Elsevier

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume 178, October 2018, Pages 82-101
Landscape and Urban Planning

Review Article
Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.029Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Many cities experience gaps between planned and actual park provision.

  • Distinct factors influence greenspace provision – resources, political leadership and land availability.

  • Urban greenspace is typically planned using a standards approach.

  • Literature predominantly reports greenspace provision is inadequate or below the target area per population (m2/person).

  • Current approaches are generally not working because they are outdated.

Abstract

Over the past two decades, there has been an efflorescence of park and greenspace research. This trend may reflect substantial increases in urban populations globally and concomitant pressures on land resources – including greenspace. But so far research has mainly tended to focus on demand rather than supply, and specifically the practice of provision – notwithstanding the body of literature studying disparities in greenspace access and geographic distribution through an environmental justice lens (e.g. using spatial analysis). Comparatively fewer studies have considered the interplay of factors that may shape local government’s capacity to supply greenspace. This paper reports results of a systematic quantitative review of the greenspace provision literature: assessing the factors that configure its supply, and different approaches to planning and assessing greenspace provision. A conceptual model is offered, explaining the interaction between greenspace provision factors across different scales. Findings suggest many cities continue to experience gaps between planned and actual greenspace provision. Moreover, urban greenspace is typically planned using a recreational standards approach, despite increasing demands for a range of ecosystem functions, services, and benefits. Future research should engage directly with greenspace managers responsible for urban greenspace delivery, especially in rapidly expanding cities, to illuminate points of convergence and divergence between theory and practice. Policy implications include consideration of holistic greenspace planning approaches that better recognise and respond to emerging demands upon, and for, urban greenspace.

Introduction

How much greenspace does a city need? This surprisingly vexatious question, often posed by politicians, residents, professional planners and other local government greenspace stakeholders, is not simply answered. Globally, many cities have experienced rapid population growth over the past two decades, and that trend is set to continue. Burgeoning populations can create pressure on greenspace in two ways: (i) from the loss of undeveloped land as it is converted to housing, commercial, warehousing and other land uses (Haaland and Van den Bosch, 2015, Tomalty, 2012; Zerah, 2007; Zhou & Wang, 2011); and (ii) from increasing congestion within existing greenspaces, as residents seek out extant parks, playing fields and other spaces for traditional purposes of recreation, leisure, mental restoration and solitude (Barton and Pretty, 2010, Dahmann et al., 2010, Daniel et al., 2012, Pretty et al., 2005). The growing demand for parks to deliver “natural” services can threaten the capacity of these spaces to provide traditional services (Burgess, Harrison, & Limb, 1988). Local governments (and to some extent provincial/state governments) are experiencing a widening gap between planned greenspace requirements and actual greenspace provision (Hashem, 2015; Maruani and Amit-Cohen, 2007, Stubbs, 2008). The challenge for greenspace planners and managers is seemingly unrelenting, as many cities struggle to ensure that adequate areas of greenspace are provided and maintained.

While commentators have recently observed a proliferating urban greenspace literature, interest in the subject is not new, especially when it raises concerns about greenspace provision. Over the past fifty years, Jane Jacobs (1961), Seymour Gold (1973), Paul Wilkinson (1985) and other scholar-activists have alerted us to the importance of understanding greenspace supply and demand, relative to population needs. Calling for more attention to be given to parks, gardens, playing fields and other greenspaces, they also cautioned about the financial and social risks of oversupplying parks and playgrounds that are “too large, too frequent, too perfunctory, too ill-located, and hence too dull or too inconvenient to be used” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 110). A poor understanding of the relationship between greenspace supply and demand can partly be attributed to the rapid growth of greenspace in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (especially parks). As Harnik (2010, p. 13) has explained, up until the 1920s, “parks were such a wondrous new phenomenon, that they were so rare, that the goal was to get as many as possible.” By the mid-1970s though, the ‘more is better’ approach to local government greenspace acquisition was creating problems for residents, local government managers, urban planners and land developers alike. Indeed, Gold (1973 in Talen, 2010, p. 475) observed that: “the non-use of neighbourhood parks emerged as a significant problem, strongly suggesting that in some cases, ‘less may be more’”.

So how can we tell when supply of urban greenspace is sufficient and appropriate? Is it just about the amount of space (e.g. area or ratio per capita), or are other considerations important too? Findings from the political ecology, political economy (growth machine), service provision (governance) and environmental justice literatures suggest that greenspace provision should be equitable (distance to residents, quality of spaces, facilities and services); should be designed to meet the needs of diverse residents (Wendel et al., 2012, Wolch et al., 2014) and should preserve ecosystem functions, services and benefits (e.g. cooling, stormwater interception, biodiversity) (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; Speak et al., 2015). While these theories have illuminated aspects of greenspace provision, they have not captured the full constellation of factors at play. Further, there is a surprising discordance in the literature, especially about how much greenspace cities need, what type it should be, whom it is for, what benefits it should provide and who should pay for its acquisition and management. Some greenspace provision criteria suggest urban greenspace needs to be safe and secure; well maintained, well designed and constructed; appropriately located; socially relevant; and physically accessible (Springgate, 2008).

Previous research has effectively identified disparities in the under-provision of greenspace and how patterns have emerged from differences in race, gender, age, class and ethnicity (for example Maroko et al., 2009, Talen, 2010, Wolch et al., 2014), but has not explicitly focused on the array of factors that configure supply/provision and how they operate. Indeed, urban planning professionals face a delicate balancing act. In the face of increasing land values and competing economic demands on local government meeting the greenspace needs of diverse urban constituencies (Byrne & Sipe, 2010), alongside compelling social, economic, and environmental imperatives, has become one of the axiomatic urban and environmental planning challenges of the 21st century. Could contemporary approaches to greenspace provision be wrong? How can we tell, and what can we do about this?

Greenspace planning is now more than a century old, derived primarily from early park planning in the United States (USA) and United Kingdom (UK) (see Table 1). The standards approach to greenspace planning in particular seems to be failing. For instance, Harnik (2010) has demonstrated that many cities in the USA do not meet their planned targets: Chicago, Illinois falls well short; Jacksonville, Florida far exceeds. Similarly, Jim and Chan (2016) have reported standards for open space in Hong Kong, developed more than 80 years ago and embedded in public policy from the 1980s until 2015, are ill-suited to the highly urbanised Asian metropolis. In Australia, replicating the UK and USA planning approach to park standards without considering contextual differences, has resulted in greenspaces that do not meet residents’ needs (Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Such problems with the standards approach moved organisations such as the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) in the USA to acknowledge that localities need to develop their own goals based on their specific needs (National Recreation, n.d.) and eliminate their one-size-fits-all standards (10 acres/1000 residents) (see Mertes & Hall, 1996). Further, Veal (2013) has provided a comprehensive discussion about the origin and application of open space standards for Australia. Such discussions prompt further questions about greenspace standards: are they normative in any way? Do standards lead to policies such as parkland dedication requirements? Are they simply ‘recommendations’ that are not enforced? We address these compelling concerns in our discussion.

Moreover, many park standards have never been tested empirically nor validated (Hamilton-Smith & Mercer, 1991 in Searle, 2011), although they underpinned greenspace planning for much of the 20th century (Wilkinson, 1985). Twenty-first century cities are very different from those of a century ago (Grimm et al., 2008). Might it be timely to review approaches to park and greenspace provision? Spurred by these challenges and questions, this article reports the results of a systematic quantitative review of the literature on urban greenspace provision. It aims to answer two interrelated questions:

  • i.

    What factors influence the provision of greenspace in cities? (i.e. the drivers and barriers for effective local government greenspace provision); and

  • ii.

    What are the current approaches to local government greenspace provision - are they working, and how can we tell?

Specifically, this review has sought to evaluate the efficacy of current approaches to local government greenspace provision and to identify patterns, similarities, and differences between cities of different size. It is intended to support further research into alternative approaches to greenspace provision. At a local level, such knowledge could enable changes to greenspace planning and management, facilitating greater flexibility for local governments in meeting competing greenspace demands. First, given the wide-ranging definitions of greenspace, it is important to specify what this term and others mean in the context of this review.

The academic literature employs a broad range of terms when referring to urban greenspace. Some scholars have adopted the term “open space” (Burgess et al., 1988; Evans & Freestone, 2010; Grose, 2009); others use public and/or urban “greenspace” (Barbosa et al., 2007; Choumert & Cormier, 2011; De Sousa, 2003; Griffith, 2000; Kabisch & Haase, 2014; Lo & Jim, 2012). While some scholars specifically include or exclude cemeteries, forests, road verges/roadways and golf courses, a clear commonality is that all definitions include “parks”.

Recognising that Taylor and Hochuli (2017, p. 25) have recently comprehensively assessed the definitional challenges related to the term greenspace, here we define urban greenspace as constituting vegetated urban land that is public or semi-private (not private) such as parks, sports fields, cemeteries, vegetated areas of street and road corridors (including squares), natural and built corridors adjacent to waterways and wetlands, and external areas to public buildings (for example libraries, galleries, community centres, sports and aquatic centres/swimming pools). This definition is adapted from Health Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, and Medicine (2008 in Chong et al., 2013) and is consistent with the suggestions of Taylor and Hochuli (2017).

The definitions of a ‘city’ or ‘urban settlement’ also require specification, because cities are complex entities; finding consistent terminology describing them comes with challenges, particularly when making comparisons across multiple countries (Johnston, Poulsen, & Forrest, 2007). For example, in the USA the term “city” is used synonymously with “local government”, but this is not the case everywhere else. Furthermore, administrative structure and complexity varies significantly among nations. In some countries such as the USA, or some states of Australia, local governments are generally parts of larger metropolitan areas or urban regions that may include different levels of administration. The public agencies that are responsible for providing/maintaining greenspace may include local government, county, state/province and even national parks and recreation departments. In other countries a single local government may be responsible for a whole metropolitan area. Settlement scale further complexifies service provision capacities. Scale typically determines the facilities deemed necessary to support the needs of a population. Doxiadis (1970, p. 396), for instance, asserts that: “to discuss quality of life or any other important phenomenon in human settlements without referring to their size is impossible”. Generally, there is an expectation that the greater the size of the urban settlement: (i) the more (quantity and quality) greenspace should be available to support the population; and (ii) the greater the number of stakeholders to service. Researchers have demonstrated these issues, including Tan and Samsudin (2017, p. 139) in their analysis of the effect of spatial scale on greenspace provision and “their correlations with wealth, income and ethnicity”, and Bryant (2006), observing challenges in conserving urban species and managing greenways across local and metropolitan scales.

When assessing the factors that influence the provision of urban greenspace, we must also consider settlement scale, so we can compare similar urban contexts. Different sized settlements have different challenges; the issues facing towns are radically different from those facing megacities (Grimm et al., 2008). The challenges of rapid growth are acutely felt for service delivery and quality of life in small and medium sized cities (Cohen, 2006). The definition of urban settlement size ideally would be by local government area, to ensure consistency. However, as the definition of this term varies significantly in the literature – dependent upon the unit of analysis and/or data source used for the specific research – city size (by population) in this review is simply “as reported” in the study selected.

In this paper we describe changes to the urban form as expanding, consolidating or both. We use ‘expanding’ to describe cities that are increasing in physical area, usually through greenfield development, at low density (population and dwellings) and establishing urban land uses where previously there were none. The literature has varied explanations of processes of urban consolidation, intensification and densification. Haaland and Van den Bosch (2015) identify several authors that describe consolidation, intensification, compaction and infill development as a process of “densification”; Byrne, Sipe and Searle (2010:163) suggest consolidation “is also related to, and sometimes conflated with, ‘urban containment’, ‘smart growth’, ‘urban renewal’, ‘urban revitalisation’ or simply ‘densification’”. We have adapted the explanation of urban ‘consolidation’ including infill development and densification, from Forster (2006, p. 179 in Gray, Gleeson, & Burke, 2010, p. 336) in describing an approach to achieve a compact city form.

A needs-assessment or community-specific approach, is a more recent, outcome-driven method for greenspace provision that emerged as an alternative to the standards approach. Lucy (1981) has presented “need” as one of five concepts for achieving equity in planning for local services such as greenspaces. However there is no apparent, specific source or adopted approach for this method (Barth, 2008). Despite the perception of wide usage, particularly in the USA, only a few of the papers we reviewed reported this method. Some scholars contend it is a better approach for greenspace provision in denser urban areas (e.g. Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Harnik (2010) has advocated for greenspace in neighbourhoods where people need it most. There are a number of cities in the USA that have also prepared needs-based greenspace and open space system plans (Lewis, 2008). In Ontario, Canada, a community-specific standard was applied in 1985 as a “customised” strategy that considers a specific city’s assets, resources and community needs (Wilkinson, 1985). However, studies reporting the application of a needs assessment are exclusively from North America (Ibes, 2015; Wolch et al., 2005) and Europe (Comber et al., 2008; Jansson & Persson, 2010). Problematically, they tend to be silent about how to manage competing needs – for older people, teenagers, people with disabilities, and for non-human species. Nor do they suggest how varying needs can be accommodated across a wide range of urban morphologies, or over time.

Green zones, which Maruani and Amit-Cohen (2007:6) define as a band of open space surrounding an adjacent urban area, have been applied during the 20th century in several large metropolitan areas including Vancouver, London and Sydney (Greenbelts) with dual functions: urban growth management (containment) and open space protection (Amati & Yokohari, 2006; Evans & Freestone, 2010; Tomalty, 2012). While Sydney’s greenbelt has suffered from pressures of urban growth and land shortages, London and Vancouver apparently have not, despite urban development pressure. Li et al. (2005) have presented the merits of greenbelts as part of a broader strategy, in their conceptual framework incorporating a greenbelt, greenways and parks, as an ecologically-focused greenspace planning approach for Beijing. This aligns with Maruani and Amit-Cohen’s (2007) suggested ecological model for open space planning, and warrants further exploration.

It is also useful to specify what we mean by factors. Here ‘factors’ describe the collective group of determinants or variables that contribute positively or negatively to local government’s ability or capacity to provide greenspace. In this context, ‘provision’ means to supply by establishing, developing and/or maintaining. Previous research has explored the influence of diverse factors, including interpersonal, intrapersonal and structural factors affecting urban greenspace visitation (Liu, Li, Xu, & Han, 2015); physical and non-physical factors influencing perceived greenspace accessibility (Wang, Brown, & Liu, 2015); and environmental factors influencing adults’ participation in physical activity (Humpel, Owen, & Leslie, 2002). Although a diverse range of factors has been said to influence the provision of urban greenspaces (Byrne & Wolch, 2009), there are few studies where these factors are specifically elucidated. This is an important knowledge gap because such factors can compound the challenge of urban greenspace service delivery.

The demand for greenspace in cities is well documented and understood. Active recreation (e.g. jogging, playing sports, cycling) has emerged as a major driver of greenspace provision. Contemporary demands for parks and other types of greenspace are often focused on the health and wellbeing of residents, especially for combatting sedentary lifestyles and the effects of depressogenic environments (Kohl et al., 2012, World Health Organization, 2000). From our experience, contemporary local greenspaces in Australia host community fun-runs, dog exercise areas, personal fitness training (individual and groups), and drone-racing, among other activities. However, Australian standards for greenspace provision – entrenched by the mid-20th century – are focused on meeting recreational demands characteristic of the mid-20th century USA (e.g. fishing, hunting, bowling and driving for pleasure) (Gold, 1973, p. 28). Some of the challenges in greenspace provision may be attributable to this reliance on out-dated standards, a point we return to below.

Ecosystem services, particularly climate change mitigation (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999), are also drivers of greenspace provision. For instance, Lo, Byrne, and Jim (2017) found that Hong Kong residents perceived urban trees to be of higher importance for mitigating greenhouse effects (sequestering carbon) and heat reduction than other functions of urban greenspace. Gill, Handley, Ennos, and Pauleit (2007) have similarly demonstrated the benefits of green infrastructure for heat reduction. Speak et al. (2015) described the value of allotment gardens and greenspaces for community food production (growing vegetables and fruit trees), as well as other ecosystem services including pollination. How then are cities attempting to ensure there is enough greenspace to meet these potentially competing demands?

The adequacy of greenspace provision is typically expressed quantitatively as a target area per population (m2/person) and/or distance from residents (access); that is, a “standard”. Another measure of greenspace provision adequacy is its quality (for example, Lee & Hong, 2013; Lo & Jim, 2012) and/or the provision of facilities within greenspace (e.g. Jansson & Persson, 2010; Markwell & Ravenscroft, 2000). It is important to remember though that within cities we find neighbourhoods with widely different socio-demographic characteristics and variegated urban forms, creating diverse pressures upon parks and greenspaces.

The literature on how greenspace needs vary based on age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and type of settlement is large and points to important considerations for park provision. First, physical environment characteristics can differentiate greenspace need based on: land use (for example, residential, commercial and industrial); the type of residential development (attached; semi-detached; detached); population; and residential density (see Maroko et al., 2010; Talen, 2010). Thus residential neighbourhoods need more parks than industrial areas. Similarly, low-density neighbourhoods with detached dwellings on large lots may require less area of greenspaces than dense, attached dwelling units (apartments) where residents lack access to private yards. Second, demographics (age, socioeconomic status, and race and ethnicity) can configure differentials in greenspace needs at the neighbourhood level. Scholars suggest children and older adults are more greenspace-dependent than other groups due to reduced personal mobility (Loukaitou-Sideris & Stieglitz, 2002). Similarly, low household income may constrain some residents’ ability to use private recreational facilities (e.g. gyms) and/or travel to remote natural areas. Walkable greenspaces in low-income neighbourhoods might be a more pressing need (Romero, 2005). And cultural, ethnic and racial differences in greenspace preference and use (Gobster, 2002, Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris, 2009) can mean that generic greenspaces are unsuitable or perceived as unwelcoming (Byrne & Wolch, 2009).

Even when local governments have the benefit of clearly defined requirements for the provision of greenspaces (endorsed and supported by local government policy for example), they can be undermined by competing political agendas and limited fiscal resources. Haaland and Van den Bosch (2015, p. 763) report several challenges in providing urban greenspace in densifying cities. These include institutional constraints, biodiversity loss, resident perspectives, and social inequalities. There is, however, an imbalance in the research about greenspace supply: the sizable literature on inequalities in distribution and access to greenspace is not matched by the small quantum of studies examining challenges in the practice of providing greenspace. Understanding the complexities of greenspace provision is therefore critical for devising effective policies and strategies for determining how much greenspace is sufficient to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents and to satisfy sustainability objectives.

Section snippets

Methods

To answer the research questions, we conducted a systematic quantitative literature review following Pickering and Byrne (2014), and have used the protocols of the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review Recommendations” (PRISMA Statement) from Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman (2009) (Fig. 1). This method has been widely applied in studies including climate change, energy policy and justice (Byrne & Portanger, 2014); nature based recreation impacts on birds (Steven, Pickering, &

Overview of greenspace provision research

Research reported in the 104 peer-reviewed articles was notably transdisciplinary. Papers were published in 47 different journals covering 12 fields (Table 3). Most of the research (54%) was published in built environment and design (30 papers) and engineering (26 papers) fields of research. Medical and health sciences journals were conspicuously absent in our search results, contrasting with the growing number of studies investigating the importance of accessible urban greenspace for physical

Discussion

This review has sought to systematically evaluate peer-reviewed studies on urban greenspace provision to: (i) identify the drivers and barriers for effective local government greenspace provision; (ii) evaluate the efficacy of current approaches to local government greenspace provision; and (iii) identify patterns, similarities and differences between cities of different size. A diverse and complex array of challenges affects the provision of urban parks and greenspace, and local governments

Conclusions

This review has systematically evaluated peer-reviewed studies on urban greenspace provision. At the beginning of this paper, we posed the provocative question “How many greenspaces does a city need?” There is no simple answer. Our review of the literature suggests two interrelated questions may be more pertinent: (i) what are the factors that influence the provision of greenspace in cities; and (ii) what are the current approaches to providing municipal greenspace? Are they working, and how

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and sincerely thank Professor Catherine Pickering for contributing to the statistical analysis of our data. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of this article, particularly those who provided extensive feedback about our research and advice on suggested improvements and additions to drafts. All errors remain of course, our own.

References (90)

  • H.W. Kohl et al.

    The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health

    The Lancet

    (2012)
  • A.Y. Lo et al.

    How climate change perception is reshaping attitudes towards the functional benefits of urban trees and green space: Lessons from Hong Kong

    Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

    (2017)
  • T. Maruani et al.

    Open space planning models: A review of approaches and methods

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2007)
  • E.A. Richardson et al.

    Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health

    Public Health

    (2013)
  • A.J. Romero

    Low-income neighborhood barriers and resources for adolescents’ physical activity

    Journal of Adolescent Health

    (2005)
  • R. Steven et al.

    A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2011)
  • P.Y. Tan et al.

    Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity of urban park provision

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2017)
  • L. Taylor et al.

    Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2017)
  • J.R. Wolch et al.

    Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2014)
  • X. Zhou et al.

    Spatial-temporal dynamics of urban green space in response to rapid urbanization and greening policies

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2011)
  • Australian Research Council (ARC). (2014). ERA 2015 submitted journal list....
  • D. Barth

    How do you effectively assess a community's need for parks and open space?

  • J. Barton et al.

    What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis

    Environmental Science and Technology

    (2010)
  • Boulton, C., Byrne, J., & Dedekorkut-Howes, A. (2015). The role of political and financial factors in the provision of...
  • T. Bunting et al.

    Density, size, dispersion: Towards understanding the structural dynamics of mid-size cities

    Canadian Journal of Urban Research

    (2007)
  • J. Burgess et al.

    People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city

    Urban Studies

    (1988)
  • G.D. Butler

    Playgrounds: Their administration and operation

    (1936)
  • J. Byrne et al.

    The park made of oil: Towards a historical political ecology of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area

    Local Environment

    (2007)
  • J. Byrne et al.

    Climate change, energy policy and justice: A systematic review

    Analyse and Kritik

    (2014)
  • J. Byrne et al.

    Green and open space planning for urban consolidation – A review of the literature and best practice

    Issues Paper

    (2010)
  • J. Byrne et al.

    Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research

    Progress in Human Geography

    (2009)
  • S. Chong et al.

    Neighbourhood safety and area deprivation modify the associations between parkland and psychological distress in Sydney, Australia

    BMC Public Health

    (2013)
  • E. Coiacetto

    Industry structure in real estate development: Is city building competitive?

    Urban Policy and Research

    (2009)
  • H.S. Curtis

    Provision and responsibility for playgrounds

    Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

    (1910)
  • T.C. Daniel et al.

    Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    (2012)
  • J.G. Dickason

    Play for America: The National Recreation Association, 1906-1965, Richard F. Knapp and Charles E. Hartsoe

    Journal of Leisure Research

    (1981)
  • C.A. Doxiadis

    Ekistics, the science of human settlements

    Science

    (1970)
  • C. Forster

    The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the new millennium

    Geographical Research

    (2006)
  • S. Gill et al.

    Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure

    Built Environment (1978-)

    (2007)
  • P.H. Gobster

    Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele

    Leisure Sciences

    (2002)
  • S.M. Gold

    Urban recreation planning

    (1973)
  • R.B. Gooch

    Planning for recreation

    Town and Country Planning

    (1964)
  • R. Gray et al.

    Urban consolidation, household greenhouse emissions and the role of planning

    Urban Policy and Research

    (2010)
  • N.B. Grimm et al.

    Global change and the ecology of cities

    Science

    (2008)
  • Cited by (158)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text