Towards an integrated Understanding of Green Space in the European Built Environment ` For more information, Please see websites below: ` Organic Edible Schoolyards & Gardening with Children http://scribd.com/doc/239851214 ` Double Food Production from your School Garden with Organic Tech http://scribd.com/doc/239851079 ` Free School Gardening Art Posters http://scribd.com/doc/239851159` ` Increase Food Production with Companion Planting in your School Garden http://scribd.com/doc/239851159 ` Healthy Foods Dramatically Improves Student Academic Success http://scribd.com/doc/239851348 ` City Chickens for your Organic School Garden http://scribd.com/doc/239850440 ` Simple Square Foot Gardening for Schools - Teacher Guide http://scribd.com/doc/239851110

1. Urban Forestry&UrbanGreening8(2009)65–75
Towards anintegratedunderstandingofgreenspaceintheEuropean
built environment
P. Jamesa,, K.Tzoulasa, M.D.Adamsb, A.Barberc, J.Boxd, J.Breustee, T.Elmqvistf,
M. Frithg, C.Gordonh, K.L.Greeningi, J.Handleyj, S.Haworthk, A.E.Kazmierczaka,
M. Johnstonl, K.Korpelam, M.Morettin, J.Niemela¨o, S.Pauleitp, M.H.Roeq,
J.P. Sadlerr, C.WardThompsons
aBuHu andSchoolofEnvironmentandLifeSciences,PeelBuilding,UniversityofSalford,SalfordM54WT,UK
bBuHu andSchoolofScienceandEngineering,NewtonBuilding,UniversityofSalford,SalfordM54WT,UK
cCABE-Space, 1KembleStreet,LondonWC2B4AN,UK
dAtkins, CornerstoneHouse,StaffordPark13,Telford,ShropshireTF33AZ,UK
eDepartment ofGeographyandGeology,UrbanandLandscapeEcology,UniversityofSalzburg,Hellbrunnerstrasse34,A-5020
Salzburg, Austria
fDepartment ofSystemsEcology,StockholmsUniversity,SE-10691Stockholm,Sweden
gPeabody Trust,45WestminsterBridgeRoad,LondonSE17JB,UK
hNatural England,NorthminsterHouse,PeterboroughPE11UA,UK
iFaculty ofHealthandSocialCare,WestminsterBuilding,UniversityofChester,ParkgateRoad,ChesterCH14BJ,UK
jSchool ofEnvironmentandDevelopment(PlanningLandscape),UniversityofManchester,ManchesterM139PL,UK
kSchool ofEnvironmentandLifeSciences,PeelBuilding,UniversityofSalford,SalfordM54WT,UK
lMyerscough College,MyerscoughHall,St.Michael’sRoad,BilsborrowPreston,LancashirePR30R,UK
mDepartment ofPsychology,33014UniversityofTampere,Finland
nSwiss FederalResearchInstituteWSL,UnitEcosystemBoundaries,ViaBelsoggiorno22,CH-6500Bellinzona,Switzerland
oFaculty ofBiosciences,Viikinkaari1,P.O.Box65,00014UniversityofHelsinki,Finland
pCentre forForest,LandscapeandPlanning,UniversityofCopenhagen,Rolighedsvej23,DK-1958FrederiksbergC,Denmark
qSchool ofArchitecture,PlanningLandscape,UniversityofNewcastleuponTyne,NewcastleuponTyneNE17RU,UK
rSchool ofGeography,EarthEnvironmentalSciences,TheUniversityofBirmingham,Edgbaston,BirminghamB152TT,UK
sOPENspace, EdinburghCollegeofArt,LauristonPlace,EdinburghEH39DF,UK
Abstract
In recentyearssocial,economicandenvironmentalconsiderationshaveledtoareevaluationofthefactorsthat
contributetosustainableurbanenvironments.Increasingly,urbangreenspaceisseenasanintegralpartofcities
providingarangeofservicestoboththepeopleandthewildlifelivinginurbanareas.Withthisrecognitionand
resultingfromthesimultaneousprovisionofdifferentservices,thereisarealneedtoidentifyaresearchframeworkin
ARTICLEINPRESS
www.elsevier.de/ufug
1618-8667/$-seefrontmatter r 2009 ElsevierGmbH.Allrightsreserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.001
Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+441612952133;fax:+441612955015.
E-mail addresses: P.James@salford.ac.uk(P.James), K.Tzoulas@salford.ac.uk(K.Tzoulas), M.D.Adams@salford.ac.uk(M.D.Adams),
alan.barber@blueyounder.co.uk(A.Barber), john.box@atkinsglobal.com(J.Box), juergen.breuste@sbg.ac.uk(J.Breuste), thomase@ecology.su.se
(T. Elmqvist), mathew.frith@peabody.org.uk(M.Frith), Chris.Gordon@naturalengland.org.uk(C.Gordon), K.Greening@chester.ac.uk
(K.L. Greening), John.Handley@manchester.ac.uk(J.Handley), Stephen.haworth2@btopenworld.com(S.Haworth),
mjohnston@myerscough.ac.uk(M.Johnston), Kalevi.Korpela@uta.fi(K.Korpela), marco.moretti@wsl.ch(M.Moretti), jari.niemela@helsinki.fi
(J. Niemela¨), sp@life.ku.dk (S.Pauleit), m.h.roe@newcastle.ac.uk(M.H.Roe), j.p.sadler@bham.ac.uk(J.P.Sadler), c.ward-thompson@eca.ac.uk
(C. WardThompson).

2. whichtodevelopmultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryresearchonurbangreenspace.Inordertoaddressthese
needs,aniterativeprocessbasedonthedelphitechniquewasdeveloped,whichcomprisedemail-mediateddiscussions
and atwo-daysymposiuminvolvingexpertsfromvariousdisciplines.Thetwooutputsofthisiterativeprocesswere(i)
an integratedframeworkformultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryresearchand(ii)acatalogueofkeyresearch
questionsinurbangreenspaceresearch.Theintegratedframeworkpresentedhereincludesrelevantresearchareas(i.e.
ecosystemservices,driversofchange,pressuresonurbangreenspace,humanprocessesandgoalsofprovisionof
urbangreenspace)andemergentresearchthemesinurbangreenspacestudies(i.e.physicality,experience,valuation,
managementandgovernance).Collectivelythesetwooutputshavethepotentialtoestablishaninternationalresearch
agendaforurbangreenspace,whichcancontributetothebetterunderstandingofpeople’srelationshipwithcities.
r 2009 ElsevierGmbH.Allrightsreserved.
Keywords: Delphi technique;Researchagenda;Urbanecology
Introduction
There areanumberofsignificantfactorsthatare
convergingandforcingare-examinationoftheway
cities areplanned,designedandlivedin.TheGlobal
EnvironmentOutlook(UNEP, 2007) identifiedfive
driversforhumandevelopment:demographics;eco-
nomicprocesses(consumption,production,markets
and trade);scientificandtechnologicalinnovation;
distributionpatternprocesses(inter-andintra-genera-
tional);andcultural,social,politicalandinstitutional
processes(includinghumanbehavioursandtheproduc-
tion andservicesectors).Thesedrivers,andothersthat
may emerge,willhavesubstantialconsequencesfor
urbandevelopment,andhencegreenspacewithinurban
areas, yetthereisgreatuncertaintyaboutthewaysin
whichurbanareaswillbeaffected.Whatislackingisa
frameworkformulti-,inter-andtransdisciplinary
researchthatwouldformanevidencebasetosupport
these changesandactions.Thedistinctionsbetween
these threeapproachesandtheirdifferencefroma
traditional,singledisciplinaryapproachrequiresome
consideration.Amultidisciplinaryapproachisonein
whichindividualsorgroupsworkingindifferent
disciplinesaddressthesameissue,whereasaninter-
disciplinaryapproachisonewhereanindividualora
groupworkattheboundariesoftraditionaldisciplines
and ofteningapsthatemergebetweendisciplines,and
lastly atransdisciplinaryapproachisonewherean
individualorgroupusesknowledgefromanumberof
disciplinestoseenewconnectionsandgainnewinsights.
The termsgreenspaceandopenspaceareoftenused
interchangeably(Swanwicketal.,2003). Inorderto
addresstheconfusionthatmayoccur,theydefinedthe
key termsmoreclearly. Swanwicketal.(2003) suggested
that urbanareasaremadeupofthebuiltenvironment
and theexternalenvironmentbetweenbuildings.The
externalenvironment,intheirmodel,iscomposedof
two distinctspaces:‘greyspace’and‘greenspace’.Grey
space islandthatconsistsofpredominantlysealed,
impermeable,‘hard’surfacessuchasconcreteortarmac.
Green spaceland,whetherpubliclyorprivatelyowned,
consistsofpredominantlyunsealed,permeable,‘soft’
surfacessuchassoil,grass,shrubs,treesandwater.In
this papertheauthorsfollowthisdefinitionofgreen
spacewhilstatthesametimerecognisingthatthe
juxtapositionofgreenandgreyspacesisessentialin
townsandcities.
AcrossEurope,developmenttrajectoriesoftownsand
citiesvary(Kasanko etal.,2006). Wherethepopula-
tions arefalling,thereareopportunitiestoredesignthe
builtandexternalenvironmentsinordertoimprove
liveabilityandsustainability(Mace etal.,2007). Where
populationsaregrowingandcitiesareexpanding
spatially,orareconfinedbyphysicalorpolitical
boundaries,thereisadecreaseinpercapitaspaceand
often aneedtoaddressissuesofthelossofurbangreen
space.
Whilstanunderstandingofthemultiplefunctionsof
urbangreenspacesisreasonablywelldeveloped,itisnot
wellintegratedintotheplanning,designandmanage-
mentprocess(Yli-PelkonenandNiemela¨, 2005; Sand-stro
¨m etal.,2006). Furthermore,reliableandrobust
approachestothevaluationofurbangreenspacethat
effectivelysupportdecision-makingareoftenabsent
(Tyrva¨inen, 2001; Neilan,2008). Therefore,itisdesir-
abletoidentifythekeyissuesrequiringresearch,to
developevidenceonwhichtobasedecisionsandto
presenttheseinawaythatisaccessibletoacademics,
practitionersanddecision-makers.
This paperreportsontheoutcomesofasymposium
heldattheUniversityofSalford,UnitedKingdom,
duringJune2007.Thissymposiumwasdevelopedin
recognitionofthreeimportantgapsinurbangreen
spaceresearch:theneedtoencourageinterdisciplinary
andmultidisciplinaryapproaches,theneedtodevelop
joint,multidisciplinaryinitiativesacrossEuropeandthe
needforcomparativeresearch.Expertsfromdifferent
disciplines,countriesandjobroles(e.g.academics,
practitionersanddecision-makers)attendedthesympo-
sium withthegoaltodevelop,andsubsequentlyagree
on, anintegratingframeworkthatwouldbringtogether
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 66

3. different disciplineandprofessionalinterestsinurban
green space.Emergentfromthisprocesswasacatalogue
of keyresearchquestionsforurbangreenspaceresearch
and thesynthesisoftheseintoanintegratingframework
to supportmultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryunder-
standingandcommunication,decision-makingand
researchefforts.Inthispapertheauthorsproposean
internationalresearchagendarelatingtothiskey
componentofurbanliving.
The paperisprimarilyinformedbyresearchrelating
to theEuropeanandNorthAmericancontextandby
Europeanissuesandpractices.Itisintendedthatthe
agendawillinfluenceregional,nationalandinterna-
tional researchfundingallocationsandinformthe
discussionsofthoseconcernedwithidentifyingthe
needs andprioritiesofurbangreenspace.
Process
The needforamultidisciplinaryapproachinurban
green spaceresearchwasidentifiedduringdiscussions
held amongsttheparticipantsattheEuropeanSociety
for ConservationBiologymeetinginEger,Hungary.
Subsequently,theoverallprocesswasbasedarounda
modified DelphiTechnique,awidelyusedtechniquein
consultationexerciseswhereconsensusisrequired
(Ndour etal.,1992; Medsker etal.,1995; Curtis,2004;
Okoli andPawlowski,2004).
In early2007agroupof40peoplecametogetherto
address thisneed.Thegroupincludedrepresentativesof
academicinstitutions(29),consultancy(4),voluntary
organizations(2),politicians(1),statutorybodies(1),
housing provider(1),practiceandpolicyadvisor(1),
centralgovernment(1)andlocalauthority(1).These
peoplewereallchosenbecauseoftheirestablished
record ofinterestin,andcommitmentto,academic,
managerialordecision-makingrolesinurbanenviron-
ment. Also,theparticipantspossessedknowledgeofthe
historicandcontemporaryissuesassociatedwithopen
green spaceincitiesandtowns.Furthermore,thegroup
was chosentoberepresentativeofdifferentacademic
disciplines(e.g.Psychology,Sociology,Planning,Ecol-
ogy, andHealth),withmanycontributorshaving
expertiseinmorethanonediscipline.Representation
from differentpartsofEuropewasachieved–Austria
(2), Finland(2),France(1),Greece(1),Denmark(1),
The Netherlands(2),Poland(1),Sweden(1),Switzer-
land (2)andUnitedKingdom(28).
The purposeoftheprocesswastoidentifykey
researchthemesandquestionsrelatedtocontemporary
issuesandfuturestudiesinurbangreenspace.Theneed
for amultidisciplinaryapproachwasidentifiedduring
conversationsheldatvariousconferencesthroughout
2006. Consequently,theoverallprocesswasbased
aroundamodifiedDelphiTechnique.Thisisawidely
used techniqueinconsultationexerciseswhereconsen-
sus isrequired(Ndouretal.,1992; Medskeretal.,1995;
Curtis,2004; Okoli andPawlowski,2004).
In theresearchreportedheretheDelphiTechnique
was dividedintothreestages.Theinitialstagewasto
inviteallindividualstopartakeinanemail-mediated
discussion.Theinitiallistofinviteeswascompiledby
the UrbanNatureResearchGroupintheResearch
InstitutefortheBuiltandHumanEnvironmentatthe
UniversityofSalford.Thelistgrewto40asexisting
memberssuggestedotherprospectivemembers.All
emailsweresharedamongstthewholegroupwith
periodicpublicationofacompendiumofemailscover-
ing specifictimeperiods.Inthiswayallcontributors
weremadeawareoftheongoingdebates,thechronol-
ogyofideasandtheprovenanceoftheideas.Earlyonin
the processthesymposiumchairwasidentified.This
personalsomediatedthepre-symposiumpreparations
ensuringthatallemailswereavailabletoallmembers.
Theseemailexchangesbegantheprocessofdeveloping
a richpictureofthescopeandconcernsrelatedtothe
topic. Thereafterparticipantswereinvitedtosubmita
list ofkeyresearchquestionsrelevanttotheprevious
email-mediateddiscussions.Intotal215questionswere
submitted.
The secondstagewasatwo-dayexpertsymposium
that washeldinSalfordinearlyJune2007,towhichall
40 contributorswereinvited,29wereabletoattend.The
symposiumwasbasedonfacilitatedgroupdiscussions
andsubjectpresentationsaroundthecoreprinciplesof
opendiscussionandconsensusbuilding.Thepartici-
pantswerefirstsplitintothreemultidisciplinaryteams.
The aimwasthateachgroupwouldhaverepresentatives
from allthedisciplinesrepresentedatthesymposium.
Eachgrouphadonesessiondiscussingtheresearch
areas andemergentresearchthemes,andthreesessions
focused onrefiningtheemergentresearchquestions.The
discussionsinthesesessionswerefacilitatedbyagroup
chairperson.Attheendofeachsessiontheoutcomes
from eachgroupwerecombinedanddiscussedin
plenary session.Thesubjectpresentationfocusedon
introducingandsummarizingthedifferentcomponents
of thesymposium.
By thecloseofthesymposium,threespecificout-
comeswereachieved.Firstly,thethemesthatsurfaced
duringtheemail-mediateddiscussionswererevisited,
discussedandamended.Secondly,thelonglistof215
questionswasdistilledtoashortlistof50questions.
Thisreductioncamethroughaprocessthatinvolved
combiningsimilarquestions,developingcomposite
questionsfromthosethataddressedsimilarthemes
andtestingeachquestionforrelevanceandsuitability
for research.Thirdly,aself-selectedsteeringgroup
of 17people,coveringtherangeofdisciplinesrepre-
sented inthesymposium,agreedtotakeforward
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7567

4. detaileddiscussionofthepointsraisedduringthe
symposium,todistilfurthertheshortlistofquestions
and todrawthelistandthemestogetherintoaresearch
paper.Thisfurtheriterationofquestionsformedthe
thirdandfinalstageoftheDelphiprocess.
Emergent researchagenda
Five researchthemesand35researchquestions
The pre-symposiumemaildiscussionsenabledthe
originalcatalogueof215questionstobecategorised
into fiveemergentthemes:thephysicality,theexperi-
ence,thevaluation,themanagementandthegovernance
of urbangreenspace.Furtherrefinementsduringthe
symposiumandpost-symposiumemaildiscussions
reducedtheseto50questionsandfinallyto35questions.
This catalogueofquestionsinconjunctionwiththe
integratedframework,whichisdiscussedlaterinthis
paperandpresentedin Fig. 1, forms theproposed
researchagendaforurbangreenspace.Thequestions
arediscussedbelowundertheheadingsofthefive
emergentthemes.
Theme1:Thephysicalityofurbangreenspace
The physicalityofurbangreenspacecoversecologi-
cal,microclimate,soil,airandwaterqualityfunctions
(i.e.provisioningandregulatingservices; Breuste etal.,
1998; Marzluffetal.,2001; Berkowitzetal.,2003).
Severalphysicalfactorsdiffergreatlybetweenurban
andruralenvironments.Thelocation,structure,com-
positionandspatialconfigurationofurbangreenspaces
willinfluencetheirecologicalqualitiesandfunctions
(PauleitandDuhme,2000; Whitford etal.,2001; Turner
etal.,2005). Theseecologicalfunctionsmayinclude
populationdynamics,communityinteractionsand
resilience,speciesmigrationorplantpollination.
The ecosystemservicesprovidedbyurbangreen
spacesarerelatedtothephysicalaspectsofthesespaces
(de Grootetal.,2002) andarecentraltomaintaining
ARTICLEINPRESS
Social Processes:
Research and
knowledge transfer
Professional practice
User and community
participation
Partnership working
Decision making
Negotiating
Goals of Provision:
Improved quality of
urban green space
and of quality of life
Pressures on Green
Space:
Promotion of better
health
Habitat species
conservation
Provision of more
housing
Attracting retaining
inward investment
Responding and
adapting to climate
change scenarios
Accommodating
technological innovation
Broad Drivers of
Change:
Demographic changes
Economic changes Scientific
technological
developments
Wealth resources
distribution
Cultural, social,
political
organizational values
Climate /or
environmental change
Ecosystem
Services*:
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting
Cultural
Emergent Urban Green Space Research Themes:
Physicality - Experience - Valuation - Management - Governance
Fig. 1. Integrating frameworkforaresearchagendaforurbangreenspace.Key:Dashedboxesindicatebroadresearchareasthat
are changingovertimeandacrossgeographicalareas;solidboxindicatesspecificresearchthemesthatremainconstantintimeand
geographical areas;dashedtwo-wayarrowsindicatedynamicrelationshipsbetweendifferentresearchareas;solidtwo-wayarrows
indicate thatresearchthemesaredrawnfrom,andareapplicableto,thedifferentresearchareas.(*) Source: Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005).
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 68

5. human healthandviablewildlifepopulations(Tzoulas
et al.,2007). Withinthecontextofclimatechange,
urban greenspacescanplayacentralroleinboth
climate-proofingcitiesandinreducingtheimpactsof
cities onclimate(Gill etal.,2007). Whiletheroleof
green areasinsequesteringcarbonissmallcomparedto
carbon dioxideemissionsproducedincities(Nowak,
1994; McPherson,1998), urbangreenspacesmayreduce
energy consumptionandthusalsocarbondioxide
emissions byreducingtheneedforairconditioningin
the summerandtheneedforheatinginthewinter
(McPherson,1994; Jo andMcPherson,2001). Within
the themeof‘ThePhysicalityofUrbanGreenSpace’,
the followingsevenkeyresearchquestions(1–7)are
identified:
1. Whataretheecosystemservicesprovidedbyurban
green spacesandhowcantheseservicesbequanti-
fied?
2. Whatbenefitsdoesthecreationofurbangreenspace
provide inareasthathavepoorenvironmental
conditionsorsocialproblems?
3. What,inrelationtourbanform,aretherequired
quantity,qualityandconfigurationofurbangreen
spaces tomaintain,sustainandenhanceecosystem
services andecologicalfunctioncompatiblewith
other functions?
4. Whatarethedirectandindirecteffectsoftheclimate
changes predictedincurrentscenariosonurbangreen
spaces andhowdothesechangesimpactpeople’s
well-being(qualityoflife)inurbanareas?
5. Howresilientarecurrentgreenspacedesigns
(includingstreettrees)toclimatechangeandhow
can resiliencebeimproved?
6. Howcanurbangreenspacesthatarerobusttoharsh
urban environments(e.g.lackofwaterandsunshine)
be designedandmanagedtomitigatetheeffectsof
climate changeinurbanareasandallowcitiesto
adapt tothesechanges?
7. Howcantheprovisionandmanagementoffresh-
water quantityandqualitybepromotedthrough
urban greenspaces?
Theme 2:Theexperienceofurbangreenspace
Urban greenspacesareimportantincitiesduetothe
opportunitiestheyprovidetopeopletocomeincontact
with natureandwitheachother.Contactwithnature
has psychologicalbenefitsbyreducingstress(Ulrich,
1984; Ulrich etal.,1991), restoringattention(Kaplan
and Kaplan,1989), reducingcriminalandanti-social
behaviour(Kuo andSullivan,2001) andbypositively
affectingself-regulationandrestorativeexperiences
(Korpelaetal.,2001; Hartigetal.,2003; Korpela and
Yle´n, 2007; van denBergetal.,2007). Inadditionto
psychologicalbenefitsfromcontactwithnature,there
are directphysicalhealthbenefits(Prettyetal.,2006),
such asaddressingissuesassociatedwithobesity
(DepartmentofHealth,2004), increasedlongevity
(Takanoetal.,2002) andself-reportedhealth(de Vries
et al.,2003; Maasetal.,2006). Intermsofsocialwell-
beingurbangreenspacecontributestosocialinteraction
andtobringingpeopletogether,reducesnegativesocial
behaviourssuchasaggressionandviolence,contributes
to asenseofplaceandplaysanimportantrolein
fosteringsocialcohesionandidentify(Newton, 2007).
Thesepsychological,physicalandsocialhealtheffectsof
urbangreenspacesmakethemanimportantcomponent
of publichealthprovision(Henwood,2003; Newton,
2007).
However,greenspacesthatareperceivedtobe
unmanagedmayhaveanegativeeffectonthewell-
beingofpeoplebyincreasinganxietycausedbycrime
andfearofcrime(BixlerandFloyd,1997; Kuo etal.,
1998; Jorgensenetal.,2007). Theoccurrenceofwild
animalsincities,forexample,largemammalssuchas
fox (Vulpes vulpes L.), badger(Meles meles L.), wild
boar(Sus scrofa L.) andbear(Ursus arctos L.), bring
withthemaneedtoaddressthechangingrelationships
betweenpeopleandwildlife.Urbanandperi-urban
ecologicalchangescanaffectthegeographicalrangeof
diseasessuchasLymedisease(Patz andNorris,2004)
andWestNileVirus(Zielinski-GutierrezandHayden,
2006). Hence,furtherresearchwillshowwhetheritis
possibletoquantifyenvironmentalinfluencesand
subsequentpositiveornegativehealthoutcomesfrom
differenttypesandconfigurationsofurbangreen
spaces.
The aestheticcontributionsofurbangreenspacesto
city lifeareequallyimportant.Thereisaplethoraof
theoriesandstudiesshowingthepreferenceamongst
urbandwellersforurbanareaswithgreenspacesin
them (Wilson,1993; Appleton, 1996; Stamps,2004;
StaatsandHartig,2004; Regan andHorn,2005; Hartig
andStaats,2006). Thecharacterofurbangreenspaces
hasbeen,andcontinuestobe,importantinexpressing
contemporaryvalues,beliefsandculturaltrendsin
urbansocieties(Thompson,2004).
Closely linkedwithaestheticandpublichealthaspects
of urbangreenspacesaretheculturalbackgroundsof
the communitiesthatusethem(WardThompson,1996;
Tzoulas,2006). Differentcultureshavedifferentvalue
systemsandrelationshipswithnature.So,theroleof
urbangreenspacesinimprovinglocalquality,identity
andcharactermaybedifferentamongstdifferent
culturalgroupswithinthesamecityandalsoamongst
individuals.Understandinghowdifferentculturaland
sub-culturalgroupsincitiesuseurbangreenspacesis
centralindevelopingappropriatemanagementsystems
(JohnstonandShimada,2003). Hence,withinthetheme
of ‘TheExperienceofUrbanGreenSpace’,ninekey
researchquestions(8–16)areidentified:
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7569

6. 8. Howcanurbangreenspacesbedesignedand
managed andprovideaccesstoexperiencenature
for theurbanpopulationandstillmeetnationaland
regionalbiodiversitytargets?
9. Whatarethepersonalandsocialinfluencesthat
resultingreateruseofurbangreenspaces?
10. Whatarethedynamicinteractionsbetweensocietal,
personality,situational,andtemporalfactorsand
individualandgroupengagementwithurbangreen
spaces?
11. Howdothecumulativeeffectsofcognitive,emo-
tional,psychologicalandphysicalhealthbenefits
from multisensorycontactwithgreenspacesinflu-
enceindividualandcommunityhealthandwell-
being?
12. Whataspectsandtypesofurbangreenspace
stimulatepositiveandnegativephysicalandpsy-
chologicalhealtheffects?
13. Whatarethenecessaryquantities,qualitiesand
configurationofurbangreenspacesthatcontribute
to theirregularusesuchthatdifferentsegmentsofa
societywithchangingsocio-demographiccharacter-
isticsmaygainbenefits?
14. Howcanactualandperceivedlevelsofcrimeand
anti-socialbehaviourbemanagedthroughmanip-
ulationoflandscapedesigningreenspaceswhilst
maintainingecological,landscapeandaesthetic
benefits?
15. Howdoesgreenspaceaffectanti-socialbehaviour
andcommunitydevelopmentgenerally?
16. Howcanurbangreenspacesbeusedforgreater
benefitinenvironmentaleducationandineducation
more generally?
Theme3:Thevaluationofurbangreenspace
In herreviewofEnglishlanguageliteratureonthe
link betweenqualityoflifeandeconomiccompetitive-
ness ofcityregions Donald (2001) focused onthelinks
betweenacityregion’seconomiccompetitivenessand,
with regardtoenvironmentalquality,concludedthere
was evidencesuggestingarelationshipbetweenenviron-
mentalquality,hightechnologyandtheattractionof
knowledgeworkers.Astheknowledgesocietycontinues
to becomeanevermoredominantfeatureofthe21st
century,sodoestheimportanceofcreatingplaceswhere
peoplewishtoliveandwork. Luttik (2000), reporting
on astudyof3000housetransactionsintheNether-
lands, foundthataviewonaparkorwaterleadstoan
increaseinhouseprices.Theobservation,basedonthe
willingnesstopayconcept,clearlyindicatesthevalue
attributedtonearbygreenspacebyindividuals.Ata
policy leveltheimportanceofurbangreenspaceto
economicdevelopmentisincreasinglyrecognised
(Ahern, 1995; Sandstro¨m, 2002; Benedict andMcMa-
hon, 2002; Konijnendijk,2003; Li etal.,2005; Benedict
andMcMahon,2006). However,atalocalauthority
level thismaynotalwaysappeartobethecase(Barber,
2007; Britt andJohnston,2008).
The contributionmadebyurbangreenspaceto
ecosystemservicesandtopsychological,socialand
healthexperiencesisdifficulttovalue(Ulrich, 1984;
KaplanandKaplan1989; Takanoetal.,2002; de Groot
etal.,2002; Tzoulasetal.,2007). However,thereisstilla
needforquantitativeeconomicevaluationofboth
physicalandsocialecosystemservicesprovidedby
greenspaces(McPherson,1998; Tyrva¨inen, 2001;
Lambert,2007; Neilan,2008). Traditionalvaluation
techniquessuchasCostBenefitAnalysisandCon-
tingentValuationmaynotbeabletocopewithvaluing
the ecologicalandsocialfunctionsofurbangreen
spaces,whicharerequiredtostrengthentheirrolein
the decision-makingprocesswithinlocalcommunities.
New valuationtechniquesmayberequired.Hence,
withinthetheme‘TheValuationofUrbanGreen
Space’,thefollowingfourkeyresearchquestions
(17–20)areidentified:
17.Whatglobalcompetitivegainsaredeliveredtocities
through theprovisionofhigh-qualitygreenspaces
and howcanthesegainsbesustained/increased
through greenspaceplanningandmanagement?
18.Howcantransdisciplinaryconsiderationsbeinte-
grated intothedevelopmentofwidelyaccepted
methodologiesforquantifyingandvaluingecosys-
tem servicesthatareprovidedbyurbangreen
spaces?
19.Howcanthemultiple‘publicgood’and‘market’
benefits ofurbangreenspacesbevaluedandbuilt
into governanceandfundingdecisionsupporttools?
20.Howcanecosystemservicesbegivenanappropriate
valuation sothattheycanbeconsideredmore
equitablyalongsideotherurbansystemfunctions?
Theme4:Themanagementofurbangreenspace
The managementofurbangreenspaceincluding
planning,designandresourcemanagementrequiresthe
collaborativeworkingofmanydisciplinesatdifferent
spatialscales.Thereisvariabilityinthemechanismsand
structuresgoverninggreenspacemanagementand
maintenancewithinthesamecountrybutevenmore
so acrossEurope(Werquinetal.,2005). Overall
responsibilityforurbangreenspacerarelyrestswith
nationalministries,departmentsoragenciesconcerned
withcityplanningortheenvironment(Carmonaetal.,
n.d.). Usuallyurbangreenspacesaretheremitof
municipalorregionalauthorities(Niemela¨, 1999).
Variousschemeshavebeenproposedandimplemen-
ted todifferingdegreesacrossEuropeincludingthe
urbanforest(Konijnendijk,2000), greenbeltandgreen
heart(Ku¨hn, 2003), greenfingersorwedges(Jim and
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 70

7. Chen, 2003), greenways(Walmsley, 2006), greeninfra-
structure(Sandstro¨m, 2002), ecologicalframeworks
(KazmierczakandJames,2008) andecologicalnetworks
(Opdam etal.,2006; Sandstro¨m etal.,2006). Someof
these andotheropenspaceplanningmodelshavebeen
reviewedby MaruaniandAmit-Cohen(2007) who
organisedthevariousmodelsintoacomparative
classificationframework.Theyfoundthatnomodel
was universallyapplicabletoallfunctionsandneedsand
that thedifferentmodelsreflectdifferentplanning
conceptsofthespatialorfunctionalconfigurationof
urban greenspaces.Thisvariabilityinthemechanisms
of governanceofgreenspaces,inconceptualspatial
models andinconcernedagencies,createsadifficultyin
comparativeanalysisandimportantlyinthecompre-
hensive assessmentandplanningofgreenspacesata
transnational,nationalorregionallevel.Hence,within
the theme‘TheManagementofUrbanGreenSpace’,
the followingsevenkeyresearchquestions(21–27)are
identified:
21. Whatareappropriateindicatorsandtypologiesfor
the comparativeassessment,monitoringandpredic-
tion ofthestateandtrendsofurbangreenspaces
and theirecosystemservicesacrossEurope?
22. Whatarethemechanismsbywhichgreenspacecan
be successfullyplanned,designedandmanagedat
local,regionalandnationallevels,andhowcan
different levelseffectivelyworktogether?
23. Howeffectiveisthecurrenttheoreticalbasisof
urban andrestorationecologyinsupportingsus-
tainableurbanecosystemmanagementstrategies,
and informingurbanplanning?
24. Howcantheresilienceandadaptabilityofurban
areas tofutureeconomic,housingandenvironmen-
tal demandsbeenhancedthroughappropriate
design andmanagementofurbangreenspaces?
25. Howwillchangingsocialvaluesandbehaviours
guide theprovisionandmaintenanceofurbangreen
spaces?
26. Howcantheviewsandexperienceofalllocal
residentsinformtheplanninganddesignprocessof
urban greenspaces?
27. Howcantheskillsbaserequiredfordelivering
integratedplanning,design,managementandmain-
tenance ofurbangreenspacesinsupportingurban
sustainabilitybeimproved?
Theme 5:Thegovernanceofurbangreenspace
Governanceistheprocessofmakingdecisionsthat
defineexpectations,grantauthorityandverifyperfor-
mance. Greenspacegovernanceandmanagementis
commonlyalocalauthorityresponsibility,oftendivided
amongst differentdepartmentsandgeographicalareas
(Britt andJohnston,2008). However, Carmonaetal.
(n.d.) recognisedthatthewaythatgreenspacegovern-
anceandmanagementresponsibilitiesarecoordinatedis
more importantthantheirdistributionamongstdiffer-
entdepartments.Theyalsoidentifiedthatimportant
issuesinthecoordinationofresponsibilitiesofurban
green spacemanagementandgovernancemayinclude
limitationsonexistingstatutoryandnon-statutory
powers,availabilityofskillsandeffectivecommunica-
tion amongstdepartments.Hence,withinthetheme
‘TheGovernanceofUrbanGreenSpace’,thefollowing
eight keyresearchquestions(28–35)areidentified:
28. Howdodifferinggovernanceandmanagement
systemsofurbangreenspaceinfluencetheplanning
for deliveryofsustainableecosystemservicesand
ecologicalfunctionofurbangreenspaces?
29. Whataretheconsequencesofchangingpatternsof
urbangreenspaceownership?
30. Whatarethesocialandgovernanceimplicationsof
differentfundingandtenuremodelsforthedelivery
of high-qualityurbangreenspaceinwhichthelocal
communityisengagedfully?
31. Whatarethecriticalfactorsthataffecttheextentto
whichlocalcommunitiesareempoweredtopartici-
pateinlocaldecision-makingprocesses?
32. Howisthepowerrelationshipbetweenlocal
authorities,developersandlocalcommunitieschan-
ging ascommunitiesareencouragedtobecome
more involvedinthedecision-makingprocessabout
developmentandadaptationoftheirneighbour-
hood greenspaces?
33. Howcanfinancialcommitmentsofdevelopersbe
reconciledwiththetimerequirementsofinclusive
publicconsultation?
34. Whichmodelsofgovernanceeffectivelyfacilitate
meaningfulparticipationindecision-makinginan
environmentwhereownershipoflandparcels
changesovertime?
35. Whatistheevidencethaturbangreenspaceshave
risenupthelocalpoliticalagendaandwhat
differencehasitmadetogreenspaceresourcesand
qualityofstewardship?
An integratedframeworkformultidisciplinaryand
interdisciplinary researchonurbangreenspace
The questionsidentifiedunderthepreviousfive
themes,distilledfromtheDelphiprocessdescribed
previouslyandunderpinnedbytheexistingurbangreen
space evidencebase,haveenabledthedevelopmentofan
integratedcontextualframeworkforinterdisciplinary
andmultidisciplinaryresearch(Fig. 1). Suchaframe-
work aidsinterdisciplinaryandmultidisciplinaryunder-
standings,andthecommunicationofthecomplexityof
the issuesidentifiedduringdiscussions.Thisframework,
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7571

8. along withthedetailedquestionscataloguedabove,
formsthebasisofanagreedresearchagenda.
Ecosystemservicesareprimarily,butnotexclusively,
concernedwiththeenvironmentalfunctionsprovidedby
urbangreenspace(Whitfordetal.,2001; de Grootetal.,
2002; Tratalosetal.,2007). Suchenvironmentalfunc-
tions mayincludetheprovisioningofresources(e.g.
food orfuel),theregulatingofmicroclimates,the
supportingofbio-geophysicalprocessandcycles(e.g.
soil formation)andculturalinterpretations(e.g.aes-
thetic,recreationaloreducationalfacilities; Millennium
EcosystemAssessment,2005). Theecosystemservices
providedbyurbangreenspacesareinextricablyrelated
to broadsocio-economicandenvironmentaldriversof
change.Suchbroaddriversofchangeincludedemo-
graphic,economicandscientificdevelopments,evolving
socio-politicalvalues,andclimatechangeorother
environmentalhazards.Ecosystem,environmentaland
socio-economicdriversofchangecreatespecificpres-
sures onurbangreenspacessuchasadaptingto
technologicalandsocietalchanges,attractinginward
investment,andpromotingnatureconservationand
health.
Social processesareimportantinbringingtogether
broaddriversofchangeandspecificpressuresthatact
upon themanagementanduseofurbangreenspace.
Socialprocessesarealsoimportantinintegratingpublic
sector,professional,academicandvoluntarysector
practices.Suchprocessmayincluderesearchand
knowledgetransfer,professionalpractices,community
participationandinclusivedecision-making.Thegoals
of urbangreenspaceprovisionaretheoutcomeofthe
multiple,dynamicandcomplexinterplaybetweensocial,
economicandenvironmentalfactors.Theseareprimar-
ily focussedonimprovementsinthequalityoflifein
urbanareasandinthequalityofurbangreenspace.
These broadresearchareas(ecosystemservices,
driversofchange,pressures,socialprocessesandgoals
of provisionassociatedwithurbangreenspace)are
interrelatedandthisisindicatedbythedottedtwo-way
arrowsbetweenthem(Fig. 1). Fiveresearchthemes,
namelyphysicality,experience,valuation,management
and governanceofurbangreenspace,emergedfromthe
Delphi process,andhavebeenusedtostructurethe
presentationofresearchquestionsinthispaper.These
researchthemes,andassociatedresearchquestions,are
drawnfromandareapplicabletoalloftheresearch
areas oftheintegratingframework.Thisisindicatedby
the solidtwo-wayarrowsin Fig. 1.
Discussion
An importantaspectoftheintegratedframework
developedduringthisresearchandpresentedin Fig. 1 is
that changesintheurbanenvironment,aselsewhere,are
the resultofthecomplexinteractionsofnaturaland
spontaneousprocessesaswellasoftheplannedactions
by humans(Antrop,1998; WoodandHandley,2001).
Thus,anunderstandingofthedetailof,andinteractions
between,thefivebroadresearchareasisimportant.
Furthermore,thisintegratedframeworkdemonstrates
explicitlythattheoutcomesfromdifferentresearch
themesofurbangreenspaceareinextricablylinkedand
include physicalandsocialsystemsandprocesses.What
emergesfromthiscontextualconceptualisationisthat
aninterdisciplinary,multidisciplinaryandtransdisci-
plinaryunderstandingoftheemergentresearchthemes
arerequired.Theproposedresearchagenda(Fig. 1 and
the 35questions)facilitatesthedevelopmentofsuch
studiesintwoways.First, Fig. 1 identifiesbroad
interrelationshipsbetweenresearchareasandthusgives
anindicationofthepotentialforcollaborationbetween
disciplines.Second,the35questionsprovideaninitial
catalogueofidentifiedquestionsthatrequirefurther
research.Thiscatalogueofquestionsisnotdefinitive,
nor isitprioritised,andthequestionsmayvaryin
differentgeographicallocationsandatdifferenthistor-
ical times.However,itdoesprovideacommonframe-
work forresearchingcurrenturbangreenspacetopicsin
Europe.
Our analysisshowsthatwhilstthegeneralfunctions
andbenefitsofgreenspacesarereasonablywellunder-
stood,whenlookingtothefuturethereisinsufficient
understandingofthefollowing:
(a) howtoplan,designandmanagegreenspace(e.g.
how large,howtoconnect);and
(b) howgreenspaceswillbehaveundersocio-demo-
graphicandenvironmentalchange.
The frameworkpresentedhereoffersanoverviewfor
how suchresearchmightbestructured.Aswithallsuch
frameworksthisisverymuchaproductofitstimeand
place. Hence,therelativeimportanceofspecificissues
willvaryovertime.However,theframework(Fig. 1),
andtheresearchquestionspresentedhere,shouldbe
seen asatoolfordevelopingworkingpracticesthat
transcenddisciplinaryboundariesinordertodevelop
newinsightsandunderstandingofurbangreenspaces:it
hasbeendesignedtoberesilientinordertoaccom-
modatechangesinknowledge.Astheseissuesare
developedbyothers,thegeneralmodelcanbeexpanded
by incorporatingstandard(quantitative)indicatorsfor
eachofthefiveemergenturbangreenspaceresearch
themes.
Acknowledgements
Therehavebeenmanycontributorstothispaper
beyondthemainauthors.Thesecontributorswereas
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 72

9. follows:PeterAnnett,DepartmentforCommunities
and LocalGovernment;IanCooper,Universityof
Salford;SteveCurwell,UniversityofSalford;Tom
Flood,BritishTrustforConservationVolunteers;
DavidGledhill,UniversityofSalford;DavidGoode,
UniversityCollegeLondon;JohnHandley,CURE,
UniversityofManchester;StewartHarding,TheParks
Agency;FrancisHesketh,TheEnvironmentPartner-
ship; GraemeLeeks,CentreforEcologyandHydrology;
ElliottMorley,MP,HouseofCommons;SylvieNail,
Universite´ SorbonneNouvelle;JamesPowell,Univer-
sity ofSalford;KathleenRadford,Universityof
Salford;DerekRichardson,GreaterManchesterEcol-
ogy Unit;AnnaScott,UniversityofSalford;Paul
Selman,UniversityofSheffield;RobbertSnep,Alterra
Wageningen;NicolaStern,UniversityofSalzburg;and
Wim Timmermans,AlterraWageningen.
References
Ahern, J.,1995.Greenwaysasaplanningstrategy.Landscape
and UrbanPlanning33(1–3),131–155.
Antrop, M.,1998.Landscapechange:planorchaos?Land-
scape andUrbanPlanning41(3),155–161.
Appleton, J.,1996.TheExperienceofLandscape,2nded.
Wiley, Chichester.
Barber, A.,2007.Let’stalkmoney.GreenPlaces35,22–25.
Benedict, M.A.,McMahon,E.T.,2006.GreenInfrastructure:
Linking LandscapesandCommunities.IslandPress,
Washington.
Benedict, M.A.,McMahon,E.T.,2002.Greeninfrastructure:
smart conservationforthe21stcentury.Renewable
Resources Journal(AutumnEdition),12–17.
Berkowitz, A.R.,Nilon,C.H.,Hollweg,K.S.(Eds.),2003.
Understanding UrbanEcosystems:ANewFrontierfor
Science andEducation.Springer,NewYork.
Bixler, R.D.,Floyd,M.F.,1997.Natureisscary,disgusting
and uncomfortable.EnvironmentandBehaviour29,
443–467.
Breuste, J.,Feldmann,H.,Uhlmann,O.(Eds.),1998.Urban
Ecology. Springer,Berlin.
Britt, C.,Johnston,M.,2008.TreesintownsII:anewsurvey
of urbantreesinEnglandandtheirconditionand
management. DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocal
Government, London.
Carmona, M.,DeMagalhaes,C.,Blum,R.,notdated.Isthe
grass greener?Learningfrominternationalinnovationsin
urban greenspacemanagement.CommissionforArchitec-
ture andtheBuiltEnvironment–Space,London.
Curtis, I.A.,2004.Valuingecosystemgoodsandservices:a
new approachusingasurrogatemarketandthecombina-
tion ofamultiplecriteriaanalysisandaDelphipanelto
assign weightstotheattributes.EcologicalEconomics50
(3–4), 163–194.
de Groot,R.S.,Wilson,M.A.,Boumans,R.M.J.,2002.A
typology fortheclassification,descriptionandevaluation
of ecosystemfunctions,goodsandservices.Ecological
Economics 41,393–408.
de Vries,S.,Verheij,R.A.,Groenewegen,P.P.,Spreeuwen-
berg, P.,2003.Naturalenvironments–healthyenviron-
ments? EnvironmentalPlanning35,1717–1731.
Department ofHealth,2004.Atleastfiveaweek:evidenceon
the impactofphysicalactivityanditsrelationshiptohealth.
A reportfromtheChiefMedicalOfficer.Departmentof
Health, London.
Donald,B.,2001.Economiccompetitivenessandqualityoflifein
city regions:areviewoftheliterature.RetrievedDecember8,
2007, from: /http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=enlr=q=
cache:af-cx2jkkKgJ:geog.queensu.ca/WilliamsResearch.pdf+
Green+Space+and+City+CompetitivenessS.
Gill, S.,Handley,J.,Ennos,R.,Pauleit,S.,2007.Adapting
cities forclimatechange:theroleofthegreeninfrastruc-
ture. JournaloftheBuiltEnvironment33(1),115–133.
Hartig, T.,Staats,H.,2006.Theneedforpsychological
restoration asadeterminantofenvironmentalpreferences.
Journal ofEnvironmentalPsychology26,215–226.
Hartig, T.,Evans,G.W.,Jamner,L.D.,Davis,D.S.,Ga¨rling,
T., 2003.Trackingrestorationinnaturalandurbanfield
settings. JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology23,109–123.
Henwood, K.,2003.Environmentandhealth:istherearole
for environmentalandcountrysideagenciesinpromoting
benefits tohealth.Issuesinhealthdevelopment.NHS,
Health DevelopmentAgency.
Jim, C.Y.,Chen,S.S.,2003.Comprehensivegreenspace
planning basedonlandscapeecologyprinciplesincompact
Nanjing city,China.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning65,
95–116.
Jo, H.K.,McPherson,E.G.,2001.Indirectcarbonreduction
by residentialvegetationandplantingstrategiesinChicago,
USA. JournalofEnvironmentalManagement61,165–177.
Johnston, M.,Shimada,L.,2003.Urbanforestryinamulti-
cultural society.JournalofArboriculture30(3),185–192.
Jorgensen, A.,Hitchmough,J.,Dunnett,N.,2007.Woodland
as asettingforhousing-appreciationandfearandthe
contribution toresidentialsatisfactionandplaceidentityin
Warrington NewTown,UK.LandscapeandUrban
Planning 79,273–287.
Kaplan, R.,Kaplan,S.,1989.TheExperienceofNature:A
Psychological Perspective.CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
Kasanko, M.,Barredo,J.I.,Lavalle,C.,Mccormick,N.,
Demicheli, L.,Sagris,V.,Brezger,A.,2006.AreEuropean
cities becomingdispersed?Acomparativeanalysisof15
European urbanareas.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning77,
111–130.
Kazmierczak, A.E.,James,P.,2008.Planningforbiodiversity
conservation inlargerurbanareas:theecologicalframework
for GreaterManchester.In:Breuste,J.(Ed.),Ecological
PerspectivesofUrbanGreenandOpenSpacesSalzburger
Geographische ArbeitenBand,vol.42,pp.129–150.
Konijnendijk, C.C.,2000.Adaptingforestrytourban
demands: theroleofcommunicationinurbanforestryin
Europe. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning52,89–100.
Konijnendijk, C.C.,2003.Adecadeofurbanforestryin
Europe. ForestPolicyandEconomics5,173–186.
Korpela, K.,Yle´n, M.,2007.Perceivedhealthisassociated
with visitingnaturalfavoriteplacesinthevicinity.Health
Place 13,138–151.
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7573

10. Korpela, K.M.,Hartig,T.,Kaiser,F.,Fuhrer,U.,2001.
Restorative experienceandself-regulationinfavourite
places. EnvironmentandBehaviour33,572–589.
Ku¨hn, M.,2003.Greenbeltandgreenheart:separatingand
integrating landscapesinEuropeancityregions.Landscape
and UrbanPlanning64,19–27.
Kuo, F.E.,Bacaicoa,M.,Sullivan,W.C.,1998.Transforming
inner citylandscapes:trees,senseofplaceandpreference.
Environment andBehaviour42,462–483.
Kuo, F.E.,Sullivan,W.C.,2001.EnvironmentandCrimein
the innercity:doesvegetationreducecrime?Environment
and Behaviour33(3),343–367.
Lambert, D.,2007.Assetsandliabilities:what’sthepark
worth? GreenPlaces35,26–27.
Li, F.,Wang,R.,Paulussen,J.,Liu,X.,2005.Comprehensive
concept planningofurbangreeningbasedonecological
principles: acasestudyinBeijing,China.Landscapeand
Urban Planning72(4),325–336.
Luttik, J.,2000.Thevalueoftrees,waterandopenspaceas
reflected byhousepricesintheNetherlands.Landscapeand
Urban Planning48,161–167.
McPherson, E.G.,1998.Atmosphericcarbondioxidereduc-
tion bySacramento’surbanforest.JournalofArboricul-
ture 24(4),215–223.
McPherson, E.G.,1994.Energy-savingpotentialoftreesin
Chicago. In:McPherson,E.G.,Nowak,D.L.,Rowntree,
R.A. (Eds.),Chicago’sUrbanForestEcosystem:Resultsof
the ChicagoUrbanForestClimateProject.USDAForest
Service GeneralTechnicalReportNE-186.Radnor,Penn-
sylvania, pp.95–114.
Maas, J.,Verheij,R.A.,Groenewegen,P.P.,deVries,S.,
Spreeuwenberg, P.,2006.Greenspace,urbanity,and
health: howstrongistherelation?JournalofEpidemiology
CommunityHealth60,587–592.
Mace, A.,Hall,P.,Gallent,N.,2007.NewEastManchester:
urban renaissanceorurbanopportunism?EuropeanPlan-
ning Studies15(1),51–65.
Maruani, T.,Amit-Cohen,I.,2007.Openspaceplanning
models: areviewofapproachesandmethods.Landscape
and UrbanPlanning81,1–13.
Marzluff, J.M.,Bowman,R.,Donelly,R.(Eds.),2001.Avian
Ecology andConservationinanUrbanizingWorld.
Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Norwell.
Medsker,L.,Tan,M.,Turban,E.,1995.Knowledgeacquisition
frommultipleexperts:problems andissuesexpertsystems
with applications.InformationandManagement9(1),35–40.
Millennium EcosystemAssessment,2005.Ecosystemsand
Human Well-Being:AFrameworkforAssessment.Island
Press, NewYork.
Ndour, B.,Force,J.E.,McLaughlin,W.J.,1992.Usingthe
Delphi methodfordeterminingcriteriainagroforestry
research planningindevelopingcountries.Agroforestry
Systems 19(2),119–129.
Neilan, C.,2008.CAVAT:CapitalAssetValueforAmenity
Trees. Revisededition.LondonTreeOfficersAssociation.
Newton, J.,2007.Well-beingandthenaturalenvironment:a
brief overviewoftheevidence.RetrievedDecember10,
2007from: /http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/
documents/Well-beingAndTheNaturalEnvironmentReport.
docS.
Niemela¨, J.,1999.Ecologyandurbanplanning.Biodiversity
and Conservation8,119–131.
Nowak, D.J.,1994.Atmosphericcarbondioxidereductionby
Chicago’s urbanforest.In:McPherson,E.G.,Nowak,D.J.,
Rowntree, R.A.(Eds.),Chicago’sUrbanForestEcosystem:
Results oftheChicagoUrbanForestClimateProject.
USDA ForestServiceGeneralTechnicalReportNE-186.
Radnor, Pennsylvania,pp.83–94.
Okoli, C.,Pawlowski,S.D.,2004.TheDelphimethod
as aresearchtool:anexample,design,considerations
and applications.InformationandManagement42(1),
15–29.
Opdam, P.,Steingrover,E.,vanRooij,S.,2006.Ecological
networks: aspatialconceptformulti-actorplanningof
sustainable landscapes.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning75,
322–332.
Patz, J.A.,Norris,D.E.,2004.Landusechangeandhuman
health. EcosystemsandLandUseChange153,159–167.
Pauleit, S.,Duhme,F.,2000.Assessingtheenvironmental
performance oflandcovertypesforurbanplanning.
Landscape andUrbanPlanning52,1–20.
Pretty, J.,Peacock,J.,Hine,R.,2006.Greenexercise:the
benefits ofactivitiesingreenplaces.TheBiologist53,
143–148.
Regan, C.L.,Horn,S.A.,2005.Tonatureornottonature:
associations betweenenvironmentalpreferences,mood
states anddemographicfactors.JournalofEnvironmental
Psychology 25,57–66.
Sandstro¨m, U.G.,Angelstam,P.,Khakee,A.,2006.Urban
comprehensive planning:identifyingbarriersforthemain-
tenance offunctionalhabitatnetworks.Landscapeand
Urban Planning75,43–57.
Sandstro¨m, U.G.,2002.Greeninfrastructureplanningin
urban Sweden.PlanningPracticeandResearch17(4),
373–385.
Staats, H.,Hartig,T.,2004.Aloneorwithafriend:asocial
context forpsychologicalrestorationandenvironmental
preferences. JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology24,
199–211.
Stamps III,A.E.,2004.Mystery,complexity,legibilityand
coherence: ameta-analysis.JournalofEnvironmental
Psychology 24,1–16.
Swanwick, C.,Dunnett,N.,Woolley,H.,2003.Nature,role
and valueofgreenspacesintownsandcities:anoverview.
Built Environment29(2),94–106.
Takano, T.,Nakamura,K.,Watanabe,M.,2002.Urban
residential environmentsandseniorcitizens’longevityin
mega-city areas:theimportanceofwalkablegreenspace.
Journal ofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth56(12),
913–916.
Thompson, I.H.,2004.Ecology,CommunityandDelight:
Sources ofValuesinLandscapeArchitecture.Taylor
Francis, London.
Tratalos, J.,Fuller,R.A.,Warren,P.H.,Davies,R.G.,
Gaston, K.J.,2007.Urbanform,biodiversitypotential
and ecosystemservices.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning83
(4), 308–317.
Turner, K.,Lefler,L.,Freedman,B.,2005.Plantcommunities
of selectedurbanisedareasofHalifax,NovaScotia,
Canada. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning71,191–206.
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–75 74

11. Tyrva¨inen, L.,2001.Economicvaluationofurbanforest
benefits inFinland.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement
62, 75–92.
Tzoulas, K.,Korpela,K.,Venn,S.,Yli-Pelkonen,V.,
Kazmierczak, A.,Niemela¨, J.,James,P.,2007.Promoting
ecosystem andhumanhealthinurbanareasusingGreen
infrastructure: aliteraturereview.LandscapeandUrban
Planning 81,167–178.
Tzoulas, K.,2006.Localculture:afundamentalfactorin
biodiversity’s contributiontohumanhealthandwell-
being. Ph.D.Thesis.TheUniversityofSalford,Greater
Manchester.
Ulrich, R.S.,Simons,R.F.,Losito,B.D.,Fiorito,E.,
Miles, M.A.,Zelson,M.,1991.Stressrecoveryduring
exposure tonaturalandurbanenvironments.Journalof
Environmental Psychology11,201–230.
Ulrich, R.S.,1984.Viewthroughawindowmayinfluence
recovery fromsurgery.Science224,420–421.
UNEP, 2007.GlobalEnvironmentOutlook.UnitedNations
Environment Programme,Nairobi.
van denBerg,A.E.,Hartig,T.,Staats,H.,2007.Preferencefor
nature inurbanizedsocieties:stress,restoration,andthe
pursuit ofsustainability.JournalofSocialIssues63(1),
79–96.
Walmsley, A.,2006.Greenways:multiplyinganddiversifying
in the21stcentury.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning76,
252–290.
Ward Thompson,C.,1996.Updatingolmsted.Landscape
Design 254,23–33.
Werquin, A.C.,Duhem,B.,Lindholm,G.,Oppermann,B.,
Pauleit, S.,Tjallingii,S.(Eds.),2005.GreenStructureand
Urban Planning.FinalReport,COSTActionC11,
European Commission,Brussels.
Whitford, V.,Ennos,A.R.,Handley,J.F.,2001.Cityformand
natural processes:indicatorsfortheecologicalperformance
of urbanareasandtheirapplicationtoMerseyside,UK.
Landscape andUrbanPlanning20(2),91–103.
Wilson, E.O.,1993.Biophiliaandtheconservationethic.In:
Kellert, R.,Wilson,E.O.(Eds.),TheBiophiliaHypothesis.
Island Press,Washington,DC.
Wood, R.,Handley,J.,2001.Landscapedynamicsandthe
management ofchange.LandscapeResearch26,45–54.
Yli-Pelkonen, V.,Niemela¨, J.,2005.Linkingecologicaland
social systemsincities:urbanplanninginFinlandasacase.
Biodiversity andConservation14,1947–1967.
Zielinski-Gutierrez, E.C.,Hayden,M.H.,2006.Amodelfor
defining WestNilevirusriskperceptionbasedonecology
and proximity.EcoHealth3,28–34.
ARTICLEINPRESS
P. Jamesetal./UrbanForestryUrbanGreening8(2009)65–7575