دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی چالش های مدیریت فضای سبز شهری در صورت استفاده از اطلاعات ناکافی - الزویر 2018

Abstract

Effective urban planning, and urban green space management in particular, require proper data on urban green spaces. The potential of urban green spaces to provide benefits to urban inhabitants (ecosystem services) depends on whether they are managed as a comprehensive system of urban green infrastructure, or as isolated islands falling under the responsibility of different stakeholders. Meanwhile, different urban green space datasets are based on different definitions, data sources, sampling techniques, time periods and scales, which poses important challenges to urban green infrastructure planning, management and research. Using the case study of Lodz, the third largest city in Poland, and an additional analysis of 17 other Polish cities, we compare data from five publicly available sources: 1) public statistics, 2) the national land surveying agency, 3) satellite imagery (Landsat data), 4) the Urban Atlas, 5) the Open Street Map. The results reveal large differences in the total amount of urban green spaces in the cities as depicted in different datasets. In Lodz, the narrowly interpreted public statistics data, which are aspatial, suggest that green spaces account for only 12.8% of city area, while the most comprehensive dataset from the national land surveying agency reveals the figure of 61.2%. The former dataset, which excludes many types of green spaces (such as arable land, private and informal green spaces), is still the most commonly used. The analysis of the 17 other cities confirms the same pattern. This results in broader institutional failures related to urban green infrastructure planning, management, and research, including a lack of awareness of green space needs (e.g. connectivity) and benefits (ecosystem services), and the related political disregard for urban green spaces. Our comparison suggests that a better understanding of green space data sources is necessary in urban planning, and especially when planning urban green infrastructure.

5. Conclusions

The fact that most discussions on urban green spaces in Polish cities are based on a narrow classification used for the purposes of public statistics makes it difficult to promote the broader concept of an interconnected system of urban green infrastructure. The narrow classification focuses on formal green spaces which are managed by public authorities. Meanwhile, various types of green spaces, which are still used by the inhabitants for recreational purposes and which provide many other ecosystem services, are not formally recognized as green spaces by local authorities. More broadly, these green spaces are not treated as such in the dominant classification used for the purposes of public statistics. Hence appropriate, consistent, and comprehensive urban green space data are essential for urban planning. Better data are available – and reveal that green spaces account for a significantly larger share of our case study city area (12.8% vs. 61.2%), but they are barely used in Polish cities, at least not for the purposes of urban green space planning and monitoring. This is partly related to problems such as a lack of GIS skills, poor collaboration between the different institutions responsible for data collection and use, and in particular between different institutions responsible for urban green space management, and finally the ‘tradition’ of following the narrow interpretation of urban green spaces. A broader awareness of the availability of remote sensing datasets is necessary for better planning and research, but the first and easiest step would be to broaden the traditional categories of green spaces to cover other types of ‘biologically active areas’ and to understand that their spatial distribution is important.