Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Application of Cluster Descriptions in Space of Characteristic Image Features
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Rough Set Theory to Water Quality Analysis: A Case Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Data
Volume 3
Issue 4
10.3390/data3040051
data-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Data Descriptor

Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability

by
Greg D. Simpson
1,* and
Jackie Parker
2
1
College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth 6150, WA, Australia
2
School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Perth 6102, WA, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Data 2018, 3(4), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/data3040051
Submission received: 21 October 2018 / Revised: 9 November 2018 / Accepted: 9 November 2018 / Published: 12 November 2018
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This data descriptor summarizes the process applied and data gathered from the contents of 87 peer-reviewed papers/sources reporting on the contribution of public green infrastructure (PGI), in the form of public parks and urban nature spaces, in the context of city liveability and general human health and well-being. These papers were collected in a systematic literature review that informed the design of a questionnaire-based survey of PGI users in Perth, Western Australia. The survey explored visitor satisfaction with the amenities and facilities of the PGI space, and perceptions of the importance of such spaces for city liveability. Papers were sourced by searching over 15,000 databases, including all the major English language academic publishing houses, using the ProQuest Summon® service. Only English language peer-reviewed papers/editorial thought pieces/book chapters that were published since 2000 with the full text available online were considered for this review. The primary search, conducted in December 2016, identified 71 papers, and a supplementary search undertaken in June 2018 identified a further 16 papers that had become discoverable online after the completion of the initial search.
Dataset: The dataset has been submitted for publication as a supplement to this data descriptor.
Dataset License: CC-BY

1. Summary

Against the backdrop of the global challenges created by the rapid growth and urbanization of humankind over the past 50 years, there has been growing interest in the ways that public green infrastructure (PGI) and urban nature (UN) can enhance the quality of life for urban residents and improve perceptions of city liveability [1,2,3,4]. A systematic literature review was completed in December 2016 (and supplemented in June 2018) to inform the design of a questionnaire-based survey that explored the satisfaction of visitors at a PGI space in Perth, Western Australia [5,6,7]. The review identified two commissioned academic editorial thought pieces, one edited book chapter, and 84 peer-reviewed papers, (hereafter all referred to as papers) that reported on the key attributes of the amenity and facilities of quality PGI and UN, the contribution that those sites made to the quality of life of PGI users, and how the presence of those sites impacts user perceptions of city liveability [5,8].
The dataset shared via this data descriptor and the research based on the systematic review reported by Parker and Simpson [8] are framed by the following definitions of the key concepts of green infrastructure (GI), UN, and city liveability. The review and associated research were grounded in the definition of Norton et al. [9] (p. 128), that GI is a “network of planned and unplanned green spaces, spanning both the public and private realms, and managed as an integrated system to provide a range of benefits.” The research informed by the review [5,6,7,8] was focused on a public open space (parkland) style of PGI space that incorporated UN. Urban nature is a GI element composed of remnant and restored examples of nature indigenous (native) to that locale [10]. Also known as indigenous biodiversity, UN should ideally support examples of the micro and macro flora and fauna that would have occupied the area before humans converted the land to an urban matrix. Emerging in the 1980s, the concept of city liveability evolved as city planners and theorists attempted to describe and quantify how social, political, economic, and environmental factors contributed to the quality of citizens’ lives in urban settlements (e.g., [2,8,9,11,12]). Based on the research described in this data descriptor and the shared dataset, the review of Parker and Simpson [8] reports the significant contribution that quality PGI space, especially PGI that incorporates UN, can make to enhancing city liveability.
Publication of this data has the potential to benefit others who are researching, planning, and managing urban PGI and UN with the goals of contributing to better PGI, enhancing the protection and renaturing of UN, and creating healthier and more livable urban environments.
In addition to informing the previously mentioned survey [5] and a systematic quantitative literature review paper [8], the research associated with this data descriptor has also produced a research paper [6] and another Data paper [7].

2. Data Description

The data extracted from the 87 peer-reviewed papers included in the systematic review were captured in Microsoft Excel and are provided as a workbook file (.xlsx) with this data descriptor. Identifying information for each paper (e.g., author(s), year of publication, paper title, journal title, issue/volume/page numbers) was recorded (Table 1).
The abstract for each paper included in the systemic literature review was also captured, and was used to inform the review article of Parker and Simpson [8], but they have been excluded from this data set for reasons of copyright.
Geographical data and liveability rankings associated with the scope and locations of papers included in the systemic literature review are specified in Table 2. Population densities were calculated using data from the United Nations Demographic Yearbook 2016 [13]. The reported climate categories are based on the global Koppen climate categories described by the Met Office of the United Kingdom [14]. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and Mercer, a global human resources consulting firm, produce annual listings that rank cities on the quality of their urban life based on their Global Liveability Ranking (www.eiu.com/topic/liveability) and Quality of Living City Rankings (https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/Insights/quality-of-living-rankings). Where available and applicable, the EIU liveability rankings and Mercer quality-of-life rankings for 2015 and 2018 are also reported in the dataset.
The included papers were then analyzed with respect to the focus criteria of the review as detailed in the Methods section. Additional criteria recorded included items such as the reporting of social, environmental, economic, ecological, human health, and lifestyle contributions of urban PGI and UN to citizen life and city liveability (Table 3). The research methods utilized in each paper were also noted, as well as the proposal of a new tool/technique, if present. Recommendations for further research and any other recommendations were also recorded for each paper analyzed. In the dataset associated with this data descriptor, these data are grouped under four clusters: Measurement tools and methods, Focus areas covered in paper, Contributors to city liveability, and Recommendations of paper.

3. Methods

The data reported in this data descriptor were gathered as part of a systematic quantitative literature review based on the approach of Pickering and Byrne [15] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines [16]. The quantitative review and theoretical synthesis [8] focused on the role and contribution of urban PGI and UN in relation to the concept of city liveability. In December 2016, over 15,000 databases, including all the major English language academic publishing houses, were searched using the ProQuest Summon® [17] service accessed through the library of Murdoch University to identify papers related to PGI and UN. The keywords shown in Table 4 were used as search terms to identify potential papers that could be included in the literature review. Papers prior to 2000 were excluded based on the likelihood of diminished currency with respect to knowledge about best practice PGI management, the capture of pertinent knowledge from earlier papers being reported in the later literature, and a perception of decreased relevance among current PGI managers and users.
The initial search identified 336 peer-reviewed papers, reports, editorial thought pieces, and edited book chapters published in English, with the full text available online, that were published between January 2000 and November 2016. An additional peer-reviewed paper [4] was included based on its relevance to the research location of the proposed visitor survey and its being newly available. As a secondary measure, four papers were selected from the 336 sources because those papers specifically reported on human perceptions regarding urban PGI and/or POS and city liveability. The reference lists of those four papers were individually analyzed, which resulted in an additional nine papers being located and deemed suitable for inclusion in the review. Of the 346 papers initially identified, 17 papers were found to be duplicates and were therefore excluded. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 346 papers were screened, and the papers that did not specifically relate to the contribution of urban PGI/POS/UN to city liveability in the context of the survey reported in Parker and Simpson [6,7] were excluded. This left 71 papers that were deemed suitable for inclusion in the systematic quantitative literature review [2,4,11,12,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84]. This process is reflected in the PRISMA Expression provided in Figure 1.
As a final measure, a search using the method detailed above was performed in May 2018 to identify any newer, not previously discovered, peer-reviewed papers/sources in this area of research with a publication date prior to 1 January 2018 (Figure 1). This additional search identified 16 recently published papers reporting research relevant to this review [9,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99]. This completed the research collection phase for the review. As previously mentioned, the data described in the previous section were extracted from each paper and recorded in a Microsoft Excel workbook to enable qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary File 1

