Urban Green Spaces: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lily Guo and Version 1 by Teodoro Semeraro.

n the context of urban land-use growth and the consequent impacts on the environment, green spaces provide ecosystem services for human health. The ecosystem services concept synthesises human–environmental interactions through a series of combined components of biodiversity and abiotic elements, linking ecological processes and functions. The concept of green infrastructure (GI) in the urban context emphasises the quality and quantity of urban and peri-urban green spaces and natural areas.

  • urban green roofs
  • community gardens
  • Urban ecology
  • Urban planning
  • ecosystem services
  • green infrastructure

1. Introduction

Urban land use is the main cause of environmental impacts at both local and global scales [1]. Even though it represents only 2% of global land use, about half of the world’s population lives in urban areas and most of the industrial activities are located here [1,2]. In 2019, the urban population in the European Union was already 75% of the total population, while the ratio in North America was 80% and in Asia it was about 40% [3]. The number of cities with at least one million inhabitants will be almost duplicated until 2030: in 2000, the amount was 371 and it is predicted to rise to 706 in 2030 [4]. Approximately 90% of urban growth happens in developing countries, and Asia will have more than 60% of the urban population of the world by 2050. Additionally, the number of megacities (with over 10 million inhabitants) will grow, especially in Asia and Africa [5].

Urban land use is the main cause of environmental impacts at both local and global scales [1] Even though it represents only 2% of global land use, about half of the world’s population lives in urban areas and most of the industrial activities are located here[1][2]. In 2019, the urban population in the European Union was already 75% of the total population, while the ratio in North America was 80% and in Asia it was about 40%[3]. The number of cities with at least one million inhabitants will be almost duplicated until 2030: in 2000, the amount was 371 and it is predicted to rise to 706 in 2030 [4]. Approximately 90% of urban growth happens in developing countries, and Asia will have more than 60% of the urban population of the world by 2050. Additionally, the number of megacities (with over 10 million inhabitants) will grow, especially in Asia and Africa[5].

The use of green infrastructure (GI) is mainly based on the conditions that the city is experiencing: the size of the city, how fast it is growing, the economic situation and opportunities to support the green approach in urban renewal. In an ideal situation, GI has two different components, hubs and links, where the hubs are based on different kinds of green areas (for example public spaces, parks, forests etc.) and the links are the interconnections between the areas facilitating the flow of ecosystems, working as green corridors [6,7]. Another aspect is what kind of role urban GI has in urban planning; many rapidly growing cities are already lacking sufficient green spaces and infrastructure. Oijstaeijen et al. [8] claimed that the main reasons for not adapting urban GI in planning relate to a lack of knowledge regarding its costs, benefits and impacts [9].

The use of green infrastructure (GI) is mainly based on the conditions that the city is experiencing: the size of the city, how fast it is growing, the economic situation and opportunities to support the green approach in urban renewal. In an ideal situation, GI has two different components, hubs and links, where the hubs are based on different kinds of green areas (for example public spaces, parks, forests etc.) and the links are the interconnections between the areas facilitating the flow of ecosystems, working as green corridors[6][7]. Another aspect is what kind of role urban GI has in urban planning; many rapidly growing cities are already lacking sufficient green spaces and infrastructure. Oijstaeijen et al. [8] claimed that the main reasons for not adapting urban GI in planning relate to a lack of knowledge regarding its costs, benefits and impacts[9].

One option to manage the lack of GI has been the launching of different systems to support a sufficient number of green areas, namely the Green Space Factor (GSF) or Biotope Area Factor (BAF) [10] or Green Index monitoring inspired by different models and organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) [11,12]. The development of green area factors started in the city of Berlin in 1984; since then, several greater cities have been adapting different models developed to meet their local needs.

One option to manage the lack of GI has been the launching of different systems to support a sufficient number of green areas, namely the Green Space Factor (GSF) or Biotope Area Factor (BAF)[10] or Green Index monitoring inspired by different models and organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO)[11][12]. The development of green area factors started in the city of Berlin in 1984; since then, several greater cities have been adapting different models developed to meet their local needs.

Urban land-use may produce adverse effects on the land energy budgets and biogeochemical cycles. This is due to the capacity of the city to be a sink of carbon and nitrogen and to simultaneously increase their concentrations [13,14,15]. Activities carried out in urban areas emit carbon dioxide (CO

Urban land-use may produce adverse effects on the land energy budgets and biogeochemical cycles. This is due to the capacity of the city to be a sink of carbon and nitrogen and to simultaneously increase their concentrations[13][14][15]. Activities carried out in urban areas emit carbon dioxide (CO

2

), which is responsible for global climate change [16]. Furthermore, pollution has negative effects on human health at the local scale. Epidemiological studies have shown that increased concentrations of ozone (O

3) and particulate matter (PM) levels are associated with an increase in mortality due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases [17,18]. Urbanisation, with the constructions of buildings, roads, squares, waste treatment etc., thus represents an important driving function of the weather and climate conditions [1,19]. Urban areas usually experience increased air and surface temperatures with respect to the surrounding rural area known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon [20,21]. The UHI increases with the growth of urban areas and industrialisation [22] as a direct consequence of structural and land cover changes from free space (natural or agricultural land) to the high density of urban structures, such as buildings, roads, paved squares etc. This is due to the increased heat-absorbing surface, the increase in heat production from anthropogenic sources, the stagnation of air, pollutants and heat and the reduction of vegetation evapotranspiration [17,23,24]. The main negative consequences of UHI include human discomfort and health, increased energy consumption during the summertime and impaired air and water quality [17,25,26,27,28,29]. The UHI also affects air quality because of the increasing energy consumption with elevated gas emissions. Moreover, high temperatures facilitate the formation of tropospheric O

) and particulate matter (PM) levels are associated with an increase in mortality due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases [17][18]. Urbanisation, with the constructions of buildings, roads, squares, waste treatment etc., thus represents an important driving function of the weather and climate conditions [1][19]. Urban areas usually experience increased air and surface temperatures with respect to the surrounding rural area known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) phenomenon [20][21]. The UHI increases with the growth of urban areas and industrialisation[22]as a direct consequence of structural and land cover changes from free space (natural or agricultural land) to the high density of urban structures, such as buildings, roads, paved squares etc. This is due to the increased heat-absorbing surface, the increase in heat production from anthropogenic sources, the stagnation of air, pollutants and heat and the reduction of vegetation evapotranspiration [17][23][24]. The main negative consequences of UHI include human discomfort and health, increased energy consumption during the summertime and impaired air and water quality[17][25][26][27][28][29]. The UHI also affects air quality because of the increasing energy consumption with elevated gas emissions. Moreover, high temperatures facilitate the formation of tropospheric O

3, a harmful pollutant generated as nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during the daytime [30,31]. Finally, the growth of impervious surfaces, combined with an increase in the frequency and intensity of precipitation events, makes urban areas more vulnerable to flooding [32,33,34,35,36].

, a harmful pollutant generated as nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during the daytime[30][31]. Finally, the growth of impervious surfaces, combined with an increase in the frequency and intensity of precipitation events, makes urban areas more vulnerable to flooding[32][33][34][35][36].

It is expected that the urban population will reach 70% of the total human population by 2050 [4]; therefore, this will produce an increase in urban areas with a potential increase in the demand for natural resources [37], particularly energy and water, with negative effects on human health [38]. It is, thus, necessary to develop models, strategies and policies of urbanisation that are able to increase the quality of human life in urban areas and mitigate the impact at both a local and global scale [23,39,40].

It is expected that the urban population will reach 70% of the total human population by 2050[4]; therefore, this will produce an increase in urban areas with a potential increase in the demand for natural resources [37], particularly energy and water, with negative effects on human health[38]. It is, thus, necessary to develop models, strategies and policies of urbanisation that are able to increase the quality of human life in urban areas and mitigate the impact at both a local and global scale [23][39][40].

Scope of the Paper

Urban green spaces are widely recognised to mitigate the land use impact of urbanisation [41,42] and represent “publicly owned and accessible open spaces within urban and peri-urban areas that are wholly or partly covered by considerable amounts of vegetation” [43,44]. They include forests, road trees, trees in parks, gardens and nature conservation areas [45]. Parks, public gardens, road trees etc. are intrinsic elements in urban planning as there are specific indications in urban plans that regulate the relationship between green and built spaces [45]. The concept of ecosystem services synthesises human–environmental interactions that link biophysical structures and ecological functions with goods and services that are useful to humans [37,46,47] (

Urban green spaces are widely recognised to mitigate the land use impact of urbanisation [41][42] and represent “publicly owned and accessible open spaces within urban and peri-urban areas that are wholly or partly covered by considerable amounts of vegetation” [43][44]. They include forests, road trees, trees in parks, gardens and nature conservation areas [45]. Parks, public gardens, road trees etc. are intrinsic elements in urban planning as there are specific indications in urban plans that regulate the relationship between green and built spaces[45]. The concept of ecosystem services synthesises human–environmental interactions that link biophysical structures and ecological functions with goods and services that are useful to humans [37][46][47] (

Figure 1). The next aim is stimulating the creation of green spaces that are functional to the development of ecosystem services within the areas that are often designed in a monofunctional way, such as built spaces or grey infrastructures. For this purpose, it is important to understand the ecological functions that can be developed considering the integration of natural-based solutions in built environments or grey infrastructures, and the relative benefits or disservices that may derive from them, considering the interaction of the vegetation and context and their purpose.

