Social and Environmental Justice: Diversity in Access to and Benefits from Urban Green Infrastructure – Examples from Europe

  • Liz O’BrienEmail author
  • Rik De Vreese
  • Erdoğan Atmiş
  • Anton Stahl Olafsson
  • Tuija Sievänen
  • Michael Brennan
  • Mercedes Sánchez
  • Thomas Panagopoulos
  • Sjerp de Vries
  • Maren Kern
  • Sandra Gentin
  • Graça Saraiva
  • Ana Almeida
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 7)


Urban forests (UF) and green infrastructure (GI) – including trees that are not only in woodlands, but also on streets, along streams, in parks, and on roofs – provide important ecosystem services for urban and peri-urban populations. By allowing for urban living in pleasant and healthy surroundings, breaking up the paved and impermeable built environment, and providing space for recreation (Fig. 15.1), urban greening facilitates a wide variety of well-being benefits (Panagopoulos et al. 2016). Access to urban GI, whether by living on a green residential street or having an urban park nearby to walk the dog, can contribute to mental well-being, stimulate social connections and foster active lifestyles that help combat obesity-related diseases and premature death (O’Brien and Morris 2013; Koohsari et al. 2015; Coen and Ross 2006). However, particular sections of society such as the income deprived, the disabled, and ethnic minority groups may not have the same access to...


Green Space Procedural Justice Distributive Justice Urban Forest Environmental Justice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to acknowledge EU Cost Action FP1204: ‘Green Infrastructure approach: linking environmental with social aspects in studying and managing urban forests’ and all the participants of the Action that assisted with providing information and data gathering for this chapter. Thanks to Nathan Siter for reviewing the work.


  1. Abildtrup J, Garcia S, Olsen SB, Stenger A (2013) Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation. Ecol Econ 92:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrose-Oji B, Saraev V, Peace A, Connolley T, Stewart A, Chetcuti J, Edwards D (2014) An evaluation of the WIAT Challenge Fund: changing use patterns, the value of recreation and health benefits, and lessons learned. Forest Research report to Forestry Commission Scotland, RoslinGoogle Scholar
  3. Anguelovski I (2013) Beyond a livable and green neighborhood: asserting control, sovereignty and transgression in the Casc Antic of Barcelona. Int J Urban Reg Res 37(3):1012–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anguelovski I, Alier JM (2014) The ‘environmentalism of the poor’ revisited: territory and place in disconnected glocal struggles. Ecol Econ 102:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Annerstedt van den Bosch M, Mudu P, Uscila V, Barrdahl M, Kulinkina A, Staatsen B, Swart W, Kruize H, Zurlyte I, Egorov AI (2015) Development of an urban green space indicator and the public health rationale. Scand J Public Health 44(2):1–9Google Scholar
  6. Atmiş E (2016) Development of urban forest governance in Turkey. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 19(2016):158–166. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.018
  7. Atmiş E, Günşen HB (2015) An underestimated value in urban life: urban forests. I. International urban studies congress, April 16–17, 2015. Eskişehir, Turkey, pp 246–265Google Scholar
  8. Atmiş E, Özden S, Lise W (2007) Urbanization pressures on the natural forests in Turkey: an overview. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6(2):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atmiş E, Günşen HB, Özkazanç NK, Artar M, Çinis F (2015) A forestry service that cannot reach urban people: urban forests. In: XIV World Forestry Congress, 7–11 September 2015. Durban, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  10. Barthel S, Folke C, Colding J (2010) Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 20(2):255–265. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berte E, Panagopoulos T (2014) Enhancing city resilience to climate change by means of ecosystem services improvement: a SWOT analysis for the city of Faro, Portugal. Int J Urban Sustain Dev 6:241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bolte G, Pauli A, Hornberg C (2011) Environmental justice: social disparities in environmental exposures and health: Overview. Enc Environ Health 2:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bomans K, Steenbergen T, Dewalheyns V, Leinfelder H, Gullink H (2010) Underrated transformations in the open space – the case of an urbanised and multifunctional area. Landsc Urban Plan 94(3-4):196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunce S (2009) Developing sustainability: sustainability policy and gentrification on Toronto’s Waterfront. Local Environ 14(7):651–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt J, Stewart D, Preston S, Costley T (2013) Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey (2009–2012): difference in access to the natural environment between social groups within the adult English population. Natural England Data Reports, Number 003Google Scholar
  16. Byrne J, Wolch J, Zhang J (2009) Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. J Environ Plan Manag 52:365–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Byrne J, Sipe N, Searle G (2010) Green around the gills? The challenge of density for urban greenspace planning in SEQ. Australian Planner 47(3):162–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Caspersen OH (2011) Udviklingen i markveje 1954–2010. Videnblade Planlægning og Friluftsliv, 6.1–59. Skov & Landskab, KUGoogle Scholar
  19. Church A, Fish R, Haines Young R, Mourato S, Tratalos J, Stapleton L, Willis C, Coates P, Gibbons S, Leyshon C, Postchin M, Ravenscroft N, Sanchis-Guarner R, Winter M, Kenter J (2014) UK national ecosystem assessment follow-on. Work package report 5: cultural ecosystem services and indicators. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. CICES (2015) Version 4.3 towards a common classification of ecosystem services. CICES Accessed 2 Nov 2015
  21. City of Leipzig (2003) Environmental aims and standards for the city of Leipzig. Umweltqualitätsziele und – standards für die Stadt LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  22. Coen SE, Ross NA (2006) Exploring the material basis for health: characteristics of parks in montreal neighbourhoods with contrasting health outcomes. Health and Place 12:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coillte and The Irish Sports Council (2005) Economic value of trails and forest recreation in the Republic of IrelandGoogle Scholar
  24. Cook M (2016) How woodlands and forests enhance mental wellbeing. The J Dementia Care 24(3):20–23Google Scholar
  25. Crivits M, Prové C, Block T, Dessein J (2016) Four perspectives of sustainability applied to the local food strategy of Ghent (Belgium): need for a cycle of democratic participation? Sustainability 8(1):55. doi: 10.3390/su8010055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Vreese R, Leys M, Dendoncker N, Van Herzele A, Fontaine C (2016) Images of Nature as a boundary object in social and integrated ecosystem services assessments. Reflections from a Belgian case study. Submitted to Ecosystem ServicesGoogle Scholar
  27. De Vries S, Goossen M, de Knegt B (2014) Groene recreatie in de woonomgeving. In: de Knegt B (ed) Graadmeter diensten van natuur; vraag, aanbod, gebruik en trend van goederen en diensten van ecosystemen in Nederland, WOt-technical report 13. Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  28. Department of Communities and Local Government (2015) The English Indices of Deprivation 2015. DCLG, London. Accessed 10 Nov 2015
  29. Droomers M, Jongeneel-Grimen B, Kramer D, de Vries S, Kremers S, Bruggink JW, Stronks K (2016) The impact of intervening in green space in Dutch deprived neighbourhoods on physical activity and general health: results from the quasi-experimental URBAN40 study. J Epidemiol Community Health 70(2):147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elands B, Bell S, Blok J, Colson V, Curl S, Berit C, Kaae VLG (2010) Atlantic Region. In: Pröbstl U, Wirth V, Elands B, Bell S (eds) Management of recreation and nature based Tourism in European forests. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 11–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evans GW, Kantrowitz E (2002) Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health 23:303–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gentin S (2015) Outdoor recreation and ethnicity – seen in a Danish adolescent perspective. IGN PhD thesis, June 2015. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg. p 179Google Scholar
  33. Germann-Chiari C, Seeland K (2004) Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a Geographical Information System (GIS) Approach for Urban Forestry Research 6:3–13Google Scholar
  34. Haase A, Rink D (2015) Inner-city transformation between reurbanisation and gentrification: Leipzig, Eastern Germany. Geografie 120(2):226–250Google Scholar
  35. Haines-Young R, and Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003Google Scholar
  36. HM Government (2011) The natural choice: securing the value of nature. The Stationary Office, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  37. Højring K (2002) The right to roam the countryside—law and reality concerning public access to the landscape in Denmark. Landsc Urban Plan 59(1):29–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughey SM, Walsemann KM, Child S, Powers A, Reed JA, Kaczynski AT (2016) Using an environmental justice approach to examine the relationships between park availability and quality indicators, neighborhood disadvantage, and racial/ethnic composition. Landsc Urban Plan 148:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ioannou B, Noran N, Sondermann M, Certoma C, Hardman M (2016) Grassroots gardening movements: towards cooperative forms of green urban development? In: Bell S, Fox-Kamper R, Keshavarz N, Benson M, Caputo S, Noori S, Voigt A (eds) Urban allotment gardens in Europe. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Jankovska I, Donis J, Straupe I, Panagopoulos T, Kupfere L (2013) Assessment of forest recreation accessibility in Latvia. Fresenius Environ Bull 22:2145–2151Google Scholar
  41. Jensen FS (1998) Friluftsliv i det åbne land 1994/95. Forskningscentret for Skov & Landskab. Forest and Landscape Research; Nr. 25.Kaae, B.C., Skov-Petersen, H. og Larsen, K.S. (1998). Større trafikanlæg som barrierer for rekreativ brug af landskabet. Park- og Landskabsserien 17/1998. Forskningscenteret for Skov & Landskab, Miljø- og EnergiministerietGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen FS (2003) Friluftsliv i 592 skove og andre naturområder. Skovbrugsserien; Nr. 32, Skov & Landskab, Københavns UniversitetGoogle Scholar
  43. Jensen FS (2010) Does wildlife encourage or discourage outdoor recreation participation among different ethnic groups in the Danish society, in: Poster Session Presented at XXIII IUFRO World Congress, Seoul, SydkoreaGoogle Scholar
  44. Jensen FS (2014) Friluftsliv i landskabet 2008 (1–9), Videnblade Planlægning og Friluftsliv 6.1–83 to 9.1–91, Department of Geosciences & Natural Ressource Management, University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  45. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Kanaroglou P, Eyles J, Finkelstein N, Giovis C, Brook JR (2001) A GIS–environmental justice analysis of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Canada. Environ Plan A 33:955–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones N, Baines C (2006) Land in limbo: the interim use of temporarily vacant urban open space. Report for Cabe Space, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaae BC, Skov-Petersen H, Larsen KS (1998) Større trafikanlæg som barrierer for rekreativ brug af landskabet. Park- og Landskabsserien, nr. 17-1998, Forskningscenteret for Skov & Landskab, Hørsholm 1998, 165 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Kabisch N, Haase D (2014) Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 122:129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Karanikola P, Tampakis S, Panagopoulos T, Karipidou-Kanari A (2016) Perceptions and expectations of urban green infrastructure in the municipality of Kalamaria, Greece. Manag Environ Qual 27(3) (in press)Google Scholar
  50. Kazmierczak A (2013) The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc Urban Plan 109:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kloek M (2015) Colourful green: immigrants’ and non immigrants’ recreational use of greenspace and their perceptions of nature. PhD thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  52. Koohsari MJ, Mavoa S, Villianueva K, Sugiyama T, Badland H, Kaczynski AT, Giles-Corti B (2015) Public open space, physical activity, urban design and public health: concepts, methods and research agenda. Health & Place 33:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Korpela KM, Ylen M (2007) Perceived health is associated with visiting natural favourite places in the vicinity. Health and Place 13:138–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lafortezza R, Carrus G, Sanesi G, Davies C (2009) Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, Konijnendijk CC (2013) Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest 6:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li Y (2015) Exploring the accessibility of green space by socio-economic status and ethnicity; an environmental justice investigation in the Netherlands. Internship report. Alterra, Wageningen (The Netherlands)Google Scholar
  57. Low S (2013) Public space and diversity: distributive, procedural and interactional justice for parks. In: Young G, Stevenson D (eds) The Ashgate research companion to planning and culture. Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, pp 295–310Google Scholar
  58. Lucas K, Walker G, Eames M, Fay H, Poustie M (2004) Environment and Social Justice: Rapid Research and Evidence Review Policy Studies InstituteGoogle Scholar
  59. Madureira H, Nunes F, Oliveria JV, Cormier L (2015) Urban residents beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ministry of the Environment (2014) Naturplan Danmark. København. Assessed 25 Nov 2015
  61. Mitchell R, Richardson E, Shortt N, Pearce J (2015) Neighbourhood environment and socioeconomic inequalities in mental wellbeing. Am J Prev Med 49:80–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Molteno S, Morris J, O’Brien L (2012) Public access to woodlands and forests: a rapid evidence review. Forest Research, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  63. Moreno-Jiménez A, Cañada-Torrecilla R, Vidal-Domínguez M, Palacios-García A, Martínez-Suárez P (2016) Assessing environmental justice through potential exposure to air pollution: a socio-spatial analysis in Madrid and Barcelona. Spain Geoforum 69:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Morris J, O’Brien L, Ambrose-Oji B, Lawrence A, Carter C (2011) Access for all? Barriers to accessing woodlands and forests in Britain. Local Environ 16:375–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Natural England (2010) Nature nearby: accessible natural greenspace guidance. Natural England, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  66. Natural England (2015) Monitor of engagement with the natural environment. The national survey on people and the natural environment. Annual report from 2013–14 survey. Natural England, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  67. Neighbourhoods Green (2016) Neighbourhoods green: improving the green spaces for social housing Accessed 5 Feb 2016
  68. Neuvonen M, Sievanen T (2011) Recreational statistics 2010. Accessed 22 Oct 2015
  69. Nordea Foundation (2016) Naturoplevelser på tværs af kulturer Accessed 14 Jan 2016
  70. O’Brien E (2006) Social housing and greenspace: a case study in inner London. Forestry 79:535–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. O’Brien L, Morris J (2013) Well-being for all? The social distribution of benefits gained from woodlands and forests in Britain. Local Environ 19(4):356–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. O’Brien L, Ambrose-Oji B, Waite S (2016a) Learning on the move: green exercise for children and young people. In: Barton J, Bragg R, Wood C, Pretty J (eds) Green exercise: linking nature, health and wellbeing. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. O’Brien L, De Vreese R, Kern M, Sievänen T, Stojanova B, Atmis E (2016b) in press. Cultural ecosystem benefits of urban and peri-urban green infrastructure in different European Countries. Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningGoogle Scholar
  74. O’Brien L, Burls A, Townsend M, Ebden M (2011) Volunteering with nature as a way of enabling people to re-integrate into society. Perspect Public Health 131:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Oguz D (2000) User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landsc Urban Plan 52(2-3):165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Olafsson AS (2012) GIS-based recreation experience mapping. Development, validation and implementation. Forest & Landscape Research 56-2012. Forest & Landscape Denmark, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  77. Panagopoulos T, Duque JAG, Dan MB (2016) Urban planning with respect to environmental quality and human well-being. Environ Pollut 208:137–144Google Scholar
  78. PBL Wageningen UR (2010) Beschikbaarheid groen in de stad, 2000 - 2006 (indicator 0299, versie 06, 20 mei 2010). CBS, Den Haag; Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Den Haag/Bilthoven en Wageningen UR, Wageningen. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  79. Peters K, Stodolska M, Horolets M (2016) The role of natural environments in developing a sense of belonging: a comparative study of immigrants in the U.S., Poland, the Netherlands and Germany. Urban For Urban Green 17:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pham TTH, Apparicio P, Séguin AM, Landry S, Gagnon M (2012) Spatial distribution of vegetation in Montreal: an uneven distribution or environmental inequity? Landsc Urban Plan 107(3):214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ravenscroft N, Markwell S (2000) Ethnicity and the integration and exclusion of young people through urban park and recreation provision. Manag Leis 5:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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 Forestry and Urban Greening 11:351–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Santucci D, Floyd M, Bocarro J, Henderson K (2014) Visitor services staff perceptions of strategies to encourage diversity at two urban National Parks. J Park Recreat Adm 32:15–28Google Scholar
  84. Saraiva MG, Almeida AF, Figueiredo LV (2014) Outstanding urban trees: which cultural services towards urban residents? A survey in Lisbon. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Urban Trees Research Conference, Trees, People and the Built Environment II, University of Birmingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  85. Schroeder HW (2012) Giving voice to the experiential value of natural environments. The Humanistic Psychologist 40(2):136–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schwarte P, Adebowale M (2007) Environmental justice and race equality in the European Union. Capacity Global, LondonGoogle Scholar
  87. Seeland K, Dübendorfer S, Hansmann R (2009) Making friends in Zurich’s urban forests and parks: the role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy Econ 11:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt (2013) (Urban Green) Urbane Grünflächen. Retrieved from: Accessed 22 Nov 2015
  89. Simoens I, Thoonen M, Meiresonne L, Van Daele T (2014) Hoofdstuk 26 – Ecosysteemdienst groene ruimte voor buitenactiviteiten (Chapter 26 – Ecosystem Service “Green Area for outdoor activities”). In: Stevens M, Demolder H, Jacobs S, Michiels H, Schnieders S, Spanhove T, Thoonen M, Van Gossum P, Van Reeth W, Peymen J (eds) (2015). Flanders Regional Ecosystem Assessment – State and Trends of Ecosystems and their Services in Flanders. Key Findings of the Technical Report. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2015 (INBO.M.2015.8820574). Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  90. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (n.d.) Open working group proposal for sustainable development goals Accessed 10 Oct 2015
  91. Tabbush P (2008) Maulden Faith Woodland: an investigation. Report for the Forestry Commission, Forest Research FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  92. Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009) Creating an inclusive society: practical strategies to promote social integration. Accessed 15 Nov 2015
  94. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (n.d.) Open working group proposal for sustainable development goals. Accessed 5 Jan 2016
  95. van den Bosch MA, Mudu P, Uscila V, Barrdahl M, Kulinkina A, Staatsen B, Egorov AI (2015) Development of an urban green space indicator and the public health rationale. Scand J Public Health. doi: 10.1177/1403494815615444 Google Scholar
  96. Van Herzele A, Wiedemann T (2003) A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc Urban Plan 63(2):109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Walker G, Mitchell G, Fairburn J, Smith G (2005) Industrial pollution and social deprivation: evidence and complexity in evaluating and responding to environmental inequality. Local Environ 10:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ward Thompson C, Roe J, Aspinall P, Mitchell R, Clow A, Miller D (2012) More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan 105:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH (2013) Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci 24:920–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP (2014) Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban Plan 125:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. World Health Organisation (2012) Health indicators of sustainable cities in the context of the Rio+20 UN conference on sustainable development. Initial findings from a WHO expert consultation 17–18th May 2012. Accessed 10 Jan 2016

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liz O’Brien
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rik De Vreese
    • 2
  • Erdoğan Atmiş
    • 3
  • Anton Stahl Olafsson
    • 4
  • Tuija Sievänen
    • 5
  • Michael Brennan
    • 6
  • Mercedes Sánchez
    • 7
  • Thomas Panagopoulos
    • 8
  • Sjerp de Vries
    • 9
  • Maren Kern
    • 10
  • Sandra Gentin
    • 4
  • Graça Saraiva
    • 11
  • Ana Almeida
    • 11
  1. 1.Centre for Ecosystems, Society and BiosecuritySocial and Economic Research Group (Forest Research)SurreyUK
  2. 2.Public Health DepartmentVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)Jette (Brussels)Belgium
  3. 3.Forest FacultyBartın UniversityBartınTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  5. 5.Natural Resources Institute FinlandHelsinkiFinland
  6. 6.Eastern and Midlands Regional AssemblyDublinIreland
  7. 7.Public University of NavarraPamplonaSpain
  8. 8.University of AlgarveFaroPortugal
  9. 9.Wageningen University and ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  10. 10.School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFLBern University of Applied SciencesBernSwitzerland
  11. 11.Research Centre for Architecture Urbanism & Design, Faculty of ArchitectureUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations