G Model ARTICLE IN PRESS -...

U

Tc

CGU

a

KCEMSU

I

sssrog

a2

R+

s((

h1

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelFUG-25455; No. of Pages 10

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journa l h om epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /u fug

he potential of school green areas to improve urban greenonnectivity and multifunctionality

ristian Ioan Ioja, Simona Raluca Gradinaru ∗, Diana Andreea Onose,abriel Ovidiu Vânau, Alina Constantina Tudor

niversity of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, Romania

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:onnectivityducational servicesultifunctionality

chool green arearban green infrastructure

a b s t r a c t

Urban green infrastructure supports resilience in cities and promotes sustainable resource management.Small green areas, including school green areas (SGAs), are an important component of urban greeninfrastructure, playing a key role in supplying cities with educational services. This article describes howSGAs can amplify an urban green area’s connectivity and multifunctionality. The analysis was performedin Bucharest as a case study. A survey based on questionnaires was used to obtain data regarding greenspaces within public schools. A total of 411 administrators from 461 public schools participated in thesurvey for a response rate of 89.1%. Information from the questionnaires was augmented with spatialdata of SGAs and public green spaces, i.e., parks and city gardens. Using parametric and nonparametricstatistical analysis, we first identified the variables that determine an SGA’s presence and size. Potentialconnectivity assessment results showed that most of the schools that lack or have small-sized SGAshave the possibility to cover their green space deficit by developing activities within nearby public greenspaces. A structural connectivity assessment of SGAs toward other public urban green areas revealed
that SGAs are an important element of the urban environment by serving as stepping stones to speciesflow. The multifunctionality of the SGAs was emphasized through the educational services they provide,being involved in pupils’ daily activities. The increased connectivity and multifunctionality of urban greeninfrastructure through small, specialized green areas, such as SGAs, is an indicator of the fact that suchareas can be used to ameliorate the deficit of green space in major urban areas.
© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

ntroduction

Ecosystem services support a city’s resilient behavior andustainability (Jabareen, 2013). The MEA (2005) classified theseervices into supporting, provisioning, regulating, and culturalervices. The provision and variety of these services in urban envi-onments depends on the naturalness and biodiversity, as well asn the variability, size, design, structure, form, and distribution ofreen areas (EEA, 2010).

Please cite this article in press as: Ioja, C.I., et al., The potential ofmultifunctionality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (2014), http://dx

Green infrastructures in urban areas provide goods and servicesnd support resilience in the system (EEA, 2011; Lafortezza et al.,013; Larondelle and Haase, 2012). They also form a connected

∗ Corresponding author at: University of Bucharest, Centre for Environmentalesearch and Impact Studies, 1 Nicolae Balcescu, 010041 Bucharest, Romania. Tel.:40 213103872.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.I. Ioja),[email protected] (S.R. Gradinaru), [email protected]. Onose), gabi [email protected] (G.O. Vânau), [email protected]. Tudor).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002618-8667/© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

network of multi-functional, predominantly undeveloped land thatsupports ecological and social activities and processes (Kambitesand Owen, 2006).

Green infrastructures exhibit connectivity and multifunction-ality as underlying features (Madureira et al., 2011) and includeparks, forests, open air museums, street trees, public and privategardens, graveyards, sport facilities, urban drainage systems, a vari-ety of urban agricultural spaces (e.g., allotments, greenhouses, andplant nurseries), roofs, and vertical gardens (Cameron et al., 2012;Nita et al., 2013; Schäffler and Swilling, 2013; EEA, 2010). Theircharacteristics are the result of incremental changes within humansettlements.

Natural conditions (Thaiutsa et al., 2008), rapid urbanization,landscape history (Kabisch and Haase, 2013; Zhou and Wang,2011), and the evolution of planning ideas concerning the role ofgreen space (Tudor et al., 2013; Wolch et al., 2014) are important

school green areas to improve urban green connectivity and.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

drivers to be considered. Local determinants, such as municipal pol-icy, neighborhood features (Conway and Bourne, 2013), the age ofcity districts (Kendal et al., 2012), and housing density (Luck et al.,2009), are also shaping green space coverage and floristic diversity.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/16188667

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

mailto:[email protected]





dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

ING ModelU

2 Urba

sfionoi(nda

truir(veta

gobbb

a“Ssoctfe

o(t2

tt2sta

ammsa(2badppait

ARTICLEFUG-25455; No. of Pages 10

C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry &

Generally, connectivity can be differentiated as follows: (a)tructural connectivity, which entails an indices of the spatial con-guration of patches, without incorporating data on the movementf individual organisms among these patches; (b) potential con-ectivity, which incorporates basic or indirect knowledge aboutrganisms’ dispersal ability; and (c) functional or actual connectiv-ty, which refers to the real movement of organisms among patchesFagan and Calabrese, 2006; Magle et al., 2009). All types of con-ectivity can be quantified using metrics and indicators that spanifferent ranges of complexity, which can be very useful whenpplied to the assessment of urban green infrastructures.

In urban environments, potential connectivity is measured inhe context of transportation system characteristics that can eithereduce or increase one’s commuting potential toward differentrban facilities (e.g., including urban green areas). Much emphasis

s placed on active transportation (i.e., walking or cycling) as itelates to children’s transport to and from school. The walkabilityand cyclability) of available routes can be determined based onariables such as street connectivity, traffic exposure (Giles-Cortit al., 2011), the presence of sidewalks and controlled intersections,he number of roads crossed and traffic density/speed (Davisonnd Lawson, 2006).

Studies focusing on different types of green areas, such asreen rooftops (Braaker et al., 2014) or green areas that are partf business sites (Snepa et al., 2009), have shown these area’sroad ecological role, consolidating their structural connectivityy serving as stepping stones that permit the movement of speciesetween remaining habitats (Kong et al., 2010).

Multifunctionality is defined by the Landscape Institute (2009)s a range of different functions provided by an area from whichsocietal, environmental, and economic benefits” are delivered.uch areas can be composed of many small patches dedicated topecific uses, contributing to the area’s complexity, as is the casef green areas (Hersperger et al., 2012). Multifunctionality in thease of urban green infrastructure also consists of concurrent useshat are either alternatively scheduled or simultaneous. The multi-unctionality of green infrastructure can cause usage conflicts (Iojat al., 2011), if not properly managed.

Small green areas, such as domestic gardens, located in squares,n roofs, or at some public institutions (including school green areasSGAs)), are part of urban green infrastructure and play an impor-ant role at the local level (Landscape Institute, 2009; Loram et al.,007).

Small green areas are heterogeneous in shape and function, andheir ecosystem services contribute to human welfare and the sus-ainability of cities (Cameron et al., 2012; Charlesworth and Booth,011). Peschardt et al. (2012) noted the importance of small greenpaces in the green morphological structure of a city in relation tohe distances traveled and people’s daily need for social interactionnd mental restoration.

As part of urban green infrastructure (EEA, 2011), SGAs are char-cterized by a multifunctional role in that they are involved inany daily activities apart from their function as urban environ-ental moderators. The benefits of the presence and use of green

chool grounds are evident and complex for children. They gener-te positive effects on health by favoring moderate physical activityDyment et al., 2009) and improving “motor fitness” (Fjørtoft, 2001,004) as a consequence of various play activities. Science scores andehaviors (Blair, 2009), such as socializing and learning (Dymentnd Bell, 2008; Mårtensson et al., 2013), are enhanced by activitieseveloped within SGAs. SGAs also act as a barrier to the overex-osure to solar ultraviolet radiation (Boldemann et al., 2011) and


rovide various esthetic functions (Moore et al., 1992). Moreover, well-managed green space can be considered a positive way tomprove a school’s image and to make it more attractive. All ofhe mentioned benefits are key elements in connecting SGAs, as

PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

important green infrastructure components, to other functionalurban infrastructures (Ahern, 2007).

The multifunctionality of SGAs can also be expressed in termsof educational services. Educational services can be defined as thebenefits achieved from educational activities (such as courses andsubjects) based on the educational program. These activities aredesigned to provide knowledge by learning and work experience,with the general objective of developing individuals to become use-ful in society (UNESCO, 2000). SGAs provide important educationalbenefits for children by offering a framework for a greening cur-riculum (Lucas and Dyment, 2010) and supporting environmentallearning (Malone and Tranter, 2003). Teachers are positively helpedin their jobs by increasing the efficiency of their teaching practices(Dyment, 2005).

Many studies analyze the role of major green areas to assess thedifferent types of natural and social services that they provide at theurban level (Breuste and Qureshi, 2011; Chiesura, 2004). However,few studies (Peschardt et al., 2012) have focused on the potentialof small green spaces in increasing the connectivity and multifunc-tionality in urban areas. We selected SGAs as an example of smallgreen spaces due to their multiple uses (educational, recreational,and inspirational) and associated benefits.

The aim of this study is to illustrate the potential of SGAs toamplify the connectivity and multifunctionality of urban greenareas. Considering the public schools in Bucharest as a case study,the objectives of the paper are to (a) identify the characteristics ofSGAs (quantitative and qualitative) and the predictors that deter-minate their presence and size; (b) determine the structural andpotential connectivity of SGAs toward other public urban greenareas; and (c) emphasize the multifunctionality of SGAs throughtheir potential to offer educational services.

Methodology

Study area

Bucharest is the largest urban center in southeastern Europe,with a population of 1.6 million (Nae and Turnock, 2011), of which14% are between the ages of 3 and 19 years old (EUROSTAT, 2009).There are a total of 253,159 pupils, a number that is rapidly decreas-ing (BSI, 2012). The city is characterized by a continental climate,with an average annual temperature of 11 ◦C and annual rainfall of550 mm. During the summer, the temperatures frequently reach35 ◦C, the humidity stays under 40%, and the urban heat islandhas an intensity of 3–4 ◦C, with an expanding manifestation area(Cheval and Dumitrescu, 2009).

Named “the city of gardens” during the interwar period due tothe numerous public small gardens and vineyards located inside thecity and its suburbs, Bucharest suffered significant changes duringthe communist regime (Light, 2000). The expansion of adminis-trative boundaries in the 1970s, the industrialization process, andthe construction of large collective living quarters led to a decreasein green areas. In the post-communist period, the loss has beenaccentuated by the fast development of commercial, individual, andcollective residential spaces, especially in the suburban areas (Nita,2012). Currently, green spaces cover 2275 ha and represent 9.5% ofthe urban area (Ioja et al., 2011). The presence within the city oflarge areas that lacked public green spaces reduced the connectivecapacity and usability of these areas (Ioja et al., 2010).

In Bucharest, there are a total of 461 public (Fig. 1) and 223private schools (BSI, 2012). Schools enclose a variety of land uses


within their perimeter. The built up spaces include one or morebuildings used for teaching activities and the gymnasium, whereasopen spaces are comprised of impervious outdoor sport fields, play-grounds, SGAs, parking lots and alleys. The proportion of these

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelUFUG-25455; No. of Pages 10

C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

Study

ftfe

S

rrtltpcttppwtoms

caa

Fig. 1.

unctional areas in the schoolyard depends on the school type. Inhe past, SGAs and other public green areas were integrated in dif-erent educational programs as spaces to conduct activities (Iojat al., 2012).

chool inventory

The present study focuses on public schools, as they are moreepresentative in terms of SGAs, due to their higher stability inegard to facilities and the administrative structure. They func-ion under a centralized institution and are representative for allevels of education. Private schools, however, have a low adminis-rative transparency, they were established in the post-communisteriod and almost 90% lack green space due to prohibitive landosts or a lack of available physical space. A survey based on ques-ionnaires was used to obtain data about the green spaces withinhe schools (Evenson et al., 2013). The questionnaires were com-leted by school administrators after they were informed about theurpose of the survey and what data they should provide. The dataere collected over 6 months, from October 2010 to March 2011. In

otal, 411 administrators completed the survey, for a response ratef 89.1%. Of those, 392 questionnaires contained all of the infor-ation needed for the analysis (85% of the total number of public

chools in Bucharest).


The questionnaire contained questions regarding (a) the generalharacteristics of the school (e.g., education level, number of pupilsnd teachers, and establishment period); (b) green space char-cteristics (floristic composition, quality, management type, and

area.

related problems); and (c) the school’s involvement in extracurric-ular activities (green projects within and outside the schoolyard inthe past 5 years).

Along with the information from the questionnaires, spatial datawere obtained from the Cadastral Plans of Bucharest (updated in1990 and 1996), and ortophotoplans 1:5000 (2008–2009) wereused. Using Geomedia Professional (Intergraph, 2013), we deter-mined the built-up and SGA surfaces. The data were validated anddetailed using aerial images and field surveys.

The school categories have been established as follows: (a)kindergarten, 3–7 years old; (b) primary and lower secondaryschool (PLSS), 7–15 years old; (c) high school and trade schools,15–19 years old; and (d) other categories (youth clubs, sport clubs,art and music schools, special schools for persons with disabilities),for all of the above-mentioned age levels (Table 1). The flowchartillustrating the stages of data collection and the following analysisis presented in Fig. 2.

Determinants for school green areas

Four types of variables were considered in relation to the pres-ence and extension of SGAs: (a) spatial, (b) temporal, (c) technical,and (d) SGA use (Table 2). The determinants were chosen basedon previous studies regarding the dynamics of green urban areas


(Rafiee et al., 2009; Zhou and Wang, 2011) and the spatial plan-ning characteristics of Bucharest. The location within the city corewas considered a negative influence, as this area suffers from alack of open spaces and a deficit of public green space. The location

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002


4 C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 1Characteristics of analyzed schools.

School type Number Location within the city Average total area (m2) Average number of pupils

City core Outside city core

Kindergarten 126 19 107 3595 261Primary and secondary school 154 26 128 7519 599High schools, trade schools 89 30 59 9045 849

15

weonpwili

tySnvrpftgatss

Other categories 23 8

ithin residential areas was strongly correlated with the temporalxpansion of the city, specifically shaping different characteristicsf public green spaces (Patroescu et al., 2012). Variables, such as theumber of green curriculum projects and the number of involvedupils and teachers, are an expression of how much SGAs are usedithin green curriculum activities. SGA quality status was taken

nto account to verify their fitness for developing green curricu-um projects and, simultaneously, the interest of school managersn offering a good management example.

Nonparametric (Spearman correlation coefficient, Chi squareest, Kruskal–Wallis test, Mann–Whitney test) and parametric anal-sis methods (Multiple regression analysis) were performed usingPSS 20. The log-normal transformation of SGA values was used forormality, homoscedasticity and linearity (Field, 2009). All of theariables with more than 60% correlation were excluded from theegression models. The forced entry method was chosen to test theredictor’s importance (Studenmund, 2000). The analysis was per-ormed using only kindergarten, PLSS, and high school data valueso eliminate the influence of special facilities that other school cate-ories have (extremely large areas for youth clubs and sports clubs,


nd special facilities located in schools for persons with disabili-ies, etc.). The eliminated category represented 6% of the analyzedchools. Finally, we examined the regression coefficients (R2) andtandard errors (SE) to evaluate the regression model.

Fig. 2. Methodological over

6970 539

School green area connectivity assessment

Potential connectivityTo assess the SGAs’ potential connectivity to other public urban

green areas (Fischer et al., 2013; Magle et al., 2009), as well as thegreen space accessibility from each school, three buffers were gen-erated: (a) at 50 m, corresponding to immediate proximity; (b) at300 m, corresponding to 5 min walking distance; and (c) at 500 m,corresponding to 10 min walking distance (EEA, 2002; EuropeanCommission, 2000). The amount of public green space (e.g., urbanparks and gardens) that overlapped the buffers was consideredto be potential areas accessible by pupils during green curricu-lum activities. To assess walkability, the shortest route betweenschools and the nearest public green space was determined usingthe Manhattan distance (i.e., calculated using a sideways line). Foreach route, we recorded the number of crossings and the walkingdistance along different types of roads, i.e., main roads with two ormore traffic lanes for each driving direction, and secondary roadswith one traffic lane for each driving direction or one-way street(Van Herzele and Wiedemann, 2003).


With regards to specific national standards that set 30% asthe minimum percentage of green area per school (RomanianGovernment, 1996), three types of schools were considered: (a)those without an SGA; (b) those with green areas representing

view of SGAs analysis.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

ARTICLE ING ModelUFUG-25455; No. of Pages 10

C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry & Urba

Table 2Variables that describe schools’ and SGAs’ characteristics.

Variable Coding method/measurement unit

SpatialLocation within the city 0 – peripheral area

1 – city coreProximity to main street MetersType of residential area 1 – single family

2 – mixed3 – collective

TemporalConstruction period 1 – before 1918

2 – 1919–19443 – 1945–19774 – 1978–19905 – after 1990

TechnicalSchool categories 1 – Kindergarten

2 – PLSS3 – High school4 – Other categories

Total area Square metersSGA area Square metersPupils Number of pupilsStaff number Number of teachers and auxiliary

personalSGA quality status 1 – very good

2 – good3 – satisfactory4 – bad

SGA use

lgftptpi

S

NitCniWooyil

TSa

Green curricula projects Project presenceThe number of involved pupils andteachers

ess than 30% of their total surface (deficit); and (c) schools withreen areas that cover more than 30% of their total surface (con-ormable). The schools were divided into six categories with respecto the relation between the SGA potential connectivity and theirercentage of the total school area (Table 3). A map was generatedhat highlights areas with high concentrations of schools with highotential connectivity values as well as critical areas where there

s a lack of green space.

tructural connectivityThe structural connectivity was assessed using the Euclidian

earest Neighbor (ENN) as an overall metric, and the Proxim-ty Index (PROX), which was generated at the same distances ashe above-mentioned buffers (Botequilha et al., 2006; Fagan andalabrese, 2006). Both metrics have the ability to predict con-ectivity and are commonly cited metrics in landscape pattern

nterpretation (Bastin et al., 2002; Kong et al., 2010; Zhang andang, 2006) The analysis was performed for two situations: (a)

ne based only on public green areas; and (b) the other based


n both public green areas and SGAs as a single layer, the anal-sis of which was performed to quantify the changes induced byncluding the areas located in educational units (i.e., acting as eco-ogical “stepping stones”). Connectivity metrics were computed

able 3chool status with respect to the relation between an SGA’s potential connectivitynd the SGA’s proportion of the total school area.

SGA coverage Public green areas’presence within distance of500 m or less

School status

0% (Lack of SGA) Lack High deficitPresence Deficit

0–30% (Deficit) Lack Low deficitPresence Good

>30% (Conformable) Lack SatisfactoryPresence Very good

PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 5

with FRAGSTATS 4.1 (McGarigal et al., 2012), using a cell centroid-to-centroid approach for the ENN and a centroid-to-edge approachfor the PROX determination. We converted our vector-based patchdata to a grid with a 5-m × 5-m resolution (Kong et al., 2010).

Green curricula project characteristics

Green curriculum projects are considered relevant when theimportance and multifunctionality of SGAs is ascertained (Grahamet al., 2005). To underline their characteristics, three specificprojects were particularized: those that are international (ECO-Schools, and its kindergarten correspondent ECO-Kindergarten,coordinated by F.E.E.), the national project “Trees’ School”, and thelocal project “Schools’ Spring”. All three projects involve activitieswithin and outside the schoolyard and have overall environmentalfriendly purposes. To determine how many pupils “accessed” theseareas, we used surveys and the annual reports of projects realizedby each implied school, and analyzed the presence of projects, thenumber of pupils and teachers, and the number of participationsduring the period 2008–2010.

Results

School green area features

In Bucharest, schoolyards had an average area of 7010 m2

[±4879], whereas SGAs had an average surface of 2467 m2 [±2376],with lower values for kindergartens (1969 m2) and higher val-ues for high schools (2945 m2). With the exception of sport clubs,youth clubs and schools for people with disabilities, which had aschoolyard average value of 29 m2/pupil, all other school categoriesrecorded an average value of 14 m2/pupil. The SGAs occupied,on average, 30% of the school’s available space, corresponding tonational standards.

An average value of 6.2 m2 SGA/pupil was characteristic ofBucharest schools; areas between 0.2 and 7.8 m2/pupil wererecorded for 75% of schools. Higher values were recorded for sportsclubs and youth clubs (10.4 m2/pupil) due to the large open spaceavailability.

11% of the schools did not have any SGA within their schoolyard;most of these schools were high schools built before 1918.

Approximately one quarter of the analyzed schools were locatedin the core area, within the city’s limits at the end of the 19th cen-tury. Most of the schools were built during the communist period,between 1945 and 1977 (43%).

The SGAs were primarily located around the school; thus, for58% of the schools, the green area enclosed the main building. For22% of the schools the green area was located at the schoolyardentrance. The green areas for the other schools were one-sided orbetween buildings. Clustered green patches were specific to kinder-gartens where playgrounds were present, whereas the dispersed,smaller green patches were characteristic of primary, secondaryand high schools.

In terms of floristic composition, trees and grass were dominant.For 47% of the schools, trees covered between 1 and 25% of the totalarea. 5% of the schools reported having no trees in the schoolyard.Grass cover was more common, being present in 84% of the schools,where it covered between 1 and 50% of the schoolyard.

The vegetation status was considered good or very good in 74%of the schools. 6% of the schools reported the vegetation status asbad or very bad. Specific management issues were considered to be


improper maintenance, tree fungus and diseases, tree vandalismand different combinations thereof. In 6% of the schools the greenareas were sometimes improperly used for parking purposes as aconsequence of insufficient designated parking areas.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002



Table 4Results of regression analysis.

Variable B S.E. t p

Distance to main street .000 .000 .219 4.477 .000Single family residential areaa −.189 .150 −.080 −1.266 .207Collective residential area .283 .141 .129 2.001 .046School category – kindergartenb −.286 .112 −.124 −2.565 .011School category – high schoola .121 .128 .046 .943 .346School built before 1918c −.869 .185 −.237 −4.698 .000School built between 1919 and 1944 −.540 .136 −.196 −3.965 .000School built between 1978 and 1990 −.455 .133 −.163 −3.433 .001School built after 1990 −.980 .240 −.188 −4.084 .000Location within the city core −.555 .152 −.195 −3.643 .000Constant 7.438 .153 48.707 .000

egory

refere

D

ww(ssp

osbnc(f(

twiwoe

S

isodSi

g

TP

a The dummy coding was performed using mixed residential area as reference catb The dummy coding was performed using PLSS schools as reference category.c The dummy coding was performed with School built between 1945 and 1977 as

eterminants of school green area

The presence of SGAs was spatially conditioned by the locationithin the city (�2(1) = 8.948, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the presenceas also dependent on the establishment period of the schools

�2(4) = 24.767, p < 0.001), with SGAs being absent primarily inchools built before 1918. A dependence relationship betweenchool type and SGA presence was also identified (�2(3) = 10.191,

< 0.05).The size of SGAs was strongly correlated with the available

pen space (Spearman’s � = 0.842, p < 0.001). The norms, whichpecifies that principals must consider the schoolyard area aseing linked to the school capacity when they set the yearlyumber of enrolled pupils for each school, was reinforced by theorrelation between the schoolyard area and number of pupilsSpearman’s � = 0.547, p < 0.001). Only a weak correlation wasound between the SGAs’ extension and the number of pupilsSpearman’s � = 0.204, p < 0.001).

The results of the regression analysis indicated that the predic-ors explained 38.3% of the variance (R2 = 0.383). An F ratio = 19.58ith p < 0.001 proved that the model significantly improved after

ncluding the predictors in the analysis. Locations within the city,ithin different categories of residential areas, construction peri-

ds, as well as school types, were significant predictors of an SGA’sxtension (Table 4).

chool green area connectivity assessment

The analysis revealed an overall medium potential connectiv-ty of SGAs to other urban green areas, with 56% of the analyzedchools being within 500 m of the closest urban green area. Mostf the schools that lacked an SGA have the potential to cover theireficit by developing activities within public green areas (Table 5).


pecifically, 72% of the schools have at least a park or public gardenn close proximity.

In terms of walkability of the route between schools and publicreen spaces, there was no significant difference between school

able 5otential connectivity values.

School typology withrespect to nationalstandards

% of total Do not have access topublic green spacewithin 500 m

Distance to pub

50 m

No. ofschools

Lack of SGAs 10 11 3

Deficit 45 77 7

Conformable 45 85 7

.

nce category.

types with regards to walking distance (Kruskal–Wallis H = 3.93,p = 0.26). The average distance between schools and public greenspaces was 282 m (median = 257 m), with no significant differencebetween road types (Mann–Whitney U = 1194, p = 0.93). On aver-age, pupils cross the street 1.7 times (±1.5) to get to a public greenspace.

The assessment of the structural connectivity of the urban greeninfrastructure revealed an increase in connectivity values after tak-ing into consideration the SGA patches, enforcing the steppingstone role (Table 6). The area weighted mean values proved tocapture the structure in a more realistic manner, as the values areweighted by the size of the patches (McGarigal et al., 2012).

School implication in green curricula projects

The educational use of green areas in all activities related togreen curricula was present in 52.6% of the analyzed schools. Greenareas were most frequently used for teaching activities primarily insubjects such as the environmental sciences, geography, and biol-ogy. The number of annual courses included in green curricula wasapproximately 20 h for each class per year.

A significant correlation was found between schoolyard size andschool involvement in green projects, in the sense that schools withsmall-sized schoolyards tended to be more active in such projects(Mann–Whitney U = 12239.5, p < 0.05).

The use of green areas in activities related to the above-mentioned projects is present in 34% of the analyzed schools.28% of the schools involved all of the pupils in such projects,whereas the other schools had specific activities with pupils of dif-ferent grade levels. The median number of pupils involved reached200 pupils/school, whereas the number of teachers who acted assupervisors had a median value of 11 teachers/school [range of2–49 teachers/school]. Kindergartens were most active in this field,


representing 44.8% of the schools that took part in the projects, fol-lowed by PLSSs (35.4%) and high schools (15.6%). The activities thatwere developed within SGAs primarily included tree and flowerplanting and maintenance. The activities developed in public urban

lic green space is smaller than

300 m 500 m

Greenspace/pupil

No. ofschools

Greenspace/pupil

No. ofschools

Greenspace/pupil

0.7 14 44.9 11 89.43.50 47 33.8 46 62.87.47 43 57.2 41 115.8

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002


C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 7

Table 6Values of functional connectivity metrics.

Metrics Mean (MN) Area weighted mean (AWM)

Public green space Public green space and SGAs Public green space Public green space and SGAs

ENN 281.4 43.0 185.1 71.9

amsi

D

itsaachst

P

wwdbfvsBvwwtcowo

a2citica

SeBttfp

fi

PROX 50 m 199.3 43.0

PROX 300 m 209.9 45.8PROX 500 m 210.3 46.3

reas (primarily urban parks) were related to teaching, planting andaintaining flowerbeds, or correlated with waste management and

elective collection projects. Such projects were developed eithern partnership with NGOs or with the municipality.

iscussion

The major finding of the paper is that in Bucharest the SGAsncrease urban green infrastructure connectivity and enforce mul-ifunctionality through educational services. As in the case of othermall green areas (Braaker et al., 2014; Snepa et al., 2009), SGAs canmplify the connectivity of the major green infrastructure by actings stepping stones for species flow. Furthermore, they can largelyontribute to the balance of urban green spaces, as other studiesave proven (Tzoulas et al., 2007). Through their extension, diver-ity, and use, SGAs offer a variety of services that can be amplifiedhrough proper management.

attern and characteristics of SGAs

When analyzing the extension of SGAs, the variables, locationithin the city, construction period, and distance to main roads,ere significant local determinants. As the city grew and becameenser, the open space of the schools located in the core areaecame more attractive. In some cases, this led to using SGAsor the extension of other public projects or even its sale to pri-ate investors. This was also correlated with numerous territorialystematization projects that occurred over the last 100 years inucharest, which led to the decline of open space located in theicinity of roads. A positive impact regarding the extension of SGAsas their location within collective residential areas. The findingsere in contrast to those of Zhou and Wang (2011) who noted

hat the deficit of other small green areas (i.e., small gardens) isharacteristic of such spaces. Such results assert the importancef local predictors of green infrastructure characteristics, featuresith high relevance when establishing planning objectives and pri-

rities.The importance of the school type as a predictor can be

ttributed to two causes. The first is a national program started in002 that established the construction of gym buildings with largerapacities in primary, secondary and high schools. The second causes the implementation of a municipal program that began in 2004hat aimed to increase kindergarten building capacity by construct-ng new buildings in the vicinity of existing primary schools orourtyards, which has led to the partial destruction of schoolyardsnd their green area.

Overall, the predictors emphasize that the pressure over theGAs was determined by different factors, corresponding toach historical period’s characteristics. Currently, the creation ofucharest’s Green Cadastre (a census of all vegetation cover) andhe tightening of legislation in the domain of green space minimizehe pressure exercised over the SGAs and increase the potential


or developing a viable green infrastructure, where SGAs have theotential to amplify connectivity and ensure multifunctionality.

The SGA’s position principally around educational units ampli-es the role of barriers against exterior problems (Kuo and Sullivan,

123.0 115.1142.6 133.1142.9 133.4

2001). This includes exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation asnoted by Boldemann et al. (2011), who observed that due to theabundance of trees and bushes being integrated in the behavior set-tings, the vegetation sheltered playing children from overexposure.Furthermore, through the high quality, abundance, and floristiccomposition, SGAs can ensure a higher diversity of ecological goodsand services in large urban areas (Loram et al., 2007).

Increasing potential and structural connectivity of urban greeninfrastructure through SGAs

The potential connectivity assessment showed that in case of alack of or small-sized SGAs, schools can redirect their green cur-ricula projects toward public green areas. This is especially truefor those public green areas located within 500 m relative to aschool. A relatively small distance and number of road crossings,and the delineation of specialized areas in public green areas (Iojaet al., 2011), reduces the risk of insecurity problems and accidentsthat may occur while conducting green projects. The lack of publicgreen spaces can be compensated for by making SGAs accessibleto the public through educational activities. Areas such as thoselocated in the southern and northwestern parts of the city, andmentioned in previous studies as suffering from public green spacedeficit (Patroescu et al., 2004), can benefit from the presence ofSGAs (Fig. 3).

The assessment of the structural connectivity revealed anincrease in connectivity values after including SGA patches in theanalysis. It can be argued that these patches have the ability toreduce isolation (e.g., distance) between urban green patches andoffer habitats and corridors for different species (Kong et al., 2010).Including SGAs in planning strategies of urban green infrastruc-ture may be a possible measure to mitigate the loss of public greenspace as cities accommodating population growth become denser.Nevertheless, the integration of SGAs as part of green infrastruc-ture can be a challenging task, as it differs from other approachesin planning. Because SGA integration considers ecological andsocial values in combination with other land use developments(Lafortezza et al., 2013), its implementation becomes challengingboth for the (still to be improved) land planning system (Ioja et al.,2014; Tudor et al., 2014) and for school management. Aspects suchas the size, floristic diversity, and quality status of SGAs, school pro-gram hours, and the school manager’s willingness to be open to newregulations are important elements to be considered. A strongerpartnership between the actors involved in the process of planningand administration can lead to a more integrated approach and theinclusion of small, specialized green areas such as SGAs into thebroad circuit of urban public green infrastructure.

Educational services – an important added value of urban greeninfrastructure through SGAs

Urban schools find in their own green spaces the much-needed


surrogate for natural environments. Considering the specific pur-pose of the teaching process, the SGAs offer direct and indirectsupport to the educational services that schools offer. Teachersprefer to use SGAs for green curricula activities because of their

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002



nectiv

arAsidflboiflgftb

emiteDctig

Fig. 3. Delineation of potential con

ccessibility and size, especially in courses related to the natu-al environment (environmental sciences, geography and biology).lso considered are the approximately 20 h per year that each classpends in courses included in green curricula. These types of activ-ties enforce the multifunctionality of SGAs. Due to their floristiciversity (including grasses, different species of trees, shrubs, andowers) and the potential to provide shelter for some species ofirds, SGAs can serve as educational material. As the results ofur survey show, some schools convert parts of their green areasnto gardens in which pupils can plant and take care of their ownowers. Most natural science subjects include lessons that mayreatly benefit from using examples and samples taken directlyrom nature. Social sciences can also use the available SGAs asools in the process of developing social responsibility and ethicalehaviors (UNESCO, 2000).

In addition to being a space for (non-) formal education, SGAsnhance bird and insect biodiversity (Strohbach et al., 2013), whichay also serve as educational material. Moreover, involvement in

nternational, national, and local educational projects accentuateshe educational value of SGAs and their use as a showcase for thexploitation and management of urban green spaces (Lucas andyment, 2010). Involving pupils in activities in SGAs increases their


ognitive functioning (Wells, 2000). Even if SGAs are not as openo the public as parks (Sanesi et al., 2006), their educational roles much easier to promote. The connection of school prestige withreen space and the opportunity to conduct visible events within

ity areas in relation to SGAs status.

the community and strengthen relationships with the communityare essential aspects in the context of urban green infrastructureplanning (Madureira et al., 2011).

Conclusions

Although their extension is rather small in comparison toparks or other public green areas, SGAs act as an important ele-ment in urban green infrastructure. Highlighting the role of SGAsis of particular importance for urban green infrastructure plan-ning to strengthen the role of small green spaces within the city(Cameron et al., 2012). SGAs can also improve urban green con-nectivity and associated ecosystem services in relation to othermajor and minor components of urban green infrastructure. SGAsenhance structural connectivity toward other green spaces andserve as ecological stepping stones. The educational approach ofusing urban green spaces through green curricula projects is oneof the key tools for increasing their multifunctional properties. Wemust also take into consideration that the school area is one ofthe few remaining places where children may be enticed to stayoutdoors on a daily basis. Given the extraordinary attraction ofspending more free time in front of the computer (internet surf-


ing, video games, Facebook, etc.), the activities children developduring green curricula projects become highly important. Open-ing SGAs to more educational activities is a means of increasingtheir importance and helping to protect them. The educational

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

ING ModelU

Urba

fis

A

npPgrcaat

R

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

EE

F

Nita, M.R., 2012. Mapping favorability for residential development. Case study:


C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry &

unction of SGAs serves as a significant addition to the urbannfrastructure and can be extended to other categories of greenpaces.

cknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Roma-ian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS UEFISCDI,roject number PN-II-RU-TE-2011-3-0285, and the strategic grantOSDRU/159/1.5/S/133391, Project “Doctoral and Post-doctoral pro-rams of excellence for highly qualified human resources training foresearch in the field of Life sciences, Environment and Earth Science”ofinanced by the European Social Found within the Sectorial Oper-tional Program Human Resources Development 2007–2013. Theuthors are sincerely grateful to the two anonymous reviewers forheir thorough and constructive suggestions and comments.

eferences

hern, J., 2007. Green Infrastructure for cities: the spatial dimension. In: Novotny,V., Breckenridge, L., Brown, P. (Eds.), Cities of the Future: Towards IntegratedSustainable Water and Landscape Management. IWA Publishing, London, pp.267–283.

astin, G.N., Ludwig, J.A., Eager, R.W., Chewings, V.H., Liedloff, A.C., 2002. Indicatorsof landscape function: comparing patchiness metrics using remotely-senseddata from rangelands. Ecol. Indic. 1, 247–260.

lair, D., 2009. The child in the gard: an evaluative review of the benefits of schoolgardening. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 15–38.

oldemann, C., Dal, H., Mårtensson, F., Cosco, N., Moore, R., Bieber, B., Blennow,M., Pagels, P., Raustorp, A., Wester, U., Söderström, M., 2011. Preschool outdoorplay environment may combine promotion of children’s physical activity andsun protection. Further evidence from Southern Sweden and North Carolina. Sci.Sports 26, 72–82.

otequilha, L.A., Miller, J., Ahern, J., McGarrigal, K., 2006. Measuring Landscapes – APlanner’s Handbook. Island Press, Washington DC, USA.

raaker, S., Ghazoul, J., Obrist, M.K., Moretti, M., 2014. Habitat connectivity shapesurban arthropod communities – the key role of green roofs. Ecology 95,1010–1021.

reuste, J., Qureshi, S., 2011. Urban sustainability, urban ecology and the Society forUrban Ecology (SURE). Urban Ecosyst. 14, 313–317.

SI, 2012. Education Status 2010–2011. Bucharest School Inspectorate, Ministry ofEducation, Research, Youth and Sport, Bucharest.

ameron, R.W.F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J.E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A.J., Henricot, B.,Thompson, K., 2012. The domestic garden – its contribution to urban greeninfrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 129–137.

harlesworth, S.M., Booth, C.A., 2011. The benefits of green infrastructure in townsand cities. Solut. Clim. Chang. Chall. Built Environ. 9, 163.

heval, S., Dumitrescu, A., 2009. The July urban heat island of Bucharest as derivedfrom modis images. Theor. Appl. Clim. 96, 145–153.

hiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. UrbanPlan. 68, 129–138.

onway, T.M., Bourne, K.S., 2013. A comparison of neighborhood characteristicsrelated to canopy cover, stem density and species richness in an urban forest.Landsc. Urban Plan. 113, 10–18.

avison, K.K., Lawson, C.T., 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influencechildren’s physical activity? A review of the literature. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys.Act. 3, 19.

yment, J.E., 2005. In: Bell, A.C. (Ed.), The Power and Potential of School GroundGreening in the Toronto District School Board. Evergreen, Toronto, Ontario.

yment, J.E., Bell, A.C., 2008. Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sitesfor promoting physical activity. Health Educ. Res. 23, 952–962.

yment, J.E., Bell, A.C., Lucas, A.J., 2009. The relationship between school grounddesign and intensity of physical activity. Child. Geogr. 7, 261–276.

EA, 2002. In: report, E.i. (Ed.), Towards an Urban Atlas: Assessment of Spatial Dataof 25 European Cities and Urban Areas. European Environment Agency, Copen-hagen.

EA, 2010. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2010. Urban Environ-ment. European Environment Agency.

EA, 2011. Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion. The Concept of GreenInfrastructure and Its Integration into Policies Using Monitoring Systems. Euro-pean Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

uropean Commission, 2000. The Urban Audit, Towards the Benchmark-ing of Quality of Life in 58 European Cities, http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional policy/urban2/urban/audit/src/publics.html

UROSTAT, 2009. Population on 1 January by Age and Sex. European Commission.


venson, K.R., Wen, F., Golinelli, D., Rodríguez, D.A., Cohen, D.A., 2013. Measurementproperties of a park use questionnaire. Environ. Behav. 45, 526–547.

agan, W.F., Calabrese, J.M., 2006. Quantifying connectivity: balancing metric perfor-mance with data requirements. In: Crooks, K.R., Sanjayan, M. (Eds.), ConnectivityConservation. Cambridege University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 297.

PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 9

Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. SAGE Publications Ltd., London.Fischer, L.K., von der Lippe, M., Kowarik, I., 2013. Urban land use types contribute

to grassland conservation: the example of Berlin. Urban For. Urban Green. 12,263–272.

Fjørtoft, I., 2001. The natural environment as a playground for children: the impactof outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Child. Educ. J. 29,111–117.

Fjørtoft, I., 2004. Landscape as playscape: the effects of natural environments onchildren’s play and motor development. Child. Youth Environ. 14, 21–44.

Giles-Corti, B., Wood, G., Pikora, T., Learnihan, V., Bulsara, M., Van Niel, K., Tim-perio, A., McCormack, G., Villanueva, K., 2011. School site and the potential towalk to school: the impact of street connectivity and traffic exposure in schoolneighborhoods. Health Place 17, 545–550.

Graham, H., Beall, D.L., Lussier, M., McLaughlin, P., Zidenberg-Cherr, S., 2005. Use ofschool gardens in academic instruction. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 37, 147–151.

Hersperger, A.M., Langhamer, D., Dalang, T., 2012. Inventorying human-madeobjects: a step towards better understanding land use for multifunctional plan-ning in a periurban Swiss landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 105, 307–314.

Intergraph, 2013. Geomedia Professional, Madison, Madison County, Alabama, USA.Ioja, C., Patroescu, M., Nita, M., Rozylowicz, L., Ioja, A., Onose, D.A., 2010. Categories

of residential spaces after their accessibility to urban parks – an indicator ofsustainability in human settlements. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 5, 307–314.

Ioja, C.I., Nita, M.R., Vânau, G.O., Onose, D.A., Gavrilidis, A.A., 2014. Using multi-criteria analysis for the identification of spatial land-use conflicts in theBucharest Metropolitan Area. Ecol. Indic. 42, 112–121.

Ioja, C.I., Onose, D.A., Gradinaru, S.R., S erban, C., 2012. Waste management in publiceducational institutions of Bucharest City, Romania. Procedia Environ. Sci. 14,71–78.

Ioja, C.I., Rozylowicz, L., Patroescu, M., Nita, M.R., Vânau, G.O., 2011. Dog walkers’ vs.other park visitors’ perceptions: the importance of planning sustainable urbanparks in Bucharest, Romania. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103, 74–82.

Jabareen, Y., 2013. Planning the resilient city: concepts and strategies for copingwith climate change and environmental risk. Cities 31, 220–229.

Kabisch, N., Haase, D., 2013. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990–2006.Landsc. Urban Plan. 110, 113–122.

Kambites, C., Owen, S., 2006. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planningin the UK 1. Plan. Pract. Res. 21, 483–496.

Kendal, D., Williams, N.S., Williams, K.J., 2012. Drivers of diversity and tree cover ingardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban For. Urban Green.11, 257–265.

Kong, F., Yin, H., Nakagoshi, N., Zong, Y., 2010. Urban green space network devel-opment for biodiversity conservation: identification based on graph theory andgravity modeling. Landsc. Urban Plan. 95, 16–27.

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city does vege-tation reduce crime? Environ. Behav. 33, 343–367.

Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G., Konijnendijk, C.C., 2013. Green Infrastructure asa tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iFor. – Biogeosci.For. 6 (3), 102–108.

Landscape Institute, 2009. Green Infrastructure: Connected and MultifunctionalLandscapes. Landscape Institute, London, UK.

Larondelle, N., Haase, D., 2012. Valuing post-mining landscapes using an ecosystemservices approach—an example from Germany. Ecol. Indic. 18, 567–574.

Light, D., 2000. Gazing on communism: heritage tourism and post-communist iden-tities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tour. Geogr. 2, 157–176.

Loram, A., Tratalos, J., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., 2007. Urban domestic gardens (X):the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc. Ecol. 22,601–615.

Lucas, A.J., Dyment, J.E., 2010. Where do children choose to play on the schoolground? The influence of green design. Education 3–13 (38), 177–189.

Luck, G.W., Smallbone, L.T., O’Brien, R., 2009. Socio-economics and vegetationchange in urban ecosystems: patterns in space and time. Ecosystems 12,604–620.

Madureira, H., Andresen, T., Monteiro, A., 2011. Green structure and planning evo-lution in Porto. Urban For. Urban Green. 10, 141–149.

Magle, S.B., Theobald, D.M., Crooks, K.R., 2009. A comparison of metrics predictinglandscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradientin Colorado, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 24, 267–280.

Malone, K., Tranter, P.J., 2003. School grounds as sites for learning: making the mostof environmental opportunities. Environ. Educ. Res. 9, 283–303.

Mårtensson, F., Jansson, M., Johansson, M., Raustorp, A., Kylin, M., Boldemann, C.,2013. The role of greenery for physical activity play at school grounds. UrbanFor. Urban Green. 13 (1), 103–113.

McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., E, E., 2012. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern AnalysisProgram for Categorical and Continuous Maps. University of Massachusetts,Amherst.

MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Island Press, Washington, DC.Moore, R., Goltsman, S.M., Iacofano, D., 1992. Play for all Guidelines: Planning,

Designing and Management of Outdoor Pay Settings for all Children, seconded. MIG Communications, Berkeley.

Nae, M., Turnock, D., 2011. The new Bucharest: two decades of restructuring. Cities28, 206–219.


Bucharest metropolitan area. Procedia Environ. Sci. 14, 59–70.Nita, M.R., Ioja, I.C., Rozylowicz, L., Onose, D.A., Tudor, A.C., 2013. Land use conse-

quences of the evolution of cemeteries in the Bucharest metropolitan area. J.Environ. Plan. Manage. 57 (7), 1066–1082.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1618-8667(14)00075-2/sbref0005














































































































































































































































































































































































































http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/urban2/urban/audit/src/publics.html

http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/urban2/urban/audit/src/publics.html








































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ING ModelU

1 Urba

P

P

P

R

R

S

S

S

S

S


0 C.I. Ioja et al. / Urban Forestry &

atroescu, M., Ioja, C., Necsuliu, R., Brailesci, C., 2004. The quality of oxygenatingsurfaces. The green areas of Bucharest. A case studies. Rev. Roum. Geogr. 47–48,205–216.

atroescu, M., Ioja, C., Rozylowicz, L., Vânau, G.O., Nita, M.R., Patroescu-Klotz, I., Ioja,A., 2012. Integrated Assessment of Environmental Quality in Residential Area.Romanian Academy Press, Bucharest.

eschardt, K.K., Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2012. Use of small public urban greenspaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 235–244.

afiee, R., Mahiny, A.S., Khorasani, N., 2009. Assessment of changes in urban greenspaces of Mashad city using satellite data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinform.11, 431–438.

omanian Government, 1996. Decision no. 525 from 27 June 1996 for aprovingGeneral Urbanism Regulations. Monitorul Oficial nr. 149/16 iul.

anesi, G., Lafortezza, R., Bonnes, M., Carrus, G., 2006. Comparison of two differ-ent approaches for assessing the psychological and social dimensions of greenspaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 5, 121–129.

chäffler, A., Swilling, M., 2013. Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environ-ment under pressure – the Johannesburg case. Ecol. Econ. 86, 246–257.

nepa, R., Van Ierlandb, E., Opdam, P., 2009. Enhancing biodiversity at business sites:what are the options, and which of these do stakeholders prefer? Landsc. UrbanPlan. 91, 26–35.


trohbach, M.W., Lerman, S.B., Warren, P.S., 2013. Are small greening areas enhanc-ing bird diversity? Insights from community-driven greening projects in Boston.Landsc. Urban Plan. 114, 69–79.

tudenmund, A.H., 2000. Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide, fourth ed. AddisonWesley, New York, USA.

PRESSn Greening xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Thaiutsa, B., Puangchit, L., Kjelgren, R., Arunpraparut, W., 2008. Urban green space,street tree and heritage large tree assessment in Bangkok, Thailand. Urban For.Urban Green. 7, 219–229.

Tudor, C.A., Ioja, C.I., Hersperger, A.M., Patru-Stupariu, I., 2013. Is the residential landuse incompatible with cemeteries location? Assessing the attitudes of urbanresidents. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 8, 153–162.

Tudor, C.A., Ioja, I.C., Patru-Stupariu, I., Nita, M.R., Hersperger, A.M., 2014. Howsuccessful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparison of cases fromSwitzerland and Romania. Appl. Geogr. 47, 125–136.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James,P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using greeninfrastructure: a literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81, 167–178.

UNESCO, 2000. World Education Report.Van Herzele, A., Wiedemann, T., 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of acces-

sible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 63, 109–126.Wells, N.M., 2000. At home with nature effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive

functioning. Environ. Behav. 32, 775–795.Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and envi-

ronmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc.Urban Plan. 125, 234–244.

Zhang, L., Wang, H., 2006. Planning an ecological network of Xiamen Island


(China) using landscape metrics and network analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78,449–456.

Zhou, X., Wang, Y.-C., 2011. Spatial–temporal dynamics of urban green space inresponse to rapid urbanization and greening policies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100,268–277.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002





































































































































































































































































































































































































G Model ARTICLE IN PRESS -...

Documents

Transcript of G Model ARTICLE IN PRESS -...