). The next aim is stimulating the creation of green spaces that are functional to the development of ecosystem services within the areas that are often designed in a monofunctional way, such as built spaces or grey infrastructures. For this purpose, it is important to understand the ecological functions that can be developed considering the integration of natural-based solutions in built environments or grey infrastructures, and the relative benefits or disservices that may derive from them, considering the interaction of the vegetation and context and their purpose.
Land 10 00105 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the concept of ecosystem services (inspired by de Groot et al. [46,47]), representing benefits and values for human well-being, deriving from plants and/or biophysical structures and functions implemented in green spaces.

Schematic illustration of the concept of ecosystem services (inspired by de Groot et al. [46][47]), representing benefits and values for human well-being, deriving from plants and/or biophysical structures and functions implemented in green spaces. 

In this context, the scope of this paper is to provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of applying an ecosystem services approach in designing GI, focusing on green roofs and community gardens. Many roofs are characterised by impermeable surfaces that have a direct effect on UHI, due to their vulnerability to flooding and energy consumption, and indirect effects on emission gases. The gardens of private and public spaces, such as closed gardens with ornamental vegetation, are often planned without considering the direct interaction between vegetation species, environmental matrix and social activities and needs. This produces a poor efficiency in the use of urban space [26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Therefore, the integration of solutions with roofs and gardens can create GI which can represent strategies to provide ecological and social multifunctionality to waterproofed surfaces connected to the buildings and low-exploited gardens being the main areas that affect dense urban settlements. Therefore, stimulating an inclusive design of ecosystem services can help to increase the well-being of the population and reduce the negative impacts of urbanisation [17,38].

In this context, the scope of this paper is to provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of applying an ecosystem services approach in designing GI, focusing on green roofs and community gardens. Many roofs are characterised by impermeable surfaces that have a direct effect on UHI, due to their vulnerability to flooding and energy consumption, and indirect effects on emission gases. The gardens of private and public spaces, such as closed gardens with ornamental vegetation, are often planned without considering the direct interaction between vegetation species, environmental matrix and social activities and needs. This produces a poor efficiency in the use of urban space [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Therefore, the integration of solutions with roofs and gardens can create GI which can represent strategies to provide ecological and social multifunctionality to waterproofed surfaces connected to the buildings and low-exploited gardens being the main areas that affect dense urban settlements. Therefore, stimulating an inclusive design of ecosystem services can help to increase the well-being of the population and reduce the negative impacts of urbanisation[17][38].

Moreover, the role of urban stressors or the urban context as a driving force of urban GI is not always well understood and employed in the planning of green spaces. This is partly due to a knowledge gap between different science disciplines that operate on different scales, from single processes of the plants (which focus on plant responses to environmental stresses affecting human well-being) to urban ecosystems (which focus on the biodiversity and urban space planning–human well-being relationship). This can create a paradox, as green spaces that are not adequately designed might not produce the expected effects.

The design of green spaces to increase ecosystem services needs to adapt different scientific disciplines at different ecological and urban scales, such as single plant interactions with the surrounding environmental matrix, or the relationship of the vegetation with the municipality (macro-scale), neighbourhood (meso-scale) and individual buildings (micro-scale) [40,45,48]. Therefore, the green space has to be planned crossing various disciplines at a different survey scale to reduce the gap in the knowledge of single sectors or expertise.

The design of green spaces to increase ecosystem services needs to adapt different scientific disciplines at different ecological and urban scales, such as single plant interactions with the surrounding environmental matrix, or the relationship of the vegetation with the municipality (macro-scale), neighbourhood (meso-scale) and individual buildings (micro-scale)[40][45][48]. Therefore, the green space has to be planned crossing various disciplines at a different survey scale to reduce the gap in the knowledge of single sectors or expertise.

Such an approach is based on a new transdisciplinary vision of urban ecosystem services that is not limited to the simple introduction of vegetation in urban areas but makes vegetation an active part of the urban space design, focusing on its effect on human well-being. Therefore, the intent here is to also provide a vision of the potential interactions between abiotic and biotic components that can affect individual plants in the urban context, as that can influence the ability of the vegetation to support the ecosystem services at different scales.

2. Some samples

2.1. Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Green Spaces

Table 1 summarises the main ecosystem services and related human benefits provided by urban green spaces. Specifically, urban green spaces reduce the heat-absorbing surface, increase solar protection, enhance cooling by shading and evapotranspiration (which help to mitigate the microclimate in the urban area), represent a sink for pollution, mask noise, filter out environmental pollutants by improving air quality and increase natural water retention [23,36,50,51,52,53]. Therefore, ecosystem services directly linked with urban green spaces are air filtration (gas regulation; carbon sequestration), micro-climate regulation, rainwater drainage (water regulation or stormwater management) and sewage treatment (waste treatment), the mitigation of disturbance regimes, with the increase of species diversity and composition, and cultural and educational values [9,54,55,56].

summarises the main ecosystem services and related human benefits provided by urban green spaces. Specifically, urban green spaces reduce the heat-absorbing surface, increase solar protection, enhance cooling by shading and evapotranspiration (which help to mitigate the microclimate in the urban area), represent a sink for pollution, mask noise, filter out environmental pollutants by improving air quality and increase natural water retention [23][36][49][50][51][52]. Therefore, ecosystem services directly linked with urban green spaces are air filtration (gas regulation; carbon sequestration), micro-climate regulation, rainwater drainage (water regulation or stormwater management) and sewage treatment (waste treatment), the mitigation of disturbance regimes, with the increase of species diversity and composition, and cultural and educational values[9][53][54][55].

Table 1. Example of the main ecosystem services provided by green spaces in urban areas considering the TEEB classification (from 1 to 6 provisioning services; from 7 to 15 biological services; from 16 to 17 habitat services; and from 18 to 22 cultural and amenity services), with selected references useful for a further reading. The table was structured following the ecosystem services classification and the link between ecological processes and benefits developed by de Groot et al. [46,63].

Example of the main ecosystem services provided by green spaces in urban areas considering the TEEB classification (from 1 to 6 provisioning services; from 7 to 15 biological services; from 16 to 17 habitat services; and from 18 to 22 cultural and amenity services), with selected references useful for a further reading. The table was structured following the ecosystem services classification and the link between ecological processes and benefits developed by de Groot et al. [46][56].

Ecological ProcessesEcosystem ServicesBenefitsSelected References
Energy flow from solar radiation into edible plants and animals1—FoodFruits

Small scale subsistence		[57][58][59][56][60][61][62][63]
Influences on material and energy flow of the ecosystem in biogeochemical cycles (CO2, ozone layer etc.)7—Air quality regulationReduction of the respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses and allergies[9][7][18][31][44][57][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]
Evapotranspiration8—Climate regulationIncrease of shade and thermal comfort

Reduction of heat-related illnesses

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions		[9][17][31][44][57][72][67][66][71][68][69]][70][114][73][115][74][75][76][77][78][79]
Increase of surface albedo
Flood prevention
Increase of surface albedo
11—Water treatmentReduction of disturbance events

Increasing run-off volumes

Discharge rates		[9][17
Flood prevention

Filtering, retention and storage water		11—Water treatmentReduction of stormwater volume

Decrease of the burden of the water treatment facilities

Improvement of rainwater use		][23][65][36][94][44][100][57][61][62][67][80][81]
[116][117][118][106][108][109][110][115][111][112][9—Moderation of disturbance events
113]Filtering, retention and storage water10—Water regulation
Accumulation of organic matter12—Erosion prevention

13—Maintenance of soil fertility		Maintenance of soil productivity[44][57][61][70]
Living space suitable for wild plants and animals’ growth and reproduction14—Pollination

15—Biological control

16—Maintenance of life cycles of migratory species

17—Maintenance of genetic diversity		Support biodiversity and genetic diversity[9][44][57][58][61][62][63][68]
Attractive landscape elements18—Aesthetic informationPromotion of green lifestyles

Increase of community engagement

Provision of recreational green spaces

Reduction of anxiety

Positive effect on behaviour

Attentional restoration

Reduction of mental fatigue

Improvement in cognitive functions, and ability to perform tasks

Aesthetic appreciation

Increased inspiration

Increased recreational activities

Improve the quality of physical function and/or health		[17][44][55][82][57][54][61][62][63][68][83][84][85][86]
Diversity in the recreational use of the urban space19—Opportunities for recreation and tourism
Diversity in the values of cultural and artistic natural elements20—Inspiration for culture, art, and design
Diversity in the values of the spiritual and historic natural elements21—Spiritual experience
Diversity in the values of nature with scientific and educational implications22—Information for cognitive development
Urban green spaces also decrease stress to visitors, increase property values and make urban areas more attractive [31]. The interactions of people with green spaces promote psychological wellness, improve mood and attention and reduce stress and anxiety [57,58,59]. Other services such as food production and erosion control could have lesser value in the urban context, but may be considered relevant in metropolitan or regional areas [55,60,61,62].

Urban green spaces also decrease stress to visitors, increase property values and make urban areas more attractive [31]. The interactions of people with green spaces promote psychological wellness, improve mood and attention and reduce stress and anxiety[82][57][72]. Other services such as food production and erosion control could have lesser value in the urban context, but may be considered relevant in metropolitan or regional areas [54][87][58][59].

Positive effects of green space on the direct and indirect production of ecosystem services are still not well acknowledged [47] and new perspectives can be opened by the implementation of new technologies. For instance, dendrochemistry is a consolidated tool for detecting the release of contaminants from human activities over time and is applicable to tree sprawl that has been present for many years in the urban context, for example [89]. Consequently, the urban ecosystem characterised by trees can offer important spatial-temporal information that is classifiable as services and benefits (not included in the TEEB classification) that can be incorporated into urban planning processes [89,90,91].

Positive effects of green space on the direct and indirect production of ecosystem services are still not well acknowledged [47] and new perspectives can be opened by the implementation of new technologies. For instance, dendrochemistry is a consolidated tool for detecting the release of contaminants from human activities over time and is applicable to tree sprawl that has been present for many years in the urban context, for example[88]. Consequently, the urban ecosystem characterised by trees can offer important spatial-temporal information that is classifiable as services and benefits (not included in the TEEB classification) that can be incorporated into urban planning processes [88][89][90].

However, the provision of ecosystem services in public urban spaces is not sufficient to guarantee the quality of human life in growing cities. Private actions in private space need to take social responsibility; for example, by developing urban elements integrating functional biodiversity that is able to support ecosystem services to reduce the environmental impacts and increase human well-being [2,56,92,93]. It is important to apply multifunctional land use actions to guarantee the simultaneous use of space for human activities such as housing, and ecosystem services production such as stormwater retention, energy conversion and habitat creation, involving both the public and private sectors [94].

However, the provision of ecosystem services in public urban spaces is not sufficient to guarantee the quality of human life in growing cities. Private actions in private space need to take social responsibility; for example, by developing urban elements integrating functional biodiversity that is able to support ecosystem services to reduce the environmental impacts and increase human well-being[2][55][91][92]. It is important to apply multifunctional land use actions to guarantee the simultaneous use of space for human activities such as housing, and ecosystem services production such as stormwater retention, energy conversion and habitat creation, involving both the public and private sectors[93].

Private actions are, among others, related to green roofs development and agricultural urban community gardens, as discussed in the following subsections (

Section 3.2

and

Section 3.3

).

2.2. Green Roofs

2.2. Green Roofs

Green roofs represent a strategy to transform the sealed and solar radiation heat surfaces of a rooftop into multifunctional ecological spaces[93]. In general, a green roof consists of vegetation, growth medium (substrate) and many other layers (drainage layer, waterproofing membrane etc.) to prevent negative effects of the interaction between vegetation and building structures and the healthiness of the building[94][95]. Considering the thickness of the substrate and the type of vegetation that it can sustain, green roofs are classified as follows [95]:

 

Green roofs represent a strategy to transform the sealed and solar radiation heat surfaces of a rooftop into multifunctional ecological spaces [94]. In general, a green roof consists of vegetation, growth medium (substrate) and many other layers (drainage layer, waterproofing membrane etc.) to prevent negative effects of the interaction between vegetation and building structures and the healthiness of the building [95,96]. Considering the thickness of the substrate and the type of vegetation that it can sustain, green roofs are classified as follows [96]:
  • “Extensive green roof” with a substrate thickness lower than 15 cm and a weight of up to 100 kg/m2. It can be “single-course extensive”, with a thickness of 10 cm and characterised mainly by grass vegetation, or “multi-course extensive”, with a thickness of 15 cm and characterised by a mix of grass and shrubs;
  • “Intensive green roof”, with a thickness larger than 15 cm and an average weight of up to 1000 kg/m2. It can be distinguished into “semi-intensive”, with a thickness from 20 cm to 30 cm, and “intensive”, with a thickness larger than 30 cm.
  • “Extensive green roof” with a substrate thickness lower than 15 cm and a weight of up to 100 kg/m2. It can be “single-course extensive”, with a thickness of 10 cm and characterised mainly by grass vegetation, or “multi-course extensive”, with a thickness of 15 cm and characterised by a mix of grass and shrubs;
  • “Intensive green roof”, with a thickness larger than 15 cm and an average weight of up to 1000 kg/m2. It can be distinguished into “semi-intensive”, with a thickness from 20 cm to 30 cm, and “intensive”, with a thickness larger than 30 cm.

 

The first type can support grass and shrubs, whereas the second can support shrubs and low trees [94,97,98,99].

The first type can support grass and shrubs, whereas the second can support shrubs and low trees[93][96][97][98].

Green roofs are natural-based solutions used in public and private buildings to increase ecosystem services with positive effects on energy consumption, urban heat island impacts and greenhouse gas generation in urban areas [56,100].

Green roofs are natural-based solutions used in public and private buildings to increase ecosystem services with positive effects on energy consumption, urban heat island impacts and greenhouse gas generation in urban areas [55][99].

Table 2 summarises the main ecosystem services and the related human benefits they provide.

summarises the main ecosystem services and the related human benefits they provide.
Table 2.

Ecosystem services and main environmental benefits provided by green roofs, with selected references useful for a further reading. See

Table 1 for details.

for details.

Ecological ProcessesEcosystem ServicesBenefitsSelected References
Energy flow from solar radiation into edible plants and animals1—FoodFruits

Small-scale subsistence		[23[100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107]
Influences on material and energy flow of the ecosystem in biogeochemical cycles (CO2, ozone layer etc.)7—Air quality regulationEvacuation of air pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide

Carbon sink

Reduction of carbon footprints		[65][95][100][107][106][108][109][110]
Evapotranspiration8—Climate regulationMitigation of heat flux into the building

Reduction of energy demand for space climate conditioning

Mitigations of the urban heat island effect

Increase of thermal comfort

Reduction of urban energy consumption

Reduction of carbon footprints

Decrease of cooling and heating		[65][94][100][107][106][108][109][110][111][112][113
[114][119][120][121]
9—Moderation of disturbance events
10—Regulation of water flows
Living space suitable for wild plants and animals’ growth and reproduction14—Pollination

15—Biological control

16—Maintenance of life cycles of migratory species

17—Maintenance of genetic diversity		Provision of habitat for insect and animals

Implementation of vegetation biodiversity and improved landscape		[65][93][100][107][106[108][109][110][121][120][122][123][124]
Attractive landscape features18—Aesthetic informationRelaxation and recreation

Provision of recreational space

Decrease of the noise pollution		[65][86][100][107][106][108][125]
Diversity in the recreational use of the urban space19—Opportunities for recreation and tourism
Diversity in the values of cultural and artistic natural elements20—Inspiration for culture, art and design
Diversity in the values of the spiritual and historic natural elements21—Spiritual experience
Diversity in the values of nature with scientific and educational implications22—Information for cognitive development
 
The intensive green roof can produce more ecosystem services and better sustain human health in the city with respect to extensive ones, emphasising the use of public spaces and raising aesthetic expectations. However, it needs more building structural support, with costs related to its realisation and maintenance [94,96,101]. On the other hand, the extensive green roof presents less weight, does not require irrigation and has lower capital and maintenance costs; therefore, this is the most commonly used [23,101,102]. It has also been proven to be effective in mitigating floods. Indeed, it was estimated that it has the capacity to reduce the stormwater volume from 50% to 60% of total annual precipitation [103,104].

The intensive green roof can produce more ecosystem services and better sustain human health in the city with respect to extensive ones, emphasising the use of public spaces and raising aesthetic expectations. However, it needs more building structural support, with costs related to its realisation and maintenance [94][96][100]. On the other hand, the extensive green roof presents less weight, does not require irrigation and has lower capital and maintenance costs; therefore, this is the most commonly used[100][116][117]. It has also been proven to be effective in mitigating floods. Indeed, it was estimated that it has the capacity to reduce the stormwater volume from 50% to 60% of total annual precipitation [117][118].

Introducing vegetation onto the roof may help to increase biodiversity in urban areas. However, since green roofs are artificially created habitats with different environmental conditions with respect to natural conditions, such as high radiation and temperature, the use of autochthonous vegetation may be difficult to apply and not always feasible. Therefore, the use of green roofs has to disregard conservation actions that require the use of local vegetation because it could make this strategy ineffective and expensive. Different vegetation can be planned: officinal plants, aromatic plants, fruits etc. with the idea to create widespread urban gardens. This could be a characterising element of a neighbourhood and a point of attraction. In this perspective, green roofs could become enjoyable areas for social activities [56].

Introducing vegetation onto the roof may help to increase biodiversity in urban areas. However, since green roofs are artificially created habitats with different environmental conditions with respect to natural conditions, such as high radiation and temperature, the use of autochthonous vegetation may be difficult to apply and not always feasible. Therefore, the use of green roofs has to disregard conservation actions that require the use of local vegetation because it could make this strategy ineffective and expensive. Different vegetation can be planned: officinal plants, aromatic plants, fruits etc. with the idea to create widespread urban gardens. This could be a characterising element of a neighbourhood and a point of attraction. In this perspective, green roofs could become enjoyable areas for social activities[55].

The green roof can mix built and green areas and the multifunctionality, in this case, represents the capacity to produce a stratified use of the urban space passing from the mono-functional use of specific urban space into integrating different functionalities that are capable of increasing ecological and social human well-being (an example is provided in

Figure 2

). However, to incorporate green roof technology into urban strategies around the world, it is crucial to develop solutions that are able to reduce the costs of installation considering the roof weight limitations and appropriate management practices [

109

].

Land 10 00105 g002 550
Figure 2.

Example of overbuilding (

left

) which would benefit from strategies using green roofs (

right

).

New Frontiers of Green Roofs

Recently, hybrid photovoltaic (PV) green roofs have been proposed as a new perspective of the natural-based solution in the green roof industry, since they enhance the electrical yield [101,127]. The vegetation can reduce the surrounding temperature of PV panels, while at the same time being less exposed to the sun by PV panels. The increase in the energy efficiency of PV green roofs has been estimated to range from 1.3% to 8.3% compared to the traditional installation of PV systems [128,129,130].

Recently, hybrid photovoltaic (PV) green roofs have been proposed as a new perspective of the natural-based solution in the green roof industry, since they enhance the electrical yield[100][126]. The vegetation can reduce the surrounding temperature of PV panels, while at the same time being less exposed to the sun by PV panels. The increase in the energy efficiency of PV green roofs has been estimated to range from 1.3% to 8.3% compared to the traditional installation of PV systems [126][127][128].

In this perspective, an important example is represented by the solution introduced from the Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology. It developed a “green-blue roof” that provides the possibility to introduce a green area and water storage in the roof in one solution. The roof is characterised by a vegetation layer on the water layer. This solution can store more water, decreasing the runoff and avoiding flash flooding effects, and can store the water that can be employed for domestic use [131,132].

In this perspective, an important example is represented by the solution introduced from the Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology. It developed a “green-blue roof” that provides the possibility to introduce a green area and water storage in the roof in one solution. The roof is characterised by a vegetation layer on the water layer. This solution can store more water, decreasing the runoff and avoiding flash flooding effects, and can store the water that can be employed for domestic use[129][130].

The recent project idea proposed by Semeraro et al. [56], starting from the surface of the existing roof-top, suggested the possibility of designing a green roof, such as a phytodepuration system, for the grey water for a building with 26 flats. The idea started from the consideration that using the roof space to introduce the photovoltaic system is not sufficient to meet the energy needs for each apartment. On the other hand, the surface of the building is sufficient to create an engineered habitat provisioning ecosystem services, such as water treatment for the reuse of grey water in the building. The use of recycled water, for example for the toilet flush, can save 35% of clear water, as well as the benefits reported in

Table 2

. This can reduce the use of clear water in those geographical regions with a scarcity of water, mainly in the summer. The main differences from the green-blue roof and the green roof for water treatment are in the choice of vegetation, in the latter case with selected vegetation that is able to support the phytoremediation.

These extreme solutions can be reconsidered when analysing natural resource availability in the future. For instance, the World Resources Institute estimated that there will be a reduction in water availability for human use in many parts of the world by 2050 [133]. These events have not happened to date, although the first real water crisis occurred in Cape Town between 2017 and 2018, when the population lived on 50 litres of water per day; the inhabitants were forced to adapt their daily habits, and the main security problem was water theft.

These extreme solutions can be reconsidered when analysing natural resource availability in the future. For instance, the World Resources Institute estimated that there will be a reduction in water availability for human use in many parts of the world by 2050 [131]. These events have not happened to date, although the first real water crisis occurred in Cape Town between 2017 and 2018, when the population lived on 50 litres of water per day; the inhabitants were forced to adapt their daily habits, and the main security problem was water theft.

2.3. Community Gardens

The concept of urban community gardens is generally linked to the practice of growing crops in urban and peri-urban areas [134,135,136]. It provides food products, as well as aromatic and medicinal herbs, ornamental plants etc. [134]. Urban agriculture does not have a fixed dimension or preferable urban space but can be performed in any shape and in different places, such as brownfield sites, roofs, greenfield sites (i.e., parks, gardens) etc. [137,138]. In the urban context, agriculture can represent a multifunctional land-use strategy [139], because it can integrate agriculture activities with social and ecological function purposes [140].

The concept of urban community gardens is generally linked to the practice of growing crops in urban and peri-urban areas[132][133][134]. It provides food products, as well as aromatic and medicinal herbs, ornamental plants etc. [132]. Urban agriculture does not have a fixed dimension or preferable urban space but can be performed in any shape and in different places, such as brownfield sites, roofs, greenfield sites (i.e., parks, gardens) etc.[135][136]. In the urban context, agriculture can represent a multifunctional land-use strategy[138], because it can integrate agriculture activities with social and ecological function purposes[137].

In the context of biodiversity loss, food insecurity and social alienation due to urbanisation, urban community gardens can represent sites for urban residents to reconnect with nature in a social environment creating common spaces and new forms of community interaction and corporations [137,141]. Ecosystem services and related benefits for human well-being are summarised in

In the context of biodiversity loss, food insecurity and social alienation due to urbanisation, urban community gardens can represent sites for urban residents to reconnect with nature in a social environment creating common spaces and new forms of community interaction and corporations [136][140]. Ecosystem services and related benefits for human well-being are summarised in

Table 3.

.
Table 3.

Ecosystem services and main environmental benefits provided by urban community gardens, with selected references useful for a further reading. See

Table 1 for details.

for details.

Ecological ProcessesEcosystem ServicesBenefitsSelected References
Energy flow from solar radiation into edible plants and animals1—FoodFruits

Small-scale subsistence

Food security

Raising awareness of the inhabitants

Food production and processing

Energy consumption and production		[130][136][140][143][147][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163]
Influences on Material and energy flow of the ecosystem in biogeochemical cycles (CO2, ozone layer etc.)7—Air quality regulationEvacuation of air pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide

Carbon sink

Reduction of carbon footprints		[138][142][143][144][157][162][164][165]
Evapotranspiration8—Climate regulationMitigation of the urban heat island effect

Increase of thermal comfort

Reduction of urban energy consumption

Reduction of carbon footprints linked to the food

Decrease of cooling and heating loads

Reduction of gas emissions for food supplying		[64][141][142][143][164][165]
Increase of surface albedo
Flood prevention

Filtering, retention and storage water		11—Water treatmentReduction in stormwater volume

Stormwater retention		[64][143][164]
9—Moderation of extreme events
10—Regulation of water flows
Accumulation of organic matter12—Erosion prevention

13—Maintenance of soil fertility		Retention of soil nutrients

Organic waste and production of compost		[64][138][157][162][163]
Living space suitable for wild plants and animals’ growth and reproduction14—Pollination

15—Biological

16—Maintenance of life cycles of migratory species

17—Maintenance of genetic diversity		Provision of habitat for insect and animals

Implementation of vegetation biodiversity

Improvement of landscape agrobiodiversity of plants grown		[64][138][140][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163]
Attractive landscape features18—Aesthetic informationRelaxation and recreation

Provision of recreational space with safety and security perception

Horticultural practices and maintenance

Community support, funding and volunteer management

Cultivating psychological well-being

Constructing Community

Building social bonds

Breaking down social barriers

Cleaning up vacant lots

Reclaiming the city

Cultural identity		[64][[136][137][138]1[141][143][153][154][155][156][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][157]
Diversity in the recreational use of the urban space19—Opportunities for recreation and tourism
Diversity in the values of cultural and artistic natural elements20—Inspiration for culture, art and design
Diversity in the values of the spiritual and historic natural elements21—Spiritual experience
Diversity in the values of nature with scientific and educational implications22—Information for cognitive development
Specifically, urban community gardens contribute to ecological sustainability by providing agroecosystems that can improve soil quality and reduce soil erosion rainwater runoff [142,143,144]. They can also impact on climate change/urban microclimates and stimulate the productive reuse of urban organic waste, thus reducing the urban resource footprint [145]. The social and economic goods and benefits of community gardens include increasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables, building community ties and community economic revitalisation, and regenerating vacant, neglected, or disturbed urban spaces. The community gardens are useful for promoting a sense of individual well-being and health in urban areas where there is social isolation and cultural diversity, promoting cross-cultural communication. Moreover, community gardens can improve cultural and educational ecosystem services by connecting people to the cycles of the earth, biodiversity and natural processes and improving people’s practical gardening skills [146,147,148,149].

Specifically, urban community gardens contribute to ecological sustainability by providing agroecosystems that can improve soil quality and reduce soil erosion rainwater runoff [138][139][137]. They can also impact on climate change/urban microclimates and stimulate the productive reuse of urban organic waste, thus reducing the urban resource footprint[140]. The social and economic goods and benefits of community gardens include increasing access to fresh fruits and vegetables, building community ties and community economic revitalisation, and regenerating vacant, neglected, or disturbed urban spaces. The community gardens are useful for promoting a sense of individual well-being and health in urban areas where there is social isolation and cultural diversity, promoting cross-cultural communication. Moreover, community gardens can improve cultural and educational ecosystem services by connecting people to the cycles of the earth, biodiversity and natural processes and improving people’s practical gardening skills[141][142][143][144]. 

Community gardens can reinforce people’s relations using food production, such as the urban activity of social and cultural connections, by bringing together diverse groups of people, stimulating the sharing of agricultural and culinary knowledge, and creating stronger bonds in the community [150]. Community gardens are also considered “participatory landscapes” of resistance to racism and marginalization through collective work and self-reliance [151,152,153].

Community gardens can reinforce people’s relations using food production, such as the urban activity of social and cultural connections, by bringing together diverse groups of people, stimulating the sharing of agricultural and culinary knowledge, and creating stronger bonds in the community [145]. Community gardens are also considered “participatory landscapes” of resistance to racism and marginalization through collective work and self-reliance [146][147][148].

New Frontiers for Urban Community Gardens

The new frontiers for urban community gardens are to combine food and urban design to produce material pushed from strong synergies between waste production in the building and the capacity of urban community gardens to recycle urban waste, such as organic matter, wastewater and waste heat [141]. This combination can develop an urban system that is able to reuse residential or industrial waste resources with benefits including food production for local consumption and the reduction of the consumption of natural resources [164]. This strategy can be achieved by creating a low or even “no-input system” around a sustainable food infrastructure [168,169] that produces a “closed-loop entity” in terms of waste recycling that is able to reduce pollution [164]. The connection of urban needs, ecological and productive activities at the scale of the building is a strong ambition that can support the sustainability of the cities, reducing the environmental impacts generated by urban waste [164,170,171].

The new frontiers for urban community gardens are to combine food and urban design to produce material pushed from strong synergies between waste production in the building and the capacity of urban community gardens to recycle urban waste, such as organic matter, wastewater and waste heat [149]. This combination can develop an urban system that is able to reuse residential or industrial waste resources with benefits including food production for local consumption and the reduction of the consumption of natural resources[150]. This strategy can be achieved by creating a low or even “no-input system” around a sustainable food infrastructure [151][152]] that produces a “closed-loop entity” in terms of waste recycling that is able to reduce pollution[150]. The connection of urban needs, ecological and productive activities at the scale of the building is a strong ambition that can support the sustainability of the cities, reducing the environmental impacts generated by urban waste[150][153][154].

Urban community gardens could also be used as a strategy to provide a temporary new functionality to spaces which are no longer able to meet current social and economic needs (those areas are often fenced and prey to devastation and misuse, such as illegal housing and drug dealing). For instance, in Baltimore, the urban community gardens began as vacant spaces that were considered “crime-ridden eyesores”. Residents worked together to change the status of the neighbourhoods, transforming these abandoned spaces into community gardens, clearing the lots of rubble, mowing the weeds and eliminating trash and drugs. The residents stated that community gardens made their neighbourhoods safer and more stable [

162

].

 
 
 
 
 

References

  1. Seto, K.; Shepherd, M.J. Global urban land-use trends and climate impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009, 1, 89–95, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.07.012.
  2. Semeraro, T.; Aretano, R.; Pomes, A.; Del Giudice, C.; Nigro, D. Planning ground based utility scale solar energy as Green Infrastructure to enhance ecosystem services. Energy Policy 2018, 117, 218–227, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.050.
  3. The World Bank. Urban Population. Available Online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS (accessed on 19 July 2020).
  4. United Nations. The World´s Cities in 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/events/citiesday/assets/pdf/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2020).
  5. Suzuki, H.; Dastur, A.; Moffatt, S.; Yabuki, N.; Maruyama, H. Eco2 Cities. Ecological Cities as Economic Cities; World Bank Publications, Washington DC: 2009.
  6. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17.
  7. Lafortezza, R.; Davies, C.; Sanesi, G.; Konijnendijk, C. Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest 2013, 6, 102–108, doi:10.3832/ifor0723-006.
  8. Oijstaeijen, W.V.; Van Passel, S.; Cools, J. Urban green infrastructure: A review on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 267, 110603, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603.
  9. Semeraro, T.; Aretano, R.; Barca, A.; Pomes, A.; Del Giudice, C.; Gatto, E.; Lenucci, M.; Buccolieri, R.; Emmanuel, R.; Gao, Z.; et al. A Conceptual Framework to Design Green Infrastructure: Ecosystem Services as an Opportunity for Creating Shared Value in Ground Photovoltaic Systems. Land 2020, 9, 238, doi:10.3390/land9080238.
  10. Vartholomaios, A.; Kalogirou, N.; Athanassiou, E.; Papadopoulou, M. The green space factor as a tool for regulating the urban microclimate in vegetation-deprived Greek cities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on “Changing Cities”: Spatial, Morphological, Formal & Socio-Economic Dimensions, Skiathos Island, Greece, 18–21 June 2013, doi:10.13140/2.1.1598.8484.
  11. Anguluri, R.; Narayanan, P. Role of green space in urban planning: Outlook towards smart cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 25, 58–65, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.007.
  12. World Health Organisation (WHO). Regional Office for Europe. Urban Green Spaces: A Brief for Action. Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/342289/Urban-Green-Spaces_EN_WHO_web3.pdf%3Fua=1 (accessed on 29 July 2020).
  13. Grimmond, C.S.B.; King, T.S.; Cropley, F.D.; Nowak, D.; Souch, C. Local scale fluxes of carbon dioxide in urban environments: Methodological challenges and results from Chicago. Environ. Pollut. 2002, 116, S243–S254, doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00256-1.
  14. Grimm, N.B.; Faeth, S.H.; Golubiewski, N.E.; Redman, C.L.; Wu, J.G.; Bai, X.M.; Briggs, J.M. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 2008, 319, 756–760, doi:10.1126/science.1150195.
  15. Schlesinger, W.H. On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 203–208, doi:10.1073/pnas.0810193105.
  16. Trenberth, K.E.; Jones, P.D.; Ambenje, P.; Bojariu, R.; Easterling, D.; Tank, A.K.; Parker, D.; Rahimzadeh, F.; Renwick, J.A.; Rusticucci, M.; et al. Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller. H.L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 237–336.
  17. Harlan, S.L.; Ruddel, D. Climate change and health in cities: Impacts of heat and air pollution and potential co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 126–134, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2011.01.001.
  18. Pascal, M.; Corso, M.; Chanel, O.; Declercq, C.; Badaloni, G.; Henschel, S.; Meister, K.; Haluza, D.; Olmedo, P.M.; Medina, S. Assessing the public health impacts of urban air pollution in 25 European cities: Results of the Aphekom project. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 449, 390–400, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.077.
  19. Hidalgo, J.; Masson, V.; Baklanov, A.; Pigeon, G.; Gimenoa, L. Advances in urban climate modeling: Trends and directions in climate research. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2008, 1146, 354–374.
  20. Oke, T.R. Boundary Layer Climates; Methuen; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
  21. Ward, K.; Lauf, S.; Kleinschmit, B.; Endlicher, W. Heat waves and urban heat islands in Europe: A review of relevant drivers. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 527–539, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.119.
  22. Rizwan, A.M.; Dennis, L.Y.C.; Liu, C. A review on the generation, determination and mitigation of Urban Heat Island. J. Environ. Sci. 2008, 20, 120–128, doi:10.1016/S1001-0742(08)60019-4.
  23. Qiu, G.; Li, H.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, W.; Liang, X.; Li, X. Effects of Evapotranspiration on Mitigation of Urban Temperature by Vegetation and Urban Agriculture. J. Integr. Agric. 2013, 12, 1307–1315, doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60543-2.
  24. Hirano, Y.; Yoshida, Y. Assessing the effects of CO2 reduction strategies on heat islands in urban areas. Sust. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 383–392, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.018.
  25. Gartland, L. Heat Islands: Understanding and Mitigating Heat in Urban Areas; Routledge Press: London, UK, 2010.
  26. Hsieh, C.M.; Huang, H.C. Mitigating urban heat islands: A method to identify potential wind corridor for cooling and ventilation. Comp. Environ. Urban Syst. 2016, 57, 130–143, doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.02.005.
  27. Knowlton, K.; Rotkin-Ellman, M.; King, G.; Margolis, G.; Smith, D.; Solomon, G.; Trent, R.; English, P. The 2006 heat wave: Impacts on hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 61–67, doi:10.1289/ehp.11594.
  28. Buchin, O.; Hoelscher, M.T.; Meier, F.; Nehls, T.; Ziegler, F. Evaluation of the health-risk reduction potential of countermeasures to urban heat islands. Energy Build. 2016, 114, 27–37, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.038.
  29. Walter, L.F.; Icaza, L.E.; Neht, A.; Klavins, M.; Morgan, E.A. Coping with the impacts of urban heat islands. A literature-based study on understanding urban heat vulnerability and the need for resilience in cities in a global climate change context. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1140–1149, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.086.
  30. Stathopoulou, E.; Mihalakakou, G.; Santamouris, M.; Bagiorgas, H.S. On the impact of temperature on tropospheric ozone concentration levels in urban environments. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 117, 227–236, doi:10.1007/s12040-008-0027-9.
  31. Santamouris, M. Regulating the damaged thermostat of the cities—Status, impacts and mitigation challenges. Energy Build. 2015, 91, 43–56, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.01.027.
  32. Field, C.B.; Barros, V.; Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Dokken, D.J.; Ebi, K.L.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Mach, K.J.; Plattner, G.-K.; Allen, S.K.; et al. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaption. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
  33. Weng, Q. Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: Requirements, methods, and trends. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 117, 34–49, doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.02.030, 2012.
  34. United Nations. Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development: New York, NY, USA, 2014. Available online: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/globalsdreport/ (accessed on 19 July 2020).
  35. Kaspersen, P.S.; Ravn, N.H.; Nielsen, K.A.; Madsen, H.; Drewa, M. Comparison of the impacts of urban development and climate change on exposing European cities to pluvial flooding. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 4131–4147, doi:10.5194/hess-21-4131-2017.
  36. United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights; Population Division, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: 2014. New York. Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-Report.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2020).
  37. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  38. Garcia-Nieto, A.P.; Geijzendorffer, I.R.; Barò, F.; Roche, P.K.; Bondeau, A.; Cramer, W. Impacts of urbanization around Mediterranean cities: Changes in ecosystem service supply. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 589–606, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.03.082.
  39. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006.
  40. Maggiore, G.; Semeraro, T.; Aretano, R.; De Bellis, L.; Luvisi, A. GIS Analysis of Land-Use Change in Threatened Landscapes by Xylella fastidiosa. Sustainability 2019, 11, 253, doi:10.3390/su11010253.
  41. Smith, R.M.; Thompson, K.; Hodgson, J.G.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Urban domestic gardens (IX): Composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 129, 312–322, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.045.
  42. Kendal, D.; Williams, N.S.; Williams, K.J. Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 257–265, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.03.005.
  43. Hadavi, S.; Kaplan, R.; Hunter, M.C.R. Environmental affordances: A practical approach for design of nearby outdoor settings in urban residential areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 19–32, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.001.
  44. Farahani, L.M.; Maller, C. Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Greenspaces: A Literature Review and Framework for Policy and Practice. Landsc. Online 2018, 61, 1–22, doi:10.3097/LO.201861.
  45. Salbitano, F.; Borelli, S.; Conigliaro, M.; Chen, Y. Guidelines on Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry; FAO Forestry Paper No.178; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016.
  46. de Groot, R.; Fisher, B.; Christie, M.; Aronson, J.; Braat, L.; Gowdy, J.; Haines-Young, R.; Maltby, E.; Neuville, A.; Polasky, S.; et al. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.; Routledge Press: London, UK, 2010; pp. 9–40.
  47. de Groot, R.; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.; Bernard, F.; Braat, L.; Christie, M.; Crossman, N.; Ghermandi, A.; Hein, L.; et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 50–61, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
  48. Schwartz, M.W.; Hiers, J.K.; Davis, F.W.; Garfin, G.M.; Jackson, S.T.; Terando, C.J.; Woodhouse, C.A.; Morelli, T.L.; Williamson, M.A.; Brunson, M.W. Developing a translational ecology workforce. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 587–596, doi:10.1002/fee.1732.
  49. Roy, S.; Byrne, J.; Pickering, C. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 351–363, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006.
  50. Livesley, S.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Calfapietra, C. The urban forest and ecosystem services: Impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 119–124, doi:10.2134/jeq2015.11.0567.
  51. Salmond, J.A.; Tadaki, M.; Vardoulakis, S.; Arbuthnott, K.; Coutts, A.; Demuzere, M.; Dirks, K.N.; Heaviside, C.; Lim, S.; Macintyre, H.; et al. Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environ. Health 2016, 15, 36, doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6.
  52. Santamouris, M.; Ban-Weiss, G.; Osmond, P.; Paolini, R.; Synnefa, A.; Cartalis, C.; Muscio, A.; Zinzi, M.; Morakinyo, T.E.; Ng, E.; et al. Progress in urban greenery mitigation science–assessment methodologies advanced technologies and impact on cities. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2018, 24, 638–671, doi:10.3846/jcem.2018.6604.
  53. Tratalos, J.; Fuller, R.A.; Warren, P.H.; Davies, R.G.; Gaston, K.J. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2007, 83, 308–317, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003.
  54. La Rosa, D.; Spyra, M.; Inostranza, L. Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 74–89, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.028.
  55. Semeraro, T.; Aretano, R.; Pomes, A. Green Roof Technology as a Sustainable Strategy to Improve Water Urban Availability. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 092065, doi:10.3390/ijerph16152642.
  56. de Groot, R.S. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2006, 75, 175–186.
  57. Sandifer, P.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007.
  58. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. 2011. Available online: www.teebweb.org (accessed on 01 July 2020).
  59. Sieber, J.; Pons, M. Assessment of Urban Ecosystem Services using Ecosystem Services Reviews and GIS-based Tools. Procedia Eng. 2015, 115, 53–60, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.07.354.
  60. Bernstein, A.S. Biological diversity and human health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 153–167, doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182348.
  61. Miller, M.S.; Montalto, F.A. Stakeholder perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by Green Infrastructure in New York City. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 37, 100928, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100928.
  62. Lin, B.L.; Egerer, M.H. Global social and environmental change drives the management and delivery of ecosystem services from urban gardens: A case study from Central Coast, California. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 60, 102006, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102006.
  63. Ramyar, R.; Saeedi, S.; Bryant, M.; Davatgar, A.; Hedjri, G.M. Ecosystem services mapping for green infrastructure planning–The case of Tehran. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 135466, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135466.
  64. Hyun, K.J. Impacts of urban greenspace on offsetting carbon emissions for middle Korea. J. Environm. Manag. 2002, 64, 115–126, doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0491.
  65. Pope, C.A., 3rd; Essati, M.; Dockery, D.W. Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. N. Engl. J. Medic. 2009, 360, 376–386, doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0805646.
  66. Setälä, H.; Viippola, V.; Rantalainen, A.L.; Pennanen, A.; Yli-Pelkonen, V. Does urban vegetation mitigate air pollution in northern conditions? Environ. Pollut. 2013, 183, 104–112, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.11.010.
  67. Hunt, A.; Watkiss, P. Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: A review of the literature. Clim. Chang. 2011, 104, 13–49, doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6.
  68. Tian, Y.; Wu, H.; Zhang, G.; Wang, L.; Zheng, D.; Li, S. Perceptions of ecosystem services, disservices and willingness-to-pay for urban green space conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 110140, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110140.
  69. Song, P.; Kim, G.; Mayer, A.; He, R.; Tian, G. Assessing the Ecosystem Services of Various Types of Urban Green Spaces Based on i-Tree Eco. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1630, doi:10.3390/su12041630.
  70. Chen, S.; Wang, Y.; Ni, Z.; Zhang, X.; Xia, B. Benefits of the ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructures: Differences between perception and measurements. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126774, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126774.
  71. Majekodunmi, M.; Emmanuel, R.; Jafry, T. A spatial exploration of deprivation and green infrastructure ecosystem services within Glasgow city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 52, 126698, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126698.
  72. Semeraro, T.; Gatto, E.; Buccolieri, R.; Vergine, M.; Gao, Z.; De Bellis, L.; Luvisi, A. Changes in Olive Urban Forests Infected by Xylella fastidiosa: Impact on Microclimate and Social Health in urban areas. Int. J. Environm. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2642, doi:10.1088/1757-899X/471/9/092065.
  73. Havenith, G.; Luttikholt, V.G.M.; Vrijkotte, T.G.M. The relative influence of body characteristics on humid heat stress response. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1995, 70, 270–279, doi:10.1007/BF00238575.
  74. Curriero, F.C.; Heiner, K.S.; Samet, J.M.; Zeger, S.L.; Strug, L.; Patz, J.A. Temperature and mortality in 11 cities of the eastern United States. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2002, 155, 80–97, doi:10.1093/aje/155.1.80.
  75. Bentley, M. Healthy Cities, local environmental action and climate change. Health Promot. Int. 2007, 22, 246–253, doi:10.1093/heapro/dam013.
  76. Thorsson, S.; Honjo, T.; Lindberg, F.; Eliasson, I.; Lim, E.M. Thermal comfort and outdoor activity in Japanese urban public places. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 660–684, doi:10.1177/0013916506294937.
  77. McMichael, A.J.; Wilkinson, P.; Kovats, S.; Pattenden, S.; Hajat, S.; Armstrong, B.; Vajanapoom, N.; Niciu, E.M.; Mahomed, H.; Kingkeow, C.; et al. International study of temperature, heat and urban mortality: The ‘ISOTHURM’ project. Int. J. Epidem. 2008, 37, 1121–1131, doi:10.1093/ije/dyn086.
  78. O’Neill, M.S.; Ebi, K.L. Temperature extremes and health: Impacts of climate variability and change in the United States. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 51, 13–25, doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e318173e122.
  79. Gatto, E.; Buccolieri, R.; Aarrevaara, E.; Ippolito, F.; Emmanuel, R.; Perronace, L.; Santiago, J.L. Impact of Urban Vegetation on Outdoor Thermal Comfort: Comparison between a Mediterranean City (Lecce, Italy) and a Northern European City (Lahti, Finland). Forests 2020, 11, 228, doi:10.3390/f11020228.
  80. Butler, D.; Davies, J.W. Urban Drainage; Spon Press: London, NY, USA, 2011.
  81. Hall, J.; Arheimer, B.; Borga, M.; Brázdil, R.; Claps, P.; Kiss, A.; Kjeldsen, T.R.; Kriauciuniene, J.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Lang, M.; et al. Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: A state-of-the-art assessment. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 2735–2772, doi:10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014.
  82. Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015.
  83. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Junge, X.; Matthies, D. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 195–202, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003.
  84. Park, B.-J.; Furuya, K.; Kasetani, T.; Takayama, N.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2011, 102, 24–32, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.005.
  85. Semeraro, T.; Zaccarelli, N.; Lara, A.; Sergi-Cucinelli, F.; Aretano, R. A Bottom-Up and Top-Down Participatory Approach to Planning and Designing Local Urban Development: Evidence from an Urban University Center. Land 2020, 9, 98, doi:10.3390/land9040098.
  86. Jennings, V.; Bamkole, O. The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 452, doi:10.3390/ijerph16030452.
  87. Nuissl, H.; Haase, D.; Lanendorf, M.; Wittemer, H. Environmental impact assessment of urban land use transitions—A context-sensitive approach. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 414–424, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.05.006.
  88. Perone, P.; Cocozza, C.; Cherubini, P.; Bachmann, O.; Guillong, M.; Lasserre, B.; Marchetti, M.; Tognetti, R. Oak tree-rings record spatial-temporal pollution trends from different sources in Terni (Central Italy). Environ. Poll. 2018, 233, 278–289, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.062.
  89. Alterio, E.; Rizzi, A.; Chirici, G.; Cocozza, C.; Sitzia, T. Preserving air pollution forest archives accessible through dendrochemistry. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110462.
  90. Semeraro, T.; Luvisi, A.; De Bellis, L.; Aretano, R.; Sacchelli, S.; Chirici, G.; Marchetti, M.; Cocozza, C. Dendrochemistry: Ecosystem services perspectives for urban biomonitoring. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 558893, doi:10.3389/fenvs.2020.558893.
  91. Lambin, E.F.; Meyfroidt, P. Land use transitions: Socio-ecological feedback versus socio-economic change. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 108–118, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.09.003.
  92. Kourdounouli, C.; Jönsson, A.M. Urban ecosystem conditions and eco system services—A comparison between large urban zones and city cores in the EU. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 63, 798–817, doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1613966.
  93. Carter, T.; Butler, C. Ecological impacts of replacing traditional roofs with green roofs in two urban areas. Cities Environ. 2008, 1, 17, doi:10.15365/cate.1292008.
  94. Department of Planning and Local Government. Rain Gardens, Green Roof Sand Infiltration Systems. In Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Manual; Government of South Australia, Ed.; Government of South Australia: Adelaide, Australian, 2010; pp. 12–21.
  95. GSA. The Benefits and Challenges of Green Roofs on Public and Commercial Buildings. A Report of the United States General Service Administration, US GSA. 2011. Available online: https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/The_Benefits_and_Challenges_of_Green_Roofs_on_Public_and_Commercial_Buildings.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  96. Dunnett, N.; Kingsbury, N. Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2004.
  97. Dunnett, N.; Kingsbury, N. Planting options for extensive and semi-extensive green roofs. The Cardinal Group, Toronto. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 2–4 June 2004.
  98. Wong, J.K.W.; Lau, L.S-K. From the ‘urban heat island’ to the ‘green island’? A preliminary investigation into the potential of retrofitting green roofs in Mongkok district of Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2013, 39, 25–35, doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.005.
  99. Korola, E.; Shushunova, N. Benefits of A Modular Green Roof Technology. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 1820–1826, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.673.
  100. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.; Rafiq, M. Green roof benefits, opportunities and challenges—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 757–773, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.006.
  101. Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC). Feeding the City from the Back Forty: A Commercial Food Production Plan for the City of Toronto; Toronto Public Library: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1999.
  102. Sheung, L.L. Rooftop Garden: Planting Seeds of Service, Teacher’s Network. Available online: http://www.teachnet. org/docs/Network/Project/Boston/Sheung/ (accessed on 26 July 2020).
  103. Nowak, M. Urban Agriculture on the Rooftop. Senior honors Thesis, Cornell University, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
  104. Huang, X. Investigation of roof agriculture development. Res. Environm. Sci. 2010, 9, 316–317.
  105. Whittinghill, L.J.; Rowe, D.B. The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 314–322, doi:10.1017/S174217051100038X.
  106. Langemeyer, J.; Wedgwood, D.; McPhearsonc, T.; Baró, F.; Madsende, A.L.; Barton, D.N. Creating urban green infrastructure where it is needed—A spatial ecosystem service-based decision analysis of green roofs in Barcelona. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 707, 135487, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487.
  107. Phoomirat, R.; Disyatat, N.R.; Park, T.Y.; Lee, D.K.; Dumrongrojwatthana, P. Rapid assessment checklist for green roof ecosystem services in Bangkok. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 19, doi:10.1186/s13717-020-00222-z.
  108. Getter, K.L.; Rowe, D.B. The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable development. HortScience 2006, 41, 1276–1285, doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.41.5.1276.
  109. Berardi, U.; Hoseini, A.H.G.; Hoseini, A.G. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.047.
  110. Chow, M.F.; Bakar, F.A. A Review on the Development and Challenges of Green Roof Systems in Malaysia. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Archit. Environ. Eng. 2016, 10, 16–20.
  111. Lazzarin, R.M.; Castellotti, F.; Busato, F. Experimental measurements and numerical modeling of a green roof. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 1260–1267, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.02.001.
  112. Carter, T.; Keeler, A. Life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 87, 350–363, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.024.
  113. Sproul, J.; Wan, M.P.; Mandel, B.H.; Rosenfeld, A.H. Economic comparison of white, green, and black flat roofs in the United States. Energy Build. 2014, 71, 20–27, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.058.
  114. Sanchez, L.; Reames, T.G. Cooling Detroit: A socio-spatial analysis of equity in green roofs as an urban heat island mitigation strategy. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 44, 126331, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.014.
  115. Liu, K.; Baskaran, B. Thermal performance of green roofs through field evaluation. The Cardinal Group, Toronto. In Proceedings of the 1st North American Green Roof Conferences: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, IL, USA, 29–30 May 2003; pp. 273–282.
  116. Harzmann, U. German green roofs. In Proceedings of the Annual Green Roof Construction Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 01 July 2003; Available online at https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20398172 (Accessed on 10 July 2020).
  117. Moran, A. A North Carolina Field Study to Evaluate Greenroof Runoff Quantity, Runoff Quality, and Plant Growth. Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2004.
  118. Mentens, J.; Raes, D.; Hermy, M. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landsc. Urb. Plan. 2006, 77, 217–226, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.010.
  119. Van Woert, N.D.; Rowe, D.B.; Andresen, J.A.; Rugh, C.L.; Fernandez, R.T.; Xiao, L. Green roof Stormwater Retention: Effects of Roof Surface, Slope, and Media Depth. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 1036–1044, doi:10.2134/jeq2004.0364.
  120. Carter, T.; Rasmussen, T. Hydrologic behavior of vegetated roofs. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1261–1274.
  121. Stovin, V. The potential of green roofs to manage Urban Stormwater. Water Environ. J. 2010, 24, 192–199, doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.2009.00174.x.
  122. Brenneisen, S. The benefits of biodiversity from green roofs: Key design consequences. The Cardinal Group, Toronto. In Proceedings of the 1st North American Green Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, IL, USA, 29–30 May 2003; pp. 323–329.
  123. Brenneisen, S. Biodiversity strategy on green roofs. The Cardinal Group, Toronto. In Proceedings of the 3rd North American Green Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Washington, DC, USA, 4–6 May 2005; pp. 449–456.
  124. Coffman, R.; Davis, G. Insect and avian fauna presence on the Ford assembly plant ecoroof. The Cardinal Group, Toronto. In Proceedings of the 3rd North American Green Roof Conference: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities; Washington, DC, USA, 4–6 May 2005; pp. 457–468.
  125. Rafida, S.; Rahman, A.; Ahmad, H. Green Roof As Urban Antidote: A Review on Aesthetic, Environmental, Economic and Social Benefits. In Proceedings of the 6th South East Asian Technical Consortium in King Mongkut University of Technology Thonbur, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-23 October 2012; p. 4.
  126. Hui, S.C.M.; Chan, S.C. Integration of green roof and solar photovoltaic systems. In Proceedings of the Joint Symposium 2011: Integrated Building Design in the New Era of Sustainability, Hong Kong, 22 November 2011; pp. 1.1–1.10.
  127. Chemisana, D.; Lamnatou, C. Photovoltaic-green roofs: An experimental evaluation of system performance. Appl. Energy 2014, 119, 246–256, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.027.
  128. Lamnatou, C.; Chemisana, D. A critical analysis of factors affecting photovoltaic green roof performance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 264–280, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.048.
  129. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.; Lee, D. The potential of green-blue roof to manage storm water in urban areas. Nat. Environ. Poll. Technol. 2016, 15, 715–719.
  130. Shafique, M.; Lee, D.; Kim, R. A field study to evaluate runoff quantity from blue roof and green blue roof in an urban area. Int. J. Control. Autom. 2016, 9, 59–68, doi:10.14257/ijca.2016.9.8.07.
  131. Luo, T.; Young, R.; Reig, P. Aqueduct Projected Water Stress Rankings; Technical Note; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: http://www.wri.org/publication/aqueduct-projected-water-stress-country-rankings (accessed on 26 July 2020).
  132. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Profitability and Sustainability of Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007.
  133. Satterthwaite, D.; McGranahan, G.; Tacoli, C. Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2809–2820, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0136.
  134. Martellozzo, F.; Landry, J.S.; Plouffe, D.; Seufert, V.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Urban agriculture: A global analysis of the space constraint to meet urban vegetable demand. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 1–8, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064025.
  135. Egerer, M.; Fairbairn, M. Gated gardens: Effects of urbanization on community formation and commons management in community gardens. Geoforum 2018, 96, 61–69, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.014.
  136. Koopmans, M.; Keech, D.; Sovova, L.; Reed, M. Urban agriculture and place-making: Narratives about place and space in Ghent, Brno and Bristol New frontiers for urban community garden. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2017, 25, 154–165, doi:10.1515/mgr-2017-0014.
  137. Martin, G.; Clift, R.; Chistie, I. Urban Cultivation and Its Contributions to Sustainability: Nibbles of Food but Oodles of Social Capital. Sustainability 2016, 8, 409, doi:10.3390/su8050409.
  138. Bousse, Y.S. Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect with an Intensive Green Roof during Summer in Reading, UK. Master’s Thesis, Reading University, Reading, UK, 2009.
  139. Sanye-Mengual, E.; Oliver-Sola, J.; Anton, A.; Montero, J.I.; Rieradevail, J. Environmental assessment of urban horticulture structures: Implementing rooftop greenhouses in Mediterranean cities. In Proceedings of the LCA Food Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–10 October 2014.
  140. De Zeeuw, H. Cities, climate change and urban agriculture. Urban Agric. Mag. 2011, 25, 39–42.
  141. Levkoe, C.Z. Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agric. Human Values 2006, 23, 89–98, doi:10.1007/s10460-005-5871-5.
  142. Lawson, L.J. City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2005.
  143. Ellis, R. Sowing the seeds of democracy: Community gardening in Parkdale, Toronto. Master’s Thesis, University of Western Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010.
  144. Miedema, J.M.; Desjardins, E.; Marshall, K. ‘Not Just a Passing Fancy’: How community gardens contribute to healthy and inclusive neighbourhoods. In Waterloo Region Public Health; AgriUrban, Quèbec, 2013. Available online: http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/en/researchResourcesPublications/resources/Community_Gardening_Storytelling_Project.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  145. Buchmann, C. Cuban Home Gardens and Their Role in Social-Ecological Resilience. Hum. Ecol. 2009, 37, 705, doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9283-9.
  146. Mares, T.M.; Pena, D.G. Environmental and food justice. In Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability; Alkon, A.H., Agyeman, J., Eds.; MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 197–219.
  147. White, M.M. D-town farm: African American resistance to food insecurity and the transformation of Detroit. Environ. Pract. 2011, 13, 406–417, doi:10.1017/S1466046611000408.
  148. Gray, L.; Guzman, P.; Glowa, K.M.; Drevno, A.G. Can home gardens scale up into movements for social change? The role of home gardens in providing food security and community change in San Jose, California. Local Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 2013, doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.792048.
  149. Taylor, J.R.; Lovell, S.T. Urban home food gardens in the Global North: Research traditions and future directions. Agric. Hum. Values 2013, 31, 285–305, doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9475-1.
  150. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Hartmann, I.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M.; Werner, A.; Thomaier, S.; Henckel, D.; Walk, H.; Dierich, A. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 33–51, doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4.
  151. Ellingsen, E.; Despommier, D. The Vertical Farm—The origin of a 21st century Architectural Typology. CTBUH J. 2008, 3, 26–34.
  152. Gorgolewski, M.; J. Komisar, J.; Nasr, J. Carrot City: Creating places for Urban Agriculture; The Monacelli Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  153. Komisar, J.; Nasr, J.; Gorgolewski, M. Designing for food and agriculture: Recent explorations at Ryerson University. Open House Int. 2009, 34, 61–70.
  154. Bohn, K.; Viljoen, A. The edible city: Envisioning the Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL). Field J. 2011, 4, 149–161.
  155. Draper, C.; Freedman, D. Review and Analysis of the Benefits, Purposes, and Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United States. J. Community Pract. 2010, 18, 458–492, doi:10.1080/10705422.2010.519682.
  156. Kortright, R.; Wakefield, S. Edible backyards: A qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agric. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 39–53, doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9254-1.
  157. Hodgson, K.; Campbell, M.C.; Bailkey, M. Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy Sustainable Places. Am. Plan. Assoc. Plan. Advis. Serv. Rep. 2011, 563, 1–34.
  158. Reynolds, K. Expanding technical assistance for urban agriculture: Best practices for extension services in California and beyond. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2011, 1, 1–20, doi:10.5304/jafscd.2011.013.013.
  159. Guitart, D.; Pickering, C.; Byrne, J. Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 364–373, doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.007.
  160. Guitart, D.A.; Pickering, C.M.; Byrne, J.A. Color me healthy: Food diversity in school community gardens in two rapidly urbanising Australian cities. Health Place 2014 26, 110–117, doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.12.014.
  161. Poulsen, M.; Hulland, K.R.S.; Gulas, C.A.; Pham, H.; Dalglish, S.L.; Wilkinson, R.K.; Winch, P.J. Growing an Urban Oasis: A Qualitative Study of the Perceived Benefits of Community Gardening in Baltimore, Maryland. Cult. Agric. Food Environ. 2014, 36, 69–82, doi:10.1111/cuag.12035.
  162. Napawan, N.C. Complexity in urban agriculture: The role of landscape typologies in promoting urban agriculture’s growth. J. Urban. Int. Res. Placemaking Urban Sustain. 2014, 9, 1–20, doi:10.1080/17549175.2014.950317.
  163. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Hartmann, I.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M.; Werner, A.; Thomaier, S.; Henckel, D.; Walk, H.; Dierich, A. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 33–51, doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4.
  164. Lal, R. Home gardening and urban agriculture for advancing food and nutritional security in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Food Sec. 2020, 12, 871–876, doi:10.1007/s12571-020-01058-3.
  165. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Twenty Sixth Report: The Urban Environment; The Stationery Office (TSO): London, UK, 2007.
  166. Rees, A.; Melix, B. Landscape Discourse and Community Garden Design in a Midsized Southern City. Stud. Hist. Gard. Des. Landsc. 2019, 39, 90–104, doi:10.1080/14601176.2018.1512797.
  167. Rees, A.; Melix, B. Landscape Discourse and Community Garden Design in a Midsized Southern City. Stud. Hist. Gard. Des. Landsc. 2019, 39, 90–104, doi:10.1080/14601176.2018.1512797.
  168. Komisar, J.; Nasr, J.; Gorgolewski, M. Designing for food and agriculture: Recent explorations at Ryerson University. Open House Int. 2009, 34, 61–70.
  169. Bohn, K.; Viljoen, A. The edible city: Envisioning the Continuous Productive Urban Landscape (CPUL). Field J. 2011, 4, 149–161.
  170. Ellingsen, E.; Despommier, D. The Vertical Farm—The origin of a 21st century Architectural Typology. CTBUH J. 2008, 3, 26–34.
  171. Gorgolewski, M.; J. Komisar, J.; Nasr, J. Carrot City: Creating places for Urban Agriculture; The Monacelli Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback