Combining an evaluation grid application to assess ecosystem services of urban green spaces and a socioeconomic spatial analysis

References

• Anenberg SC, Miller J, Minjares R, Du L, Henze DK, Lacey F, Malley CS, Emberson L, Franco V, Klimont Z, et al. 2017. Impacts and mitigation of excess diesel-related NOx emissions in 11 major vehicle markets. Nature. 545:467–471. doi:10.1038/nature22086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artmann M, Chen X, Iojă C, Hof A, Onose D, Poniży L, Lamovšek AZ, Breuste J. 2017. The role of urban green spaces in care facilities for elderly people across European cities. Urban For Urban Green [Internet]. 27:203–213. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866717301577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boone CG, Buckley GL, Grove JM, Sister C. 2009. Parks and people: an environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Ann Assoc Am Geogr [Internet]. 99(4):767–787. doi:10.1080/00045600903102949.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broomhall MH, Giles-corti B, Lange A. 2004. Quality of public open space tool (POST) [Internet]. Perth: School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia. http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/centres/cbeh/projects/post.
   Google Scholar
• Catton WR, Dunlap RE. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. Am Behav Sci. 24(1):45–47. doi:10.1177/000276428002400103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cianga N, Popescu AC. 2013. Green spaces and urban tourism development in craiova municipality in Romania. Eur J Geogr. 4(2):34–45.
   Google Scholar
• Coventry PA, Neale C, Dyke A, Pateman R, Cinderby S. 2019. The mental health benefits of purposeful activities in public green spaces in urban and semi-urban neighbourhoods: a mixed-methods pilot and proof of concept study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 16(15):2712. doi:10.3390/ijerph16152712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dadvand P, Hariri S, Abbasi B, Heshmat R, Qorbani M, Motlagh ME, Basagana X, Kelishadi R. 2019. Use of green spaces, self-satisfaction and social contacts in adolescents: a population-based CASPIAN-V study. Environ Res. 168:171–177. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109(23):8812–8819. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards N, Hooper P, Trapp GSA, Bull F, Boruff B, Giles-Corti B. 2013. Development of a Public Open Space Desktop Auditing Tool (POSDAT): A remote sensing approach. Appl Geogr [Internet]. 38:22–30. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622812001361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farinha Marques P, Alves PC, Fernandes C, Guilherme F, Gonçalves C. 2018. Revisão do Plano Diretor Municipal do Porto - Suporte Biofísico e Ambiente. Estrutura Ecológica e Biodiversidade (Relatório de Caracterização e Diagnóstico) [Internet]. Porto: Direção Municipal de Urbanismo, Departamento Municipal de Planeamento Urbano - Divisão Municipal de Planeamento e Ordenamento do Território - Câmara Municipal do Porto. http://www.cm-porto.pt/assets/misc/img/PDM/ECD/23_PDMP_ECD_Estrut_Eco_Biod.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Farinha Marques P, Fernandes C, Lameiras J, Leal I, Silva S, Guilherme F. 2014a. Morfologia e Biodiversidade nos 630 Espaços Verdes da Cidade do Porto. Caderno 1 - Seleção das áreas de estudo, CIBIO-UP, Porto. 2a edição revista e aumentada. 2nd ed. CIBIO-UP, editor. Porto: Faculty of Science of the University of Porto.
   Google Scholar
• Farinha Marques P, Lameiras J, Fernandes C, Silva S, Guilherme F, Leal I 2014b. Green space typologies in the city of Porto. In: EURAU 12 – Eur Symp Res Archit urban Des. Porto: FAUP; p. 275–279.
   Google Scholar
• Geijzendorffer IR, Cohen-Shacham E, Cord AF, Cramer W, Guerra C, Martín-López B. 2017. Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environ Sci Policy. 74(January):40–48. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017.
   Google Scholar
• Graça M, Alves P, Gonçalves J, Nowak DJ, Hoehn R, Farinha Marques P, Cunha M. 2018. Assessing how green space types affect ecosystem services delivery in Porto, Portugal. Landsc Urban Plan [Internet]. 170(November 2017):195–208. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Haase D, KabiscH S, Haase A, Andersson E, Banzhaf E, Baró F, Brenck M, Ficher LK, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, et al. 2017. Greening cities – to be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int [Internet]. 64:41–48. accessed 2017 Oct 26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397516309390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Frid CLJ, Raffaelli DG, editors Ecosyst ecol a new synth [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 110–139. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ecosystem-ecology/links-between-biodiversity-ecosystem-services-and-human-wellbeing/8F8375D46446640DB8216348A4BA296D
   Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin MB. 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. Nottingham: Fabis Consulting Ltd. www.cices.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Helbich M. 2019. Dynamic urban environmental exposures on depression and suicide (NEEDS) in the Netherlands: a protocol for a cross-sectional smartphone tracking study and a longitudinal population register study. BMJ Open. 9(8):e030075. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hino AAF, Reis RS, Ribeiro IC, Parra DC, Brownson RC, Fermino RC. 2010. Using observational methods to evaluate public open spaces and physical activity in Brazil. J Phys Act Heal [Internet]. 7(s2):S146–S154. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jpah/7/s2/article-pS146.xml.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoffimann E, Barros H, Ribeiro AI. 2017. Socioeconomic inequalities in green space quality and accessibility—evidence from a Southern European city. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 14:916. doi:10.3390/ijerph14080916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffimann E, Campelo D, Hooper P, Barros H, Ribeiro AI. 2018. Development of a smartphone app to evaluate the quality of public open space for physical activity. An instrument for health researchers and urban planners. Landsc Urban Plan. 177(April):191–195. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.005.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Corporation. 2018. Released IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Versão 25.0. Armonk, Nova York, EUA.
   Google Scholar
• Kabisch N, Strohbach M, Haase D, Kronenberg J. 2016. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol Indic [Internet]. 70:586–596. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X16300504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalfas DG, Zagkas DT, Dragozi EI, Zagkas TD. 2020. Estimating value of the ecosystem services in the urban and peri-urban green of a town Florina-Greece, using the CVM. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol [Internet]. 27(4):310–321. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1714786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazemi F, Abolhassani L, Rahmati EA, Sayyad-Amin P. 2018. Strategic planning for cultivation of fruit trees and shrubs in urban landscapes using the SWOT method: A case study for the city of Mashhad, Iran. Land Use Policy. 70(September 2017):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Lagbas AJ. 2019. Social valuation of regulating and cultural ecosystem services of Arroceros Forest Park: a man-made forest in the city of Manila, Philippines. J Urban Manag [Internet]. 8(1):159–177. doi:10.1016/j.jum.2018.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange A, Giles-Corti B, Broomhall M. 2004. Quality of Public Open Space Tool (POST): observers’ manual [Internet]. Perth: School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia. http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/centres/cbeh/projects/post.
   Google Scholar
• Li L, Van Eetvelde V, Cheng X, Uyttenhove P. 2020. Assessing stormwater runoff reduction capacity of existing green infrastructure in the city of Ghent. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol [Internet]. 1–13. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1739166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez GAP, de Souza LCL. 2018. Urban green spaces and the influence on vehicular traffic noise control. Ambient Construído. 18(4):161–175. doi:10.1590/s1678-86212018000400299.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1080/15693430802055524.
   Google Scholar
• Macedo J, Haddad MA. 2015. Equitable distribution of open space: using spatial analysis to evaluate urban parks in Curitiba, Brazil. Environ Plan B Plan Des [Internet]. 43(6):1096–1117. doi:10.1177/0265813515603369.
   Google Scholar
• Maes J, Zulian G, Günther S, Thijssen M, Raynal J. 2019. Enhancing Resilience Of Urban Ecosystems through Green Infrastructure (EnRoute) [Internet]. Luxembourg. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/enhancing-resilience-urban-ecosystems-through-green-infrastructure-enroute.
   Google Scholar
• Maraja R, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T. 2016. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosyst Serv [Internet]. 17:33–39. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins I, Ferreira C, Rocha E, Gomes M. 2014. Censos 2011 – mudanças demográficas [Internet]. CMP|DMU|DMPU|DMPOT. http://www.cm-porto.pt/assets/misc/img/PDM/Revisao_PDM/Estudos_base/Censos2011_Mudancas_demograficas_2014.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mathey J, Rößler S, Lehmann I, Bräuer A. 2011. Urban green spaces: potentials and constraints for urban adaptation to climate change. In: Otto-Zimmermann K, editor. Resilient cities local sustain. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 479–485.
   Google Scholar
• Matos P, Vieira J, Rocha B, Branquinho C, Pinho P. 2019. Modeling the provision of air-quality regulation ecosystem service provided by urban green spaces using lichens as ecological indicators. Sci Total Environ [Internet]. 665:521–530. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mears M, Brindley P. 2019. Measuring urban greenspace distribution equity: the importance of appropriate methodological approaches. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf. 8(6):286. doi:10.3390/ijgi8060286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mears M, Brindley P, Maheswaran R, Jorgensen A. 2019. Understanding the socioeconomic equity of publicly accessible greenspace distribution: the example of Sheffield, UK. Geoforum [Internet]. 103(April):126–137. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.016.
   Google Scholar
• Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J. 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc. 18(3). doi:10.5751/ES-05790-180344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Synthesis [Internet]. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro A, Sousa C, Fonseca L, Almeida M, Velho S, Carvalho V. 2013. Atlas da saúde e da doença – vulnerabilidades climáticas e socioeconómicas na Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto e Concelho do Porto. Porto: CHERG.
   Google Scholar
• Naess A. 1990. Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ngulani T, Shackleton CM. 2019. Use of public urban green spaces for spiritual services in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Urban For Urban Green [Internet]. 38(November 2018):97–104. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.009.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira GM, Vidal DG, Ferraz MP. 2020. Urban lifestyles and consumption patterns. In: Filho WL, Azul AM, Brandli L, Özuyar PG, Wall T, editors. Sustain cities communities encycl UN sustain dev goals [Internet]. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; p. 851–860. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71061-7_54-1.
   Google Scholar
• Pordata. 2018. População Residente. Pordata - Base dados Port Contemp [Internet]. accessed 2019 May 13. https://www.pordata.pt/Municipios/População+residente-359
   Google Scholar
• Richie J, Lewis J. 2003. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Rigolon A, Browning M, Jennings V. 2018. Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: an environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landsc Urban Plan [Internet]. 178(June):156–169. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.026.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosberg D. 2007. Defining environmental justice: theories, movements, and nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selmi W, Weber C, Rivière E, Blond N, Mehdi L, Nowak D. 2016. Air pollution removal by trees in public green spaces in Strasbourg city, France. Urban For Urban Green [Internet]. 17:192–201. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866716301571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southon GE, Jorgensen A, Dunnett N, Hoyle H, Evans KL. 2018. Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landsc Urban Plan [Internet]. 172(December 2017):1–10. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.12.002.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas F. 2015. The role of natural environments within women’s everyday health and wellbeing in Copenhagen, Denmark. Health Place. 35:187–195. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.11.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1 [Internet]. Geneva. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf
   Google Scholar
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs PD. 2017. World population prospects - the 2017 revision [Internet]. New York. https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• van den Bosch M, Ode Sang A. 2017. Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health - a systematic review of reviews. Environ Res. 158:373–384. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidal DG, Barros N, Maia RL. 2020. Public and green spaces in the context of sustainable development. In: Leal Filho W, Azul AM, Brandli L, Özuyar PG, Wall T, editors. Sustain cities communities, encycl UN sustain dev goals. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; p. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal DG, Fernandes CO, Viterbo LMF, Barros N, Maia RL. 2020a. Espaços verdes urbanos e saúde mental: uma revisão sistemática da literatura. In: Pereira H, Monteiro S, Esgalhado G, Cunha A, Leal I, editors. Actas do 13° Congr Nac Psicol da Saúde. Lisboa: ISPA; p. 427–436.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal DG, Fernandes CO, Viterbo L, Vilaça H, Barros N, Maia RL. in press. Elaboration and validation of a grid to evaluate ecosystems services of public urban green spaces in Porto (Portugal). In: Ksibi M, Ghorbal A, Chakraborty S, Chaminé H, Barbieri M, Guerriero G, Negm H, Lehmann A, Römbke J, Duart AC, et al., editors. Recent Adv Environ Sci from Euro-Mediterranean Surround Reg (2nd Ed Proc Euro-Mediterranean Conf Environ Integr (EMCEI - 2), Tunis 2019. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal DG, Fernandes CO, Viterbo LMF, Barros N, Maia RL. 2020b. Healthy cities to healthy people: a grid application to assess the potential of ecosystems services of public urban green spaces in Porto, Portugal. Eur J Public Health. 20(Supplement 2):17.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal DG, Maia RL, Oliveira GM, Pontes M, Barreira E. 2019. Cities challenges in the contemporary societies: urban sustainability and environmental issues. Sociol LINE. Rev Assoc Port Sociol. 20:119–138.
   Google Scholar
• Vieira J, Matos P, Mexia T, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Correia O, Santos-Reis M, Branquinho C, Pinho P. 2018. Green spaces are not all the same for the provision of air purification and climate regulation services: the case of urban parks. Environ Res [Internet]. 160:306–313. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935117316535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen C, Albert C, Von Haaren C. 2018. The elderly in green spaces: exploring requirements and preferences concerning nature-based recreation. Sustain Cities Soc [Internet]. 38:582–593. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210670717307977.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SLR, DeClerck F. 2015. Ecosystems and human well-being in the sustainable development goals. Front Ecol Environ [Internet]. 13(3):123. doi:10.1890/1540-9295-13.3.123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2017. Urban green space interventions and health: a review of evidence [Internet]. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/337690/FULL-REPORT-for-LLP.pdf?ua=1.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization & UN-Habitat. 2016. Global report on urban health: equitable healthier cities for sustainable development [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/204715
   Google Scholar
• Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J, Wüstemanna H, Kalischa D, Kolbeb J. 2017. Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landsc Urban Plan [Internet]. 164:124–131. accessed 2017 Oct 26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204617300750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Liu X, Dong R, Shao G. 2016. Landsenses ecology and ecological planning toward sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol [Internet]. 23(4):293–297. doi:10.1080/13504509.2015.1119215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Yan Y, Deng H, Liu G, Dai L, Tang L, Shi L, Shao G. 2020. Remarks about landsenses ecology and ecosystem services. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol [Internet]. 27(3):196–201. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1718795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar