations regarding both content and methods in the most frequently discussed UES or function in the literature.
By observing the methodological approaches of the selected literature with attention to assessment type, measured index, modelling area, duration, and used models, several research gaps were identified. Various indices and terms, such as urban heat island (UHI) mitigation, urban cooling, indoor and outdoor thermal comfort, and human health and well-being across diverse climatic conditions and geographical locations, presented the association between urban green and urban heat. Urban green spaces regulate urban heat via evaporative cooling from transpiration and shading (Oke et al. 1989; Oliveira et al. 2011) and provide a land-use mix that improves the turbulence of the area. The vast majority of studies have analysed the association and impact of the behaviour of the air (Tair) or land surface temperature (LST) (or the UHI) with urban growth, the urbanisation gradient, or land-use changes (Masoudi et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019a, b; Yang and Bou-Zeid 2019). Different primary indices, including Tair (mostly within the sensible heights for humans, 1.4–5 m layer) and land surface temperature (LST), and derivative indices, including UHI, mean radiant temperature (MRT), and surface urban heat island (SUHI), were used to study the temperature (see Fig. 6 for other indices) (Arnfield 2003; Grimmond 2007; Howard 1833). Thermal comfort is measured through indices, including physiological equivalent temperature (PET), predicted mean vote (PMV), universal thermal climate index (UTCI), and MRT, for which the temperate region has the highest discussion frequency of all indices. These universal thermal comfort indices are calculated based on primary heat indices, including Tair, radiation, humidity, wind, and personal factors (clothing and activity level) (Bröde et al. 2012; Höppe 1999). Our review shows that a wide array of methods were employed, from implemented UGI interventions to modelling (including physical models, GIS and RS, and statistical models, etc.), surveys and hybrid approaches combining two or more of the aforementioned methods. The substantial and growing contribution of LST and remote sensing to the findings is concerning, particularly given the method’s acknowledged limitations in drawing definitive conclusions regarding UGI cooling benefits. However, extracting quantified reduction values/ranges for different indices was difficult. Out of the 108 cases, 14 presented outcomes in the form of map-based figures, statistical data, solar radiation results, or survey data, making it challenging to derive precise values. Consequently, the analysis presented in Fig. 7 is based on case studies with extractable outcomes, which accounts for 87% of the cases.
The diverse effectiveness of UGI plans over different climate zones2 is a broad and under-explored topic and was identified as the second research gap. Different UGI typologies have been observed to have different levels of effectiveness in different climatic zones (Fig. 7) and require further assessment. Urban green spaces (identified by the search terms of urban parks, blue-green spaces, green cover, urban vegetation, green area, allotments, and urban gardens) were the most popular (33.3%) UGI strategy in the temperate region for heat mitigation (average reduction of Tair and LST of 2 °C and 6.2 °C, respectively). Urban trees are the most frequently discussed UGI intervention for the subtropics (30.2%). Despite shading and evapotranspiration, urban trees modify wind flow to facilitate heat transfer in urban canyons (Oke et al. 1989). Green roofs are the dominant UGI intervention for heat mitigation in the tropics (23.3%), reducing the average Tair by 1.4 °C (0.02–2.6 °C). After applying UGI mitigation strategies, tropical climates show the maximum average Tair reduction (2.9 °C), but the broadest range is observable in the temperate region (0.02–9.4 °C). In the subtropical region, mitigating scenarios reported a maximum LST reduction of 14 °C (1.4–30.9 °C), whereas in the tropics, the reduction was at a minimum.
Our observations revealed the third research gap—limited availability of measured data, primarily due to a smaller number of field measurements from on-the-ground implementations3. In Fig. 6, we grouped the studies into six categories based on their assessment methods: field measurements from implemented cases, modelled, surveyed, GIS based, remote sense based (RS), and hybrid studies that combined two or more methods. Approximately, one-third (25.7%) of the studies investigated UGI predominantly through direct observation. Field measurements provide actual on-ground evidence, yet acquiring field data is challenging with time constraints, resources and instrumental limitations (related to data quality limitations, missing data), finances, and labour limitations (Hunziker et al. 2017; Mirzaei and Haghighat 2010). In addition, field data can cause unpredictable instrument or human errors during replication and long-term observations. The rest of the direct observations came from surveying studies (5.3%), which can be used as the qualitative component; however, surveying studies can also be onerous and liable to errors because of possibly biased responses and non-representative samples.
Modelling and thermal mapping studies are advantageous for overcoming these limitations to some extent, after validation with ground measurements. As excess heat is a constant urban challenge with the predicted urbanisation rate and future population growth, preparing resilient and adaptive cities for future shocks is a part of urban planning, which requires modelling and forecasting. The popularity of UGI, evident through numerous modelling and GIS/RS-based studies, was observed to be limited as a concept. Most research primarily remains in the experimental or modelling stages4, which was identified as the fourth research gap. Modelling-based studies that used physical and simulation models, statistical models, and GIS-based and remote sensing models represented the majority (55.8%) of the results. Additionally, 13.3% of the studies used hybrid approaches, among which GIS and RS methods accounted for the highest fraction (36.11%), whereas modelling approaches accounted for 10%. Remote sensing captures surface temperature responses only at the tree-top and roof-top levels, which is a major disadvantage of this method (Krayenhoff et al. 2020). Thermal data on pedestrian levels are essential for planning pedestrian thermal comfort in cities, which the above GIS/RS-based methods fail to provide. Climate models are useful tools that can provide a platform to investigate the response of climate systems to different forces (e.g. urban land use change) and evaluate potential mitigation plans based on past experiences and future predictions (Flato et al. 2013). In the case studies from our search (Fig. 6), mesoscale and microscale climate models were mainly used with various resolutions. The spatial scale is critical for providing accurate outputs from simulations and is essential for providing high-resolution temporal and spatial climate data to assess the effectiveness of mitigation plans (Hayes et al. 2022). Mesoscale climate models support regional-level planning with comparatively larger resolutions (downscaling with resolutions of 1 to several hundred kilometres) by capturing dynamic atmospheric processes under boundary conditions (Hayes et al. 2022; Herath et al. 2023). We observed that 20.4% of the studies used different mesoscale urban climate models, including the weather research and forecasting (WRF) and atmospheric ocean global climate models (AOGCM), coupled with urban canopy models (UCM) to represent urban characteristics (Imran et al. 2018; Yang and Bou-Zeid 2019; Žuvela-Aloise et al. 2016). Most microscale models simulate detailed flow around terrain by resolving fine-scale turbulence using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) equations on the surface layer at the neighbourhood scale (further downscaled to metre-scale resolutions of 1 m–1 km) (Haupt et al. 2019), (ENVI-met GmbH 2022). Microscale models can estimate detailed information at the local scale, and this ability is highly important for pedestrian-level urban planning and thermal comfort assessments. However, the high computational demand and time required could limit the use of microscale climate models at the regional or city level. From our results, 52% of the simulation studies have used ENVI-met, a computational, microscale climate model (Bruse and Fleer 1998).
The lack of macroscale modelling assessments of UGI for climate adaptation and overall effectiveness5 was identified as the fifth research gap. Most studies have focused on microscale modelling with focusing on areas < 0.05 km2 or exclusively within an experimental setting. In reality, comprehending the effectiveness of UGI at a macroscale, such as a city level, is also essential, alongside neighbourhood studies in urban planning. This broader perspective is crucial for city-scale planning, management, and understanding UGI interactions with other urban infrastructure. Therefore, the literature should be expanded towards the efficiency of UGI on a macroscale as well as its implementation beyond small-scale individual success stories (Bai 2018; Baró et al. 2015). In terms of modelling duration, most studies have presented short-term analyses (seasonal; e.g. for summer or across a year) (Fung and Jim 2019; Herath et al. 2021), for a duration below 20 years (> 80%). Only 4.6% of the studies represented long-term analyses that used durations longer than 20 years (Cai et al. 2019; Di Leo et al. 2016; Herath et al. 2023). The insufficient number of studies in the literature with multiyear analysis6 was identified as the sixth research gap; hence, long-term and multiyear findings are critical for capturing the considerable year-to-year variability in the climate in the context of adaptation plans.
In terms of content, two research gaps were identified, which are discussed below. Considering the discussion frequencies, the inadequacy of assessments of the co-benefits approach7 is highlighted as the seventh research gap. Most studies solely assessed heat reduction climate benefits, whereas only 17.7% of the cases considered co-benefits. Figure 6 suggests that most studies evaluated climate benefits considering the present (and past) timeframes of UGI, whereas only 4.4% of cases presented predictions from simulations with future timeframes (Emmanuel and Loconsole 2015; Fahmy et al. 2018). We highlight the limited number of assessments of UGI during extreme heat conditions8 as the eighth research gap. Given the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events, the existing discussion frequency (only 4.4%) suggests a grey area with a lack of attention to UGI solutions for heatwave adaptation planning.
Theme 3: UGI contribution to sustainable development goals
Green areas are one of the seven essential factors determining urban carrying capacity in a sustainable city (Oh et al. 2005). Other UES from green spaces observed in this search also display direct and indirect benefits along with the other six factors, namely energy, roads, subway systems, water supply, sewage treatment, and waste treatment. Having functional green spaces in cities is directly compatible with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets. Target 11.7 is: ‘to provide universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public spaces’, and Target 11.6 is: ‘to reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities’ under ‘sustainable cities and communities’ (United Nations 2018). As shown in Fig. 8, the literature shows that the UES delivered by UGI could contribute to most other SDGs as well. For example, climate-related regulatory services, including air quality regulation, temperature regulation, water storage, and disaster risk reduction, through stormwater management directly contribute to the 13th SDG and climate action strategies. The UES provided by urban wetlands, such as purification, retention, and water replenishment, contribute to the 6th SDG, which considers clean water and sanitation. Hence, a city can apply the concept of ‘co-benefits’ during sustainability planning with maximum effectiveness owing to the interlinked and multidisciplinary nature of UES.
As identified in theme 3.2 (the 7th research gap under climate regulatory UES), our overall analysis confirms that there is room for enhanced recognition of the co-benefits of UGI. Most case studies (82.3%) included in our literature review focused on a single benefit/role of UGI, whereas 17.7% identified co-benefits. UGI often provides a golden payback, as it delivers several co-benefits beyond the initial planning. As proof of this, the green infrastructure plan, mainly intended to improve water quality and stormwater infiltration in New York, was found to ‘inadvertently’ deliver climate adaptation outcomes (Culligan 2019). Harnessing the many co-benefits delivered by UGI could be a strategic way to reduce the cost of addressing urban challenges (Raymond et al. 2017). For instance, planning for climate adaptation and mitigation with UGI could be more cost-effective considering the social co-benefits (European Commission 2013; Karlsson et al. 2020). However, in complex, interlinked systems, such as cities (Grimm et al. 2008; Ngulani and Shackleton 2019; Raymond et al. 2017; United Nations 2018), interventions often deliver intended benefits and co-benefits along with unintended consequences, such as potential trade-offs, limitations, and disservices. For example, planning urban forests in Australia to target the goals of carbon capture and water or pollutant regulation should consider potential fire risks. Planning for a co-benefit-focused, climate-responsive, multidisciplinary and inter-scaler design (Tomasi et al. 2021), local level planning (Yin et al. 2021), and cross-over concern to bridge several knowledge bases, such as urban climatology, landscape planning, and urban governance, can help overcome some limitations and disservices.
Urban green spaces play a vital role in social cohesion, promoting people’s participation in community affairs and strengthening a community’s social network and community care (Chou et al. 2017; Langemeyer et al. 2018). For example, establishing green spaces in urban settings promotes equitable sharing of urban spaces by urban communities (Quatrini et al. 2019). Urban agricultural efforts, rooftop farming, and community gardens improve active engagement, participation, cooperative work, mutual learning, and experience sharing. Edible city concepts are conducive, to an extent, to alleviating poverty and inequality in urban areas (Säumel et al. 2019).
The mechanisms behind investing in UGI plans while addressing inequalities (Herreros-Cantis and McPhearson 2021) remain unclear9, which we identified as the ninth research gap. UGI draws attention to urban sustainability, but is often limited, particularly in underdeveloped, low-income areas (Cheshmehzangi et al. 2021). For example, environmental, economic, and social injustice and inequalities are reported in cities (regardless of city size) while distributing services of UGI (e.g. New York, USA, and smaller towns outside Wuhan, China) (Herreros-Cantis and McPhearson 2021; Dai et al. 2021). Several factors contribute to such inequalities, including supply and demand mismatch, income disparity, and racial factors (Herreros-Cantis and McPhearson 2021; Dai et al. 2021). Conversely, investing in UGI contributes to urban gentrification, potentially promoting social and racial inequalities and environmental injustices (Anguelovski et al. 2022).
Theme 4: Reconceptualising green spaces as ‘safe havens’
A considerable number of recently published articles in our search results refer to COVID-19, with some of them specifically addressing the roles of UGI during the pandemic. As a result, we have identified this topic as one deserving separate attention. Urban parks, peri-urban forests, and protected areas are often used by local communities for exercise (walking, running, hiking, and cycling) and recreational purposes, thus supporting the physical and mental well-being of the community (Berdejo-Espinola et al. 2021; Liu and Wang 2021; Venter et al. 2020). During the recent COVID-19 outbreak, urban green spaces have garnered increasing attention and have had a higher demand as places to escape (Sugiyama et al. 2021; Venter et al. 2020). For instance, in a survey conducted in Brisbane, Australia, 36% of participants reported increased usage of their local green spaces, whereas 45% reported visiting a new green space for the first time (Berdejo-Espinola et al. 2021). In Oslo, Norway, outdoor recreational activities increased by 291% during the lockdown compared with the previous 3 years (Venter et al. 2020). Using green spaces during the pandemic has offered benefits to the physical and mental well-being of city dwellers. For example, studies in the USA and Australia have assessed the mental health factors of adults and young people, such as COVID-19-related worries, distress, anxiety, and depression, in relation to nearby green spaces. They found that green spaces facilitated relaxation, enjoyment of nature, and enhanced resilience with better physical and mental well-being during the pandemic, with confirmed negative associations between tree-rich green spaces and mental health-related variables (Astell-Burt and Feng 2019; Lopez et al. 2021; Oswald et al. 2021; Wortzel et al. 2021).
Addressing this urgent demand in some high-density localities while balancing social distancing measures and infection control has become increasingly challenging (Kleinschroth and Kowarik 2020). For instance, private gardens and backyards provided an alternative for some communities, such as the residents of Brisbane, Australia, during the pandemic (Berdejo-Espinola et al. 2021). Moreover, scattered tiny pocket parks in vacant property spaces could be another innovative alternative (Liu and Wang 2021).
However, public green spaces may not always provide safe spaces for the community. The possible misuses of public green spaces beyond idealistic uses are considerably under-explored in the existing literature10 and were identified as the tenth research gap. When green spaces in city areas are poorly managed, they can be unsafe for park users and neighbourhood communities, especially at night, with threats of theft, violence, drugs, and other types of crime (Koskela and Pain 2000). Lyytimaki et al. (2008) discussed situations where nature appears to be a nuisance to urban lifestyles with disservices, including pollen health risks and safety concerns in dark parks (Lyytimäki et al. 2008). Such issues need proper attention while planning multiple green spaces in cities.
The implications of these findings are clear for future planning. Firstly, urban green spaces must be considered an integral part of response plans for future pandemics, especially as the COVID-19 pandemic may become the ‘new normal’. Secondly, in addition to large public green spaces, strategic planning through the installation of smaller pocket-sized green spaces could be an effective and resilient way to prepare for future disasters (Herath et al. 2024). Thirdly, planning and policy must be in place to ensure equity and justice in access to, and the safety of, urban green spaces for all communities (Calderón-Argelich et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2022; Geary et al. 2021; Kleinschroth and Kowarik 2020).
Theme 5: Public acknowledgement and supportive governance for UGI
Our review shows a generally positive public perception and acceptance of UGI. In most cases, city residents and visitors appreciate the UGI and associate it with positive feelings, such as beauty, peace, joy, excitement, hope, relaxation, desire to explore the site, interestedness, and safety (Lee and Kim 2015; Mesimäki et al. 2019). Meanwhile, public acknowledgement of environmental and recreational UES, such as climate mitigation and adaptation (Lo et al. 2017), is very high owing to the straightforward, corrective, and preventive benefits with tangible evidence (Gashu and Gebre-Egziabher 2019). Conversely, communities acknowledge economic and social UES to a lesser extent because these impacts are long-term and intangible (Gashu and Gebre-Egziabher 2019). These public perceptions seem to be influenced by demographics, gender, and educational level. For instance, educated elders and females appear to be more sensitive to the environmental risks to human well-being in some communities, such as poor air quality and high temperatures (Culligan 2019; Duan et al. 2018).
While largely positive, UGI also acquires some negative public acknowledgement. The main reasons for this include impacts on land value, parking loss, and the accumulation of trash and non-preferred plants/species (Culligan 2019). Many of these negative public perceptions were mainly due to general dissatisfaction generated by a lack of public consultation before implementation (Culligan 2019; Säumel et al. 2019), suggesting the importance of better public engagement/ involvement and community consultation. The operationalisation of UGI planning is simple and straightforward, with higher public acknowledgement and positive attitudes. For example, educational programs can train people to detect exotic pests during park visits (Norman-Burgdolf and Rieske 2021). Such attempts help nature by reducing the risk of invasive species, whereas participants benefit in terms of their physical and mental health.
Institutional and policy support is essential for successful UGI planning and implementation. For instance, some European countries have policies to support mainstream UGI in spatial planning and terrestrial development (Pauleit et al. 2017). New York and Melbourne (Melbourne Green Plan) invested heavily on UGI to improve local environmental and social conditions (City of Melbourne 2017; Culligan 2019; Victoria State Government 2017). In Canada, urban green planning is well acknowledged in municipal plans; however, the concept of ‘explicit use of the ecosystem’ has not been considered (Thompson et al. 2019).
There are many concerns and doubts about financing green infrastructure in cities. The lack of clear pathways towards financing green infrastructure11 was identified as the eleventh research gap in the UGI-related literature. We found very few supporting studies that sought to understand the involvement, perception, and agreements of different institutional and community stakeholder parties (politicians, planning administrations, citizens, and external service providers) in UGI planning, access to their services, and utilisation of public funds. One method to source funds for public infrastructure planning is through municipal revenues earned through local government taxes and fines (Lindfield and Teipelke 2017). Therefore, positive public perception could be advantageous in financing UGI as such an attitude could substantially aid the moral authority to utilise public funds for developing UGI. Another method of financing UGI planning is through indirect participation of the community, such as accounting for willingness to pay (WTP). For example, some communities express a WTP elevated rentals and mortgages (up to 2%), whereas others are interested in paying for the development and quality enhancement of adjacent green spaces to live beside nature (Derkzen et al. 2017; Mell et al. 2016; Zhou et al. 2021).
Theme 6: Rethinking the operationalisability of UGI
Several limitations often impede larger-scale UGI projects during the planning, implementation, design, and management stages (Gelan and Girma 2021; Mell 2021), and raise doubts about operationalisation. Critical factors such as funding, space availability, infrastructure maintenance, institutional collaboration, responsibility sharing, lack of supportive policy frameworks, resource availability (e.g. water and nutrients), and waste disposal are prevalent hurdles during different phases of an UGI life cycle (Herath et al. 2023).
The merits of innovative technologies can overcome some of the drawbacks during the maintenance and management phases. For example, novel technologies, such as wireless sensor networks (Le et al. 2019), real-time controls (Matasov et al. 2020), plant/tree-based sensors (Jones 2019), and satellite-based representative methods with vegetation indices (Ramyar et al. 2021; Raymond et al. 2017), are helpful in maintenance, monitoring of regular vegetation health, and evaluating the performance of large-scale urban forest planning in Melbourne, Australia, a city aspiring to become a forest city in the future (Fuentes et al. 2021). Guidelines, manuals, protocols, and training are essential for managing potential disservices and other challenges, such as weeds, water stress, invasive species, diseases, and flood risk (Reynolds et al. 2020).
Overcoming these limitations is essential to maximise the effectiveness of a UGI plan to enhance functionality and multifunctionality while being resource-efficient and cost-effective. For example, using recycled greywater for green walls and roofs has been a successful alternative to limit and reduce potable-water use (Fowdar et al. 2017; Prodanovic et al. 2017). Recycled aggregates and sludge from wastewater treatment have been investigated as substrates for green roofs and walls (Molineux et al. 2015) for improved plant cover and diversity (Molineux et al. 2015).
Rehabilitation of abandoned urban spaces, such as solid waste dumps, mines, disused transportation routes (tram lines), and brownfields, can help ease the limitations of urban space availability for UGI (Feng et al. 2019a; Mathey et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2019). Combined or integrated UGI strategies are reasonable choices, considering the potential high costs of implementing citywide green roofing for heat mitigation (Herath et al. 2023). For instance, integrating green roofs with reflective cool roofs could be a more feasible operational strategy with reduced cost/resource requirements and more cooling benefits than green roofs alone for heat mitigation (Herath et al. 2021, 2023). Moreover, integrating green roofs with solar panels shows a higher efficiency in energy production (increasing energy gain by up to 16%) compared with using conventional solar roofs, as this combination eliminates pollutants in the air while maintaining the panel surface at an optimum temperature range via cooling (Barcelona City Council 2015; Cavadini and Cook 2021).
Planning a hybrid infrastructure that combines green with blue and grey infrastructure can help maximise overall effectiveness (Fowdar et al. 2017; Molineux et al. 2015; Prodanovic et al. 2017). Generating a broader empirical basis on the effectiveness of such hybrid infrastructure solutions is essential for identifying the kind of co-benefits they bring12, which was recognised as the twelfth research gap. As examples of hybrid infrastructure planning, we found six case studies in our literature search; however, all studies on this topic have focused on stormwater management (Bakhshipour et al. 2019; De Sousa et al. 2012; Jeong et al. 2016; Mulligan et al. 2020; Taghizadeh et al. 2021; Vojinovic et al. 2021). Assessment of effectiveness by counting the target benefits along with all potential co-benefits would provide a complete picture of effectiveness.
The operationalisability of a planned UGI should be a key consideration when analysing its effectiveness. Hence, the lack of a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness of UGI13 was identified as the thirteenth research gap. The current literature tends to discuss the effectiveness of UGI based on functional effectiveness, such as cooling/heating/pollution control or stormwater holding potential, without much evaluation of the operationalisability, ease of implementation, cost-effectiveness, or comparisons with conventional infrastructure. For example, applying 90% or 100% citywide green roofs is effective in terms of cooling, but is neither realistic nor operationalisable. Selecting the most suitable UGI plan for the given context is critical during the planning stage.
Finally, the devil is in the detail; the minor details should be considered when implementing UGI. We identified the insufficient exploration of the spatial configurational efficiency of UGI14 as the fourteenth research gap in the existing literature. It is reasonable to assume that the differences in the configuration and spatial arrangement of UGI could lead to different outcomes. For example, some evidence suggests that street trees without appropriate spacing and with dense canopies could decrease MRT and increase air temperature (Meili et al. 2021; Park et al. 2019). Public open spaces benefit from a particular tree orientation for effective cooling (Privitera and La Rosa 2018). With current technological advancements, these outcomes can be easily and accurately assessed using various empirical efforts in future studies. Furthermore, each city requires context-specific green policies, as each has a unique microclimate depending on multiple factors, such as climate, solar radiation, aerodynamic properties of urban materials, urban–rural gradient, morphology, and green spaces (Bherwani et al. 2020; Giyasova 2021; Li et al. 2019a; Martilli et al. 2020; Patricola and Wehner 2018; Zhang et al. 2018). To inform practice at the city level, more research on context-specific, multi-year analyses in different climatic regions is needed15, which we summarised as the final (fifteenth) research gap in this review.
Limitations of the review
As for the scope of our sample, we have restricted our literature selection to a single database, Web of Science, and have omitted articles published in languages other than English. Limiting the scope to academic publications may overlook valuable insights present in grey literature sources. Constraining the search period to 2000–2022 enabled us to focus on the most contemporary and novel literature. Although this approach may potentially omit significant papers published prior to this period, it is necessary to manage the volume of records and facilitate the screening process efficiently. Our comprehensive approach to UGI benefits involved a broad literature evaluation, but revealed challenges in categorising them within the traditional MEA framework. This highlights the need for more adaptable categorisation methods that acknowledge the interconnected nature of UES, encouraging a more holistic assessment. Future studies should prioritise large-scale, real-world implementations across diverse climatic zones, geographic regions, and urban settings to enhance our understanding of UGI’s impact.
Conclusions and future work
This review offers a comprehensive overview of the ecosystem services provided by UGI. It combines systematic and narrative review approaches to assess the multifaceted benefits and co-benefits provided by UGI. The existing knowledge is synthesised into six current and emerging themes, namely, benefits of UGI as UES; mitigating climate and urban climate impacts by UGI; UGI contribution to sustainable development goals; reconceptualising greenspaces as ‘safe havens’; public acknowledgement and supportive governance for UGI; and rethinking the operationalisability of UGI.
Within each theme, the state of the art and existing gaps are discussed in-depth. Categorising the existing empirical evidence from the literature sheds light on the various UES provided by UGI. The first theme accentuates the uneven coverage of UES categories, necessitating a more balanced exploration. More than 77% of UGI literature focuses on the regulatory function, highlighting UGI’s robust capacity for urban climate adaptation and mitigation, particularly in heat regulation and stormwater management. Theme 2 explores the benefits of UGI for mitigating climate and urban climate impacts, revealing gaps such as diverse effectiveness across climate zones, limited field measurements, and reliance on experimental or modelling stages. Theme 3, UGI’s contribution to sustainable development goals, underscores its significant impact on advancing 17 SDGs, notably SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The UES interconnects and simultaneously creates several linkages with the SDGs, demonstrating an intrinsic capacity to deliver cost-effective co-benefits beyond its primary functions across social, environmental, and economic domains. However, our analysis unveils the gap, a limited understanding of mechanisms for investing in UGI plans while addressing existing inequalities. Themes 4 and 5 draw attention to the positive public perception of UGI, amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic experience, positioning it as a potent tool and a powerful aid in designing, managing, and financing the UGI. Proactive planning before implementing UGI plans can be a cost-effective option to provide a safe space against shocks such as heatwaves and pandemics in the context of climate change and post-COVID-19 new normal. Despite these positives, gaps persist, particularly in Theme 4, which sheds light on the underexplored potential misuse of public green spaces beyond idealistic uses, and Theme 5, highlighting the absence of clear pathways for financing green infrastructure. Theme 6 explores the operational challenges of UGI plans, including the insufficiency of empirical data, comprehensive evaluations, and exploration of spatial configurations, while discussing the possible innovative approaches to overcome those limitations.
Overall, the review shows that notable knowledge gaps persist despite the abundant literature on UGI. Addressing these gaps is crucial for unlocking the full potential of UGI in creating resilient and sustainable urban environments.
Data availability
The search query is presented in the appendix, and all results from the data analysis are presented. Other than that, data is available on request.
References
Abhijith KV, Kumar P, Gallagher J, McNabola A, Baldauf R, Pilla F, Broderick B, Di Sabatino S, Pulvirenti B (2017) Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments—a review. Atmos Environ 162:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.014
ADB. (2015). Water-Related Disasters and Disaster Risk Management in the People’s Republic of China (ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ed.)). Asian Development Bank, 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines. www.adb.org.
Albers RAW, Bosch PR, Blocken B, van den Dobbelsteen AAJF, van Hove LWA, Spit TJM, van de Ven F, van Hooff T, Rovers V (2015) Overview of challenges and achievements in the climate adaptation of cities and in the Climate Proof Cities program. Buildi Environ 83(December 2014):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.09.006
Alcamo J, Ash NJ, Butler CD, Callicott JB, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Castilla JC, Chambers R, Chopra K, Cropper A, Daily GC, Dasgupta P, de Groot R, Hamilton T, Gadgil AKDM, Hamilton K (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millenn Ecosyst Assess. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.003
Alves A, Gersonius B, Kapelan Z, Vojinovic Z, Sanchez A (2019) Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management. J Environ Manag 239(February):244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.036
Amorim JH, Engardt M, Johansson C, Ribeiro I, Sannebro M (2021) Regulating and cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructure in the nordic countries: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(3):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031219
Anderson V, Gough WA (2021) Harnessing the four horsemen of climate change: a framework for deep resilience, decarbonization, and planetary health in Ontario Canada. Sustainability (switzerland) 13(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010379
Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Cole H, Garcia-Lamarca M, Triguero-Mas M, Baró F, Martin N, Conesa D, Shokry G, del Pulgar CP, Ramos LA, Matheney A, Gallez E, Oscilowicz E, Máñez JL, Sarzo B, Beltrán MA, Minaya JM (2022) Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nat Commun 13(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1
Ariluoma M, Ottelin J, Hautamäki R, Tuhkanen EM, Mänttäri M (2021) Carbon sequestration and storage potential of urban green in residential yards: a case study from Helsinki. Urban for Urban Green. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126939
Arnfield AJ (2003) Two decades of urban climate research: a review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island. Int J Climatol 23(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.859
Astell-Burt T, Feng X (2019) Association of urban green space with mental health and general health among adults in Australia. JAMA Netw Open 2(7):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8209
Azmy MM, Hosaka T, Numata S (2016) Responses of four hornet species to levels of urban greenness in Nagoya city, Japan: implications for ecosystem disservices of urban green spaces. Urban for Urban Green 18:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.05.014
Bai X (2018) Advance the ecosystem approach in cities. Nature 559(7712):7–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05607-x
Bai X, McPhearson T, Cleugh H, Nagendra H, Tong X, Zhu T, Zhu YG (2017) Linking urbanization and the environment: conceptual and empirical advances. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:215–240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061128
Bai X, Dawson RJ, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Delgado GC, Barau AS, Dhakal S, Dodman D, Leonardsen L, Masson-Delmotte V, Roberts D, Schultz S (2018) Six research priorities for cities. Nature 555:23–25
Bakhshipour AE, Dittmer U, Haghighi A, Nowak W (2019) Hybrid green-blue-gray decentralized urban drainage systems design, a simulation-optimization framework. J Environ Manag 249(August):109364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109364
Barcelona City Council (2015) Guide to living terrace roofs and green roofs (E. Contreras & I. Castillo (eds.)). Area of Urban Ecology. Barcelona City Council. https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/handle/11703/98795
Baró F, Bugter R, Gómez-Baggethun E, Hauck J, Kopperoinen L, Liquete C, Potschin M (2015) Conceptual approaches to Green Infrastructure. In: Potschin M, Jax K (eds) OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book. www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book
Battisti L, Pille L, Wachtel T, Larcher F, Säumel I (2019) Residential greenery: state of the art and health-related ecosystem services and disservices in the city of Berlin. Sustainability (switzerland) 11(6):1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061815
Berdejo-Espinola V, Suárez-Castro AF, Amano T, Fielding KS, Oh RRY, Fuller RA (2021) Urban green space use during a time of stress: a case study during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brisbane Australia. People Nat 3(3):597–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10218
Bherwani H, Singh A, Kumar R (2020) Assessment methods of urban microclimate and its parameters: a critical review to take the research from lab to land. Urban Clim 34(August):100690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100690
Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM, Pullin AS (2010) Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc Urban Plan 97(3):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006
Bröde P, Fiala D, Błażejczyk K, Holmér I, Jendritzky G, Kampmann B, Tinz B, Havenith G (2012) Deriving the operational procedure for the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI). Int J Biometeorol 56(3):481–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-011-0454-1
Bruse M, Fleer H (1998) Simulating surface-plant-air interactions inside urban environments with a three dimensional numerical model. Environ Model Softw 13(3–4):373–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(98)00042-5
Cabana D, Ryfield F, Crowe TP, Brannigan J (2020) Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 42(February):101085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101085
Cai Y, Chen Y, Tong C (2019) Spatiotemporal evolution of urban green space and its impact on the urban thermal environment based on remote sensing data: a case study of Fuzhou City China. Urban for Urban Green 41(February):333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.012
Calderón-Argelich A, Benetti S, Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Langemeyer J, Baró F (2021) Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem service literature: a systematic review. Landsc Urban Plan. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104130
Capotorti G, Alós Ortí MM, Copiz R, Fusaro L, Mollo B, Salvatori E, Zavattero L (2019) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in urban green infrastructure planning: a case study from the metropolitan area of Rome (Italy). Urban for Urban Green 37(November 2017):87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.014
Cavadini GB, Cook LM (2021) Green and cool roof choices integrated into rooftop solar energy modelling. Appl Energy 296(February):117082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117082
Chan FKS, Griffiths JA, Higgitt D, Xu S, Zhu F, Tang YT, Xu Y, Thorne CR (2018) “Sponge City” in China—a breakthrough of planning and flood risk management in the urban context. Land Use Policy 76(May):772–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.005
Chen WY (2015) The role of urban green infrastructure in offsetting carbon emissions in 35 major Chinese cities: a nationwide estimate. Cities 44:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.01.005
Chen J, Liu Y, Gitau MW, Engel BA, Flanagan DC, Harbor JM (2019) Evaluation of the effectiveness of green infrastructure on hydrology and water quality in a combined sewer overflow community. Sci Total Environ 665:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.416
Chen Y, Ge Y, Yang G, Wu Z, Du Y, Mao F, Liu S, Xu R, Qu Z, Xu B, Chang J (2022) Inequalities of urban green space area and ecosystem services along urban center-edge gradients. Landsc Urban Plan 217(October):104266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104266
Cheshmehzangi A, Butters C, Xie L, Dawodu A (2021) Green infrastructures for urban sustainability: Issues, implications, and solutions for underdeveloped areas. Urban for Urban Green 59(December):127028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127028
Chou RJ, Wu CT, Huang FT (2017) Fostering multi-functional urban agriculture: experiences from the champions in a revitalized farm pond community in Taoyuan Taiwan. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112097
City of Melbourne (2017) Green our city, Strategic action plan 2017–2021. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/sitecollectiondocuments/green-our-city-action-plan-2018.pdf
Climate ADAPT (2023) Urban green infrastructure planning and nature-based solutions. DG CLIMA Project Adaptation Strategies of European Cities (EU Cities Adapt). https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/metadata/adaptation-options/green-spaces-and-corridors-in-urban-areas
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2013) Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in Environmental Management. In Version 4.2 (Issue March). http://www.environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Review-guidelines-version-4.2-final.pdf
Combrinck Z, Cilliers EJ, Lategan L, Cilliers S (2020) Revisiting the proximity principle with stakeholder input: Investigating property values and distance to urban green space in potchefstroom. Land. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070235
Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
Cruz-Garcia GS, Sachet E, Blundo-Canto G, Vanegas M, Quintero M (2017) To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosyst Serv 25:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.005
Culligan PJ (2019) Green infrastructure and urban sustainability: a discussion of recent advances and future challenges based on multiyear observations in New York City. Sci Technol Built Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2019.1629243
Dai X, Wang L, Tao M, Huang C, Sun J, Wang S (2021) Assessing the ecological balance between supply and demand of blue-green infrastructure. J Environ Manag 288(March):112454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112454
DasGupta R, Hashimoto S, Gundimeda H (2019) Biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific: typology, archetypes and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustain Sci 14(1):241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0647-1
De Sousa MRC, Montalto FA, Spatari S (2012) Using life cycle assessment to evaluate green and grey combined sewer overflow control strategies. J Ind Ecol 16(6):901–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00534.x
Derkzen ML, Teeffelen AJA, van PH Verburg, (2017) Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation: How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences? Landsc Urban Plan 157(106):130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.027
Di Leo N, Escobedo FJ, Dubbeling M (2016) The role of urban green infrastructure in mitigating land surface temperature in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Environ Dev Sustain 18(2):373–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9653-y
Di Marino M, Tiitu M, Lapintie K, Viinikka A, Kopperoinen L (2019) Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies. Land Use Policy 82(January):643–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.01.007
Douglas O, Russell P, Scott M (2019) Positive perceptions of green and open space as predictors of neighbourhood quality of life: implications for urban planning across the city region. J Environ Planning Manag 62(4):626–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1439573
DTI (2003) Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy. In Energy White Paper. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf
Duan J, Wang Y, Fan C, Xia B, de Groot R (2018) Perception of urban environmental risks and the effects of urban green infrastructures (UGIs) on human well-being in four public green spaces of Guangzhou China. Environ Manag 62(3):500–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1068-8
Emmanuel R, Loconsole A (2015) Green infrastructure as an adaptation approach to tackling urban overheating in the Glasgow Clyde Valley Region, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 138:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.012
ENVI-met GmbH (2022) ENVI-met Technical Model Webpage. https://envi-met.info/doku.php?id=intro:modelconept#atmospheric_model
Escobedo FJ, Giannico V, Jim CY, Sanesi G, Lafortezza R (2019) Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: nexus or evolving metaphors? Urban for Urban Green 37(February):3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.011
European Commission (2013) The forms and functions of green infrastructure. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/benefits/index_en.htm
Fahmy M, Ibrahim Y, Hanafi E, Barakat M (2018) Would LEED-UHI greenery and high albedo strategies mitigate climate change at neighborhood scale in Cairo, Egypt? Build Simul 11(6):1273–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-018-0463-7
Fattorini S, Galassi DMP (2016) Role of urban green spaces for saproxylic beetle conservation: a case study of tenebrionids in Rome Italy. J Insect Conserv 20(4):737–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9900-z
Fei W, Jin Z, Ye J, Divigalpitiya P, Sakai T, Wang C (2019) Disaster consequence mitigation and evaluation of roadside green spaces in nanjing. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 27(1):49–63. https://doi.org/10.3846/jeelm.2019.9236
Feng S, Hou W, Chang J (2019a) Changing coal mining brownfields into green infrastructure based on ecological potential assessment in Xuzhou Eastern China. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082252
Feng S, Chen L, Sun R, Feng Z, Li J, Khan MS, Jing Y (2019b) The distribution and accessibility of urban parks in Beijing China: Implications of social equity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16244894
Flato G, Marotzke J, Abiodun B, Braconnot P, Chou SC, Collins W, Cox P, Driouech F, Emori S, Eyring V, Forest C, Gleckler P, Guilyardi E, Jakob CVK, Reason C, Rummukainen M (2013) Evaluation of climate models. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Vol. 9781107057). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 741–866. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.020
Fowdar HS, Hatt BE, Breen P, Cook PLM, Deletic A (2017) Designing living walls for greywater treatment. Water Res 110:218–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.12.018
Fuentes S, Tongson E, Viejo CG (2021) Urban green infrastructure monitoring using remote sensing from integrated visible and thermal infrared cameras mounted on a moving vehicle. Sensors (switzerland) 21(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21010295
Fung CKW, Jim CY (2019) Microclimatic resilience of subtropical woodlands and urban-forest benefits. Urban for Urban Green 42(July):100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.05.014
Furberg D, Ban Y, Mörtberg U (2020) Monitoring urban green infrastructure changes and impact on habitat connectivity using high-resolution satellite data. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/RS12183072
Gashu K, Gebre-Egziabher T (2019) Public assessment of green infrastructure benefits and associated influencing factors in two Ethiopian cities: Bahir Dar and Hawassa. BMC Ecol 19(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0232-1
Geary RS, Wheeler B, Lovell R, Jepson R, Hunter R, Rodgers S (2021) A call to action: improving urban green spaces to reduce health inequalities exacerbated by COVID-19. Prev Med 145(January):106425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106425
Gelan E, Girma Y (2021) Sustainable urban green infrastructure development and management system in rapidly urbanized cities of Ethiopia. Technologies 9(3):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9030066
Ghazalli AJ, Brack C, Bai X, Said I (2018) Alterations in use of space, air quality, temperature and humidity by the presence of vertical greenery system in a building corridor. Urban for Urban Green 32(April):177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.015
Ghazalli AJ, Brack C, Bai X, Said I (2019) Physical and non-physical benefits of vertical greenery systems: a review. J Urban Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2019.1637694
Ghofrani Z, Sposito V, Faggian R (2017) A comprehensive review of blue-green infrastructure concepts. Int J Environ Sustain. https://doi.org/10.24102/ijes.v6i1.728
Giedych R, Maksymiuk G (2017) Specific features of parks and their impact on regulation and cultural ecosystem services provision in Warsaw Poland. Sustainability (switzerland) 9(5):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050792
Giyasova I (2021) Factors affecting microclimatic conditions in urban environment. E3S Web of Conf 244:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202124406010
Gopal D, von der Lippe M, Kowarik I (2019) Sacred sites, biodiversity and urbanization in an Indian megacity. Urban Ecosyst 22(1):161–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0804-4
Grard BJP, Chenu C, Manouchehri N, Houot S, Frascaria-Lacoste N, Aubry C (2018) Rooftop farming on urban waste provides many ecosystem services. Agron Sustain Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0474-2
Green D, O’Donnell E, Johnson M, Slater L, Thorne C, Zheng S, Stirling R, Chan FKS, Li L, Boothroyd RJ (2021) Green infrastructure: the future of urban flood risk management? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 8(6):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1560
Greenway M (2017) Stormwater wetlands for the enhancement of environmental ecosystem services: case studies for two retrofit wetlands in Brisbane. Aust J Clean Prod 163(3):S91–S100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.081
Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(5864):756–760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195
Grimmond S (2007) Urbanization and global environmental change: local effects of urban warming. Geogr J 173(1):83–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.232_3.x
Gunnell K, Mulligan M, Francis RA, Hole DG (2019) Evaluating natural infrastructure for flood management within the watersheds of selected global cities. Sci Total Environ 670:411–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.212
Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgström S, Breuste J, Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Hamstead Z, Hansen R, Kabisch N, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall EL, McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43(4):413–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
Haupt SE, Kosovic B, Shaw W, Berg LK, Churchfield M, Cline J, Draxl C, Ennis B, Koo E, Kotamarthi R, Mazzaro L, Mirocha J, Moriarty P, Muñoz-Esparza D, Quon E, Rai RK, Robinson M, Sever G (2019) On bridging a modeling scale gap: mesoscale to microscale coupling for wind energy. Bull Am Meteor Soc 100(12):2533–2549. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0033.1
Hayes AT, Jandaghian Z, Lacasse MA, Gaur A, Lu H, Laouadi A, Ge H, Wang L (2022) Nature-based solutions (NBSs) to mitigate urban heat island (UHI) effects in Canadian cities. Buildings. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070925
Herath P, Halwatura RU, Jayasinghe GY (2018a) Evaluation of green infrastructure effects on tropical Sri Lankan urban context as an urban heat island adaptation strategy. Urban for Urban Green 29(April):212–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.013
Herath P, Halwatura RU, Jayasinghe GY (2018ab) Modeling a tropical urban context with green walls and green roofs as an urban heat island adaptation strategy. Procedia Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.089
Herath P, Thatcher M, Jin H, Bai X (2021) Effectiveness of urban surface characteristics as mitigation strategies for the excessive summer heat in cities. Sustain Cities Soc 72(June):103072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103072
Herath P, Thatcher M, Jin H, Bai X (2023) Comparing the cooling effectiveness of operationalisable urban surface combination scenarios for summer heat mitigation. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162476
Herath P, Bai X, Jin H, Thatcher M (2024) Does the spatial configuration of urban parks matter in ameliorating extreme heat? Urban Clim 53(January):101756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101756
Herreros-Cantis P, McPhearson T (2021) Mapping supply of and demand for ecosystem services to assess environmental justice in New York City. Ecol Appl 31(6):e02390. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2390
Herslund L, Backhaus A, Fryd O, Jørgensen G, Jensen MB, Limbumba TM, Liu L, Mguni P, Mkupasi M, Workalemahu L, Yeshitela K (2018) Conditions and opportunities for green infrastructure—aiming for green, water-resilient cities in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam. Landsc Urban Plan 180(October):319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.008
Hettiarachchi S, Wasko C, Sharma A (2022) Rethinking urban storm water management through resilience—the case for using green infrastructure in our warming world. Cities 128(May):103789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103789
Höppe P (1999) The physiological equivalent temperature - A universal index for the biometeorological assessment of the thermal environment. Int J Biometeorol 43(2):71–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004840050118
Howard L (1833) The climate of London: vol I–III (IAUC-Int). Harvey and Darton, London
Hunziker S, Gubler S, Calle J, Moreno I, Andrade M, Velarde F, Ticona L, Carrasco G, Castellón Y, Oria C, Croci-Maspoli M, Konzelmann T, Rohrer M, Brönnimann S (2017) Identifying, attributing, and overcoming common data quality issues of manned station observations. Int J Climatol 37(11):4131–4145. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5037
Hurley PT, Emery MR (2018) Locating provisioning ecosystem services in urban forests: forageable woody species in New York City, USA. Landsc Urban Plan 170:266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.025
Imran HM, Kala J, Ng AWM, Muthukumaran S (2018) Effectiveness of green and cool roofs in mitigating urban heat island effects during a heatwave event in the city of Melbourne in southeast Australia. J Clean Prod 197:393–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.179
Jeong H, Broesicke OA, Drew B, Li D, Crittenden JC (2016) Life cycle assessment of low impact development technologies combined with conventional centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Front Environ Sci Eng 10(6):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0851-0
Jiang Y, Zevenbergen C, Ma Y (2018) Urban pluvial flooding and stormwater management: a contemporary review of China’s challenges and “sponge cities” strategy. Environ Sci Policy 80(September):132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.016
Jones TS (2019) Advances in environmental measurement systems : remote sensing of urban methane emissions and tree sap flow quantification [Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts]. https://www.proquest.com/openview/5b9d800f74f586d81be294e16178067a/1?cbl=44156&pq-origsite=gscholar&parentSessionId=ZNOLN7cmoNse708nzqnZf9nEoW2BQreiLexwWsicfZM%3D
Jonker MF, van Lenthe FJ, Donkers B, Mackenbach JP, Burdorf A (2014) The effect of urban green on small-area (healthy) life expectancy. J Epidemiol Community Health 68(10):999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-203847
Kamal-chaoui L, Robert A (2009) Competitive cities and climate change. In: OECD Regional Development Working Papers (No. 2; Issue No. 2). http://www.forum15.org.il/art_images/files/103/COMPETITIVE-CITIES-CLIMATE-CHANGE.pdf
Karlsson M, Alfredsson E, Westling N (2020) Climate policy co-benefits: a review. Clim Policy 20(3):292–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1724070
Khodadad M, Aguilar-Barajas I, Khan AZ (2023) Green infrastructure for urban flood resilience: a review of recent literature on bibliometrics, methodologies, and typologies. Water 15:523. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030523
Kim G, Coseo P (2018) Urban park systems to support sustainability: the role of urban park systems in hot arid urban climates. Forests 9(7):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9070439
Kim SY, Kim BHS (2017) The effect of urban green infrastructure on disaster mitigation in Korea. Sustainability (switzerland) 9(6):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061026
Kim G, Miller PA (2019) The impact of green infrastructure on human health and well-being: the example of the huckleberry trail and the Heritage Community Park and Natural Area in Blacksburg Virginia. Sustain Cit Soc 48(March):101562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101562
King A, Shackleton CM (2020) Maintenance of public and private urban green infrastructure provides significant employment in Eastern Cape towns, South Africa. Urban for Urban Green 54(February):126740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126740
Kleinschroth F, Kowarik I (2020) COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the urgent need for urban greenspaces. Front Ecol Environ 18(6):318–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2230
Koppelaar R, Marvuglia A, Havinga L, Brajković J, Rugani B (2021) Is agent-based simulation a valid tool for studying the impact of nature-based solutions on local economy? A case study of four european cities. Sustainability (switzerland) 13(13):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137466
Koskela H, Pain R (2000) Revisiting fear and place: women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum 31(2):269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(99)00033-0
Kowarik I (2019) The “Green Belt Berlin”: establishing a greenway where the Berlin Wall once stood by integrating ecological, social and cultural approaches. Landsc Urban Plan 184(August):12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.12.008
Krayenhoff ES, Jiang T, Christen A, Martilli A, Oke TR, Bailey BN, Nazarian N, Voogt JA, Giometto MG, Stastny A, Crawford BR (2020) A multi-layer urban canopy meteorological model with trees (BEP-Tree): Street tree impacts on pedestrian-level climate. Urban Clim 32(July):100590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100590
Kuang W, Dou Y (2020) Investigating the patterns and dynamics of urban green space in China’s 70 major cities using satellite remote sensing. Remote Sens. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12121929
La Rosa D, Spyra M, Inostroza L (2016) Indicators of cultural ecosystem services for urban planning: a review. Ecol Ind 61:74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028
Lam CKC, Gallant AJE, Tapper NJ (2018) Perceptions of thermal comfort in heatwave and non-heatwave conditions in Melbourne, Australia. Urban Clim 23:204–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2016.08.006
Landor-Yamagata JL, Kowarik I, Fischer LK (2018) Urban foraging in Berlin: people, plants and practices within the metropolitan green infrastructure. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061873
Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, Gómez-Baggethun E (2018) Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landsc Urban Plan 170(September):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.013
Le T, Wang L, Haghani S (2019) Design and implementation of a DASH7-based wireless sensor network for green infrastructure. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2019: Emerging and Innovative Technologies and International Perspectives - Selected Papers from the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2019, 2016, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482322.012
Lee YC, Kim KH (2015) Attitudes of citizens towards urban parks and green spaces for urban sustainability: The case of Gyeongsan City Republic of Korea. Sustainability (switzerland) 7(7):8240–8254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7078240
Lemonsu A, Viguié V, Daniel M, Masson V (2015) Vulnerability to heat waves: Impact of urban expansion scenarios on urban heat island and heat stress in Paris (France). Urban Clim 14:586–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.10.007
Lewis AD, Bouman MJ, Winter AM, Hasle EA, Stotz DF, Johnston MK, Klinger KR, Rosenthal A, Czarnecki CA (2019) Does nature need cities? Pollinators reveal a role for cities in wildlife conservation. Front Ecol Evol 7(Jun):1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00220
Li D, Liao W, Rigden AJ, Liu X, Wang D, Malyshev S, Shevliakova E (2019a) Urban heat island: aerodynamics or imperviousness? Sci Adv 5(4):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4299
Li X, Zhou Y, Yu S, Jia G, Li H, Li W (2019b) Urban heat island impacts on building energy consumption: a review of approaches and findings. Energy 174:407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.183
Lin BB, Philpott SM, Jha S, Liere H (2017) Urban agriculture as a productive green infrastructure for environmental and social well-being. Springer, pp 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-6_8
Lindfield M, Teipelke R (2017) How to finance urban infrastructure—explainer. https://www.c40cff.org/knowledge-library/explainer-how-to-finance-urban-infrastructure
Lindley S, Pauleit S, Yeshitela K, Cilliers S, Shackleton C (2018) Rethinking urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services from the perspective of sub-Saharan African cities. Landsc Urban Plan 180:328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.016
Liquete C, Udias A, Conte G, Grizzetti B, Masi F (2016) Integrated valuation of a nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting hidden benefits. Ecosyst Serv 22(September):392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.011
Liu S, Wang X (2021) Reexamine the value of urban pocket parks under the impact of the COVID-19. Urban for Urban Green 64(July):127294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127294
Lo AY, Byrne JA, Jim CY (2017) How climate change perception is reshaping attitudes towards the functional benefits of urban trees and green space: lessons from Hong Kong. Urban for Urban Green 23:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.007
Lopez B, Kennedy C, Field C, Mcphearson T (2021) Who benefits from urban green spaces during times of crisis? Perception and use of urban green spaces in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Urban for Urban Green. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127354
Lundgren K, Kjellstrom T (2013) Sustainability challenges from climate change and air conditioning use in urban areas. Sustainability (switzerland) 5(7):3116–3128. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5073116
Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci 5(3):161–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430802055524
Maragno D, Gaglio M, Robbi M, Appiotti F, Fano EA, Gissi E (2018) Fine-scale analysis of urban flooding reduction from green infrastructure: an ecosystem services approach for the management of water flows. Ecol Model 386(August):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.08.002
Martilli A, Krayenhoff ES, Nazarian N (2020) Is the Urban Heat Island intensity relevant for heat mitigation studies? Urban Clim 31(September):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100541
Masoudi M, Tan PY, Liew SC (2019) Multi-city comparison of the relationships between spatial pattern and cooling effect of urban green spaces in four major Asian cities. Ecol Indic 98(November):200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.058
Matasov V, Marchesini LB, Yaroslavtsev A, Sala G, Fareeva O, Seregin I, Castaldi S, Vasenev V, Valentini R (2020) IoT monitoring of urban tree ecosystem services: possibilities and challenges. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/F11070775
Mathey J, Rößler S, Banse J, Lehmann I, Bräuer A (2015) Brownfields as an element of green infrastructure for implementing ecosystem services into urban areas. J Urban Plan Dev. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000275
Matos Silva C, Serro J, Dinis Ferreira P, Teotónio I (2019) The socioeconomic feasibility of greening rail stations: a case study in lisbon. Eng Econ 64(2):167–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2018.1470272
MEA (2005) Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. U World Resources Institute Washington. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.003
Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc Urban Plan 159:62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005
Meili N, Manoli G, Burlando P, Carmeliet J, Chow WTL, Coutts AM, Roth M, Velasco E, Vivoni ER, Fatichi S (2021) Tree effects on urban microclimate: Diurnal, seasonal, and climatic temperature differences explained by separating radiation, evapotranspiration, and roughness effects. Urban for Urban Green 58:126970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126970
Mell I (2013) Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of Green Infrastructure development. Local Environ 18(2):152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.719019
Mell I (2021) ‘But who’s going to pay for it?’ Contemporary approaches to green infrastructure financing, development and governance in London, UK. J Environ Plan Policy Manag 23(5):628–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1931064
Mell I, Henneberry J, Hehl-Lange S, Keskin B (2016) To green or not to green: ESTABLISHING the economic value of green infrastructure investments in The Wicker, Sheffield. Urban for Urban Green 18:257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.015
Mesimäki M, Hauru K, Lehvävirta S (2019) Do small green roofs have the possibility to offer recreational and experiential benefits in a dense urban area? A case study in Helsinki Finland. Urban for Urban Green 40(September):114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.005
Miller SM, Montalto FA (2019) Stakeholder perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by Green Infrastructure in New York City. Ecosyst Serv 37(March):100928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100928
Mirzaei PA, Haghighat F (2010) Approaches to study urban heat island - abilities and limitations. Build Environ 45(10):2192–2201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.04.001
Molineux CJ, Gange AC, Connop SP, Newport DJ (2015) Using recycled aggregates in green roof substrates for plant diversity. Ecol Eng 82:596–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.05.036
Mulligan J, Bukachi V, Clause JC, Jewell R, Kirimi F, Odbert C (2020) Hybrid infrastructures, hybrid governance: new evidence from Nairobi (Kenya) on green-blue-grey infrastructure in informal settlements: “Urban hydroclimatic risks in the 21st century: integrating engineering, natural, physical and social sciences to build. Anthropocene 29:100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2019.100227
Nagendra H, Bai X, Brondizio ES, Lwasa S (2018) The urban south and the predicament of global sustainability. Nat Sustain 1(7):341–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0101-5
Ngulani T, Shackleton CM (2019) Use of public urban green spaces for spiritual services in Bulawayo Zimbabwe. Urban for Urban Green 38(November):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.009
Niu H, Clark C, Zhou J, Adriaens P (2010) Scaling of economic benefits from green roof implementation in Washington DC. Environ Sci Technol 44(11):4302–4308. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902456x
Norman-Burgdolf H, Rieske LK (2021) Healthy trees—healthy people: a model for engaging citizen scientists in exotic pest detection in urban parks. Urban for Urban Green. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127067
OECD (2020) Smart cities and inclusive growth. In: Smart Cities and Inclusive Growth © OECD 2020: Vol. per year (Issue Typology of smart cities). https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/OECD_Policy_Paper_Smart_Cities_and_Inclusive_Growth.pdf
Oh K, Jeong Y, Lee D, Lee W, Choi J (2005) Determining development density using the urban carrying capacity assessment system. Landsc Urban Plan 73(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.06.002
Oke TR, Crowther JM, McNaughton KG, Monteith JL, Gardiner B, Jarvis PG, Monteith JL, Shuttleworth WJ, Unsworth MH (1989) The micrometeorology of the urban forest. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B 324(1223):335–349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1989.0051
Oliveira S, Andrade H, Vaz T (2011) The cooling effect of green spaces as a contribution to the mitigation of urban heat: a case study in Lisbon. Build Environ 46(11):2186–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.04.034
Orsini F, Gasperi D, Marchetti L, Piovene C, Draghetti S, Ramazzotti S, Bazzocchi G, Gianquinto G (2014) Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture: the potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services in the city of Bologna. Food Secur 6(6):781–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-014-0389-6
Orsini F, Pennisi G, Michelon N, Minelli A, Bazzocchi G, Sanyé-Mengual E, Gianquinto G (2020) Features and functions of multifunctional urban agriculture in the global north: a review. Front Sustain Food Syst 4(November):1–27. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.562513
Oswald TK, Rumbold AR, Kedzior SGE, Kohler M, Moore VM (2021) Mental health of young australians during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring the roles of employment precarity, screen time, and contact with nature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115630
Park CY, Lee DK, Krayenhoff ES, Heo HK, Hyun JH, Oh K, Park TY (2019) Variations in pedestrian mean radiant temperature based on the spacing and size of street trees. Sustain Cities Soc 48(March):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101521
Patricola CM, Wehner MF (2018) Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events. Nature 563(7731):339–346. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0673-2
Pauleit S, Zölch T, Hansen R, Randrup TB, van den Bosch CK (2017) Nature-based solutions and climate change—four shades of green. In: Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A (eds) Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas linkages between science, policy and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_3
Pierre A, Amoroso N, Kelly S (2019) Geodesign application for bio-swale design: rule-based approach stormwater management for Ottawa Street North in Hamilton Ontario. Lands Res 44(5):642–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1498071
Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C (2018) Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv 29:428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015
Privitera R, La Rosa D (2018) Reducing seismic vulnerability and energy demand of cities through green infrastructure. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082591
Prodanovic V, Hatt B, McCarthy D, Zhang K, Deletic A (2017) Green walls for greywater reuse: understanding the role of media on pollutant removal. Ecol Eng 102:625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.02.045
Quatrini V, Tomao A, Corona P, Ferrari B, Masini E, Agrimi M (2019) Is new always better than old? Accessibility and usability of the urban green areas of the municipality of Rome. Urban for Urban Green 37(July):126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.015
Ramyar R, Ackerman A, Johnston DM (2021) Adapting cities for climate change through urban green infrastructure planning. Cities 117(November):103316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103316
Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, Geneletti D, Calfapietra C (2017) A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy 77(July):15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
Revi A, Satterthwaite DE, Aragón-Durand F, Corfee-Morlot J, Kiunsi RBR, Pelling M, Roberts DC, Solecki W (2014) Urban areas. In: C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 267–296). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-484-0_13
Reynolds HL, Brandt L, Fischer BC, Hardiman BS, Moxley DJ, Sandweiss E, Speer JH, Fei S (2020) Implications of climate change for managing urban green infrastructure: an Indiana US case study. Clim Change 163(4):1967–1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02617-0
Riley CB, Herms DA, Gardiner MM (2018) Exotic trees contribute to urban forest diversity and ecosystem services in inner-city Cleveland, OH. Urban for Urban Green 29:367–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.01.004
Rodríguez-Rojas MI, Huertas-Fernández F, Moreno B, Martínez G, Grindlay AL (2018) A study of the application of permeable pavements as a sustainable technique for the mitigation of soil sealing in cities: a case study in the south of Spain. J Environ Manag 205:151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.075
Roy S, Byrne J, Pickering C (2012) A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban for Urban Green 11(4):351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006
Saarikoski H, Primmer E, Saarela SR, Antunes P, Aszalós R, Baró F, Berry P, Blanko GG, Goméz-Baggethun E, Carvalho L, Dick J, Dunford R, Hanzu M, Harrison PA, Izakovicova Z, Kertész M, Kopperoinen L, Köhler B, Langemeyer J, Young J (2018) Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst Serv 29(September):579–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019
Salata KD, Yiannakou A (2020) The quest for adaptation through spatial planning and ecosystem-based tools in resilience strategies. Sustainability (switzerland) 12(14):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145548
Santiago JL, Buccolieri R, Rivas E, Calvete-Sogo H, Sanchez B, Martilli A, Alonso R, Elustondo D, Santamaría JM, Martin F (2019) CFD modelling of vegetation barrier effects on the reduction of traffic-related pollutant concentration in an avenue of Pamplona Spain. Sustain Cit Soc 48(February):101559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101559
Satterthwaite D (2010) The contribution of cities to global warming and their potential contributions to solutions. Environ Urban ASIA 1(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/097542530900100102
Säumel I, Reddy SE, Wachtel T (2019) Edible city solutions-one step further to foster social resilience through enhanced socio-cultural ecosystem services in cities. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040972
Shackleton CM, Blair A, De Lacy P, Kaoma H, Mugwagwa N, Dalu MT, Walton W (2018) How important is green infrastructure in small and medium-sized towns? Lessons from South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan 180:273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.007
Shi P, Bai X, Kong F, Fang J, Gong D, Zhou T, Guo Y, Liu Y, Dong W, Wei Z, He C, Yu D, Wang J, Ye Q, Yu R, Chen D (2017) Urbanization and air quality as major drivers of altered spatiotemporal patterns of heavy rainfall in China. Landsc Ecol 32(8):1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0538-3
Shi L, Halik Ü, Abliz A, Mamat Z, Welp M (2020) Urban green space accessibility and distribution equity in an arid oasis city: Urumqi China. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/F11060690
Shifflett SD, Newcomer-Johnson T, Yess T, Jacobs S (2019) Interdisciplinary collaboration on green infrastructure for urbanwatershed management: an Ohio case study. Water (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040738
Simon H, Fallmann J, Kropp T, Tost H, Bruse M (2019) Urban trees and their impact on local Ozone concentration—a microclimate modeling study. Atmosphere. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10030154
Sugiyama T, Sharifi F, Yao Z, Herath P, Frantzeskaki N (2021) Nature Fix for Healthy Cities: What Planners and Designers Need to Know for Planning Urban Nature with Health-benefits in Mind. The Nature of Ciites Blog. https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2021/08/30/nature-fix-for-healthy-cities-what-planners-and-designers-need-to-know-for-planning-urban-nature-with-health-benefits-in-mind/
Taghizadeh S, Khani S, Rajaee T (2021) Hybrid SWMM and particle swarm optimization model for urban runoff water quality control by using green infrastructures (LID-BMPs). Urban for Urban Green 60(February):127032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127032
Tavakol-Davani HE, Tavakol-Davani H, Burian SJ, McPherson BJ, Barber ME (2019) Green infrastructure optimization to achieve pre-development conditions of a semiarid urban catchment. Environ Sci: Water Res Technol 5(6):1157–1171. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ew00789f
Thompson K, Sherren K, Duinker PN (2019) The use of ecosystem services concepts in Canadian municipal plans. Ecosyst Serv 38(May):100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100950
Threlfall CG, Mata L, Mackie JA, Hahs AK, Stork NE, Williams NSG, Livesley SJ (2017) Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. J Appl Ecol 54(6):1874–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12876
Tomasi M, Favargiotti S, van Lierop M, Giovannini L, Zonato A (2021) Verona adapt Modelling as a planning instrument: applying a climate-responsive approach in Verona Italy. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126851
UN (2013) Chapter III: Towards sustainable cities. In Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Ed.), World Economic and Social Survey 2013 (pp. 53–84). United Nations. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140008727833
UN DESA (2018) World Economic Situation and Prospects 2018 report. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESP2018_Full_Web-1.pdf
United Nations (2018) Tracking progress towards inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements. In: Tracking Progress Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements SDG 11 Synthesis Report. https://doi.org/10.18356/36ff830e-en
Veerkamp CJ, Schipper AM, Hedlund K, Lazarova T, Nordin A, Hanson HI (2021) A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101367
Venter ZS, Barton DN, Gundersen V, Figari H, Nowell M (2020) Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo Norway. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396
Vert C, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Gascon M, Grellier J, Fleming LE, White MP, Rojas-Rueda D (2019) Health benefits of physical activity related to an urban riverside regeneration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030462
Victoria State Government (2017) Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 Metropolitan planning strategy (The State of Victoria Department of Environment- Land- Water and Planning (ed.)). Impact Digital, Brunswick. planmelbourne.vic.gov.au
Viecco M, Vera S, Jorquera H, Bustamante W, Gironás J, Dobbs C, Leiva E (2018) Potential of particle matter dry deposition on green roofs and living walls vegetation for mitigating urban atmospheric pollution in semiarid climates. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072431
Vojinovic Z, Alves A, Gómez JP, Weesakul S, Keerakamolchai W, Meesuk V, Sanchez A (2021) Effectiveness of small- and large-scale nature-based solutions for flood mitigation: the case of Ayutthaya Thailand. Sci Total Environ 789:147725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147725
Waite M, Cohen E, Torbey H, Piccirilli M, Tian Y, Modi V (2017) Global trends in urban electricity demands for cooling and heating. Energy 127:786–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.03.095
Wang Y, Bakker F, de Groot R, Wörtche H (2014) Effect of ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure on indoor environment: a literature review. Build Environ 77:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.03.021
Wang W, Zhang B, Zhou W, Lv H, Xiao L, Wang H, Du H, He X (2019a) The effect of urbanization gradients and forest types on microclimatic regulation by trees, in association with climate, tree sizes and species compositions in Harbin city, northeastern China. Urban Ecosyst 22(2):367–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-0823-9
Wang Y, Ni Z, Chen S, Xia B (2019b) Microclimate regulation and energy saving potential from different urban green infrastructures in a subtropical city. J Clean Prod 226:913–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.114
Wong CP, Jiang B, Bohn TJ, Lee KN, Lattenmaier DP, Ma D, Ouyang Z (2017) Lake and wetland ecosystem services measuring water storage and local climate regulation. Water Resourc Res RES 53:3197–3223. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019445.Received
Wong CP, Jiang B, Kinzig AP, Ouyang Z (2018) Quantifying multiple ecosystem services for adaptive management of green infrastructure. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2495
Wortzel JD, Wiebe DJ, DiDomenico GE, Visoki E, South E, Tam V, Greenberg DM, Brown LA, Gur RC, Gur RE, Barzilay R (2021) Association between urban greenspace and mental wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic in a US Cohort. Front Sustain Cit 3(July):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.686159
Xu H, Zhao G (2021) Assessing the value of urban green infrastructure ecosystem services for high-density urban management and development: case from the capital core area of Beijing China. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112115
Yang J, Bou-Zeid E (2019) Scale dependence of the benefits and efficiency of green and cool roofs. Landsc Urban Plan 185(February):127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.004
Yang J, Rong H, Kang Y, Zhang F, Chegut A (2021) The financial impact of street-level greenery on New York commercial buildings. Landsc Urban Plan 214(May):104162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104162
Yin C, Xiao J, Zhang T (2021) Effectiveness of Chinese regulatory planning in mitigating and adapting to climate change: comparative analysis based on Q methodology. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179701
Yu Z, Yang G, Zuo S, Jørgensen G, Koga M, Vejre H (2020) Critical review on the cooling effect of urban blue-green space: a threshold-size perspective. Urban for Urban Green 49(February):126630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126630
Zhang Y, Dong R (2018) Impacts of street-visible greenery on housing prices: evidence from a hedonic price model and a massive street view image dataset in Beijing. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inform. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7030104
Zhang W, Villarini G, Vecchi GA, Smith JA (2018) Urbanization exacerbated the rainfall and flooding caused by hurricane Harvey in Houston. Nature 563(7731):384–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0676-z
Zhang J, Li S, Sun X, Tong J, Fu Z, Li J (2019) Sustainability of urban soil management: analysis of soil physicochemical properties and bacterial community structure under different green space types. Sustainability (switzerland) 11(5):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051395
Zhang C, Li J, Zhou Z (2022) Ecosystem service cascade: concept, review, application and prospect. Ecol Indic 137(November):108766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108766
Zhou K, Song Y, Tan R (2021) Public perception matters: estimating homebuyers’ willingness to pay for urban park quality. Urban for Urban Green 64(February):127275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127275
Zölch T, Henze L, Keilholz P, Pauleit S (2017) Regulating urban surface runoff through nature-based solutions—an assessment at the micro-scale. Environ Res 157(April):135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.023
Žuvela-Aloise M, Koch R, Buchholz S, Früh B (2016) Modelling the potential of green and blue infrastructure to reduce urban heat load in the city of Vienna. Clim Change 135(3–4):425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1596-2
Acknowledgements
The first author was funded by the Australian Government Research Training Program (AGRTP) scholarship.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualisation: PH and XB. Methodology: PH and XB. Literature search and data analysis: PH. Writing—original draft preparation: PH. Critical revision and editing: PH and XB. Supervision: XB.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by Erik Andersson, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Appendix
Appendix
TS = (‘*green infrastructure’ OR ‘nature*based solution*’ OR ‘blue*green infrastructure’ OR ‘ecosystem*based adaptat*’) AND TS = (city OR cities OR urban OR metropolitan) AND TS = (role* OR advantage* OR function* OR capacit* OR mitigation OR modification OR adaptation OR control* OR adjust* OR service* OR impact* OR effective* OR improv* OR *climate OR "urban*island" OR "heat Island" OR "air pollut*" OR "air pollut* mitigation" OR "air quality" OR "ecolog*service" OR "eco*service" OR "environment*" OR "social" OR "societ*" OR "econom*" OR water).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Herath, P., Bai, X. Benefits and co-benefits of urban green infrastructure for sustainable cities: six current and emerging themes. Sustain Sci 19, 1039–1063 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01475-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01475-9