Author Contributions

J.P. and G.S. made equal contributions to this data descriptor and as such are co-first authors.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleague David Newsome for his guidance on the master’s research by J.P. and comments on the associated thesis. We also give thanks to the handling editor and two anonymous reviewers, whose comments enhanced our manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beatley, T. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-5972671-5-1. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jones, C.; Newsome, D. Perth (Australia) as one of the world’s most liveable cities: A perspective on society, sustainability and environment. Int. J. Tour. Cities 2015, 1, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kopecká, M.; Szatmári, D.; Rosina, K. Analysis of urban green spaces based on Sentinel-2A: Case studies from Slovakia. Land 2017, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Simpson, G.; Newsome, D. Environmental history of an urban wetland: From degraded colonial resource to nature conservation area. Geo Geogr. Environ. 2017, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Parker, J. A Survey of Park User Perception in the Context of Green Space and City Liveability: Lake Claremont, Western Australia. Master’s Thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 2017. Available online: http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/40856/ (accessed on 10 October 2018).
  6. Parker, J.; Simpson, G. Visitor satisfaction with a public green infrastructure and urban nature space in Perth, Western Australia. Land 2018. under review. [Google Scholar]
  7. Simpson, G.; Parker, J. Data for an Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) of a public green infrastructure and urban nature space in Perth, Western Australia. Data 2018. submitted. [Google Scholar]
  8. Parker, J.; Simpson, G. Green Infrastructure Contribution to City Liveability: A Systematic Quantitative Review. Land 2018. under review. [Google Scholar]
  9. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Livesley, S.J.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S. Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Unterweger, P.A.; Schrode, N.; Betz, O. Urban Nature: Perception and Acceptance of Alternative Green Space Management and the Change of Awareness after Provision of Environmental Information. A Chance for Biodiversity Protection. Urban Sci. 2017, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Newton, P.W. Liveable and sustainable? Socio-technical challenged for the twenty-first century cities. J. Urban Technol. 2012, 19, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 110, 433–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. United Nations. Demographic Year Book 2016, (ST/ESA/STAT/SER.R/46) 67 ed.; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 284–349. ISBN 978-92-1-362711-2. [Google Scholar]
  14. Met Office. Helping You Understand Weather and Climate; Met Office, Government of the UK: Exeter, UK, 2012; pp. 2–3.
  15. Pickering, C.M.; Byrne, J. The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early career researchers. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 2013, 33, 534–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. ProQuest Summon® 2.0. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/products-services/The-Summon-Service.html (accessed on 7 October 2018).
  18. Van Herzele, A.; Wiedemann, T. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Riddera, K.; Adamecb, V.; Bañuelosc, A.; Brused, M.; Bürgerd, M.; Damsgaarde, O.; Dufekb, J.; Hirschf, J.; Lefebrea, F.; Pérez-Lacorzanac, J.M.; et al. An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 334, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. De Lange, E.; Woodhouse, E.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Approaches used to evaluate the social impacts of protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 2016, 9, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Chen, B.; Adimo, O.A.; Bao, Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Balram, S.; Dragićevic, S. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: Integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 71, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dallimer, M.; Irvine, K.N.; Skinner, A.M.; Davies, Z.G.; Rouquette, J.R.; Maltby, L.L.; Warren, P.H.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience 2012, 62, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Grose, M.J. Changing relationships in public open space and private open space in suburbs in south-western Australia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Malek, N.A.; Mariapan, M.; Ab Rahman, N.I.A. Community participation in quality assessment for green open spaces in Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 168, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nasution, A.D.; Zahrah, W. Community Perception on Public Open Space and Quality of Life in Medan, Indonesia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Villanueva, K.; Badland, H.; Hooper, P.; Koohsari, M.J.; Mavoa, S.; Davern, M.; Roberts, R.; Goldfel, S.; Giles-Corti, B. Developing indicators of public open space to promote health and wellbeing in communities. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 57, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Edwards, N.; Hooper, P.; Trapp, G.S.; Bull, F.; Boruff, B.; Giles-Corti, B. Development of a public open space desktop auditing tool (POSDAT): A remote sensing approach. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 38, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Crawford, D.; Timperio, A.; Giles-Corti, B.; Ball, K.; Hume, C.; Roberts, R.; Andrianopoulos, N.; Salmon, J. Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-economic status? Health Place 2008, 14, 889–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Battisti, C. Experiential key species for the nature-disconnected generation. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 485–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schipperijna, J.; Ekholmb, O.; Stigsdottera, U.K.; Toftagerb, M.; Bentsena, P.; Kamper-Jørgensenb, F.; Randrupa, T.B. Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 95, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Payne, S.R.; Fuller, R.A.; Painter, B.; Gaston, K.J. Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: An interdisciplinary, empirical study. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tonge, J.; Moore, S.A. Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine-park hinterlands: A Western Australian case study. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 768–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ikin, K.; Le Roux, D.S.; Rayner, L.; Villaseñor, N.R.; Eyles, K.; Gibbons, P.; Manning, A.D.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Key lessons for achieving biodiversity-sensitive cities and towns. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2015, 16, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Antognelli, S.; Vizzari, M. Landscape liveability spatial assessment integrating ecosystem and urban services with their perceived importance by stakeholders. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 703–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Massey, D. Liveable town and cities: Approaches for planners. Town Plan. Rev. 2005, 76, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Taylor, B.T.; Fernando, P.; Bauman, A.E.; Williamson, A.; Craig, J.C.; Redman, S. Measuring the quality of public open space using Google Earth. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 40, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Shackleton, S.; Chinyimba, A.; Hebinck, P.; Shackleton, C.; Kaoma, H. Multiple benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two towns in northern South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 136, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barth, B.J.; FitzGibbon, S.I.; Wilson, R.S. New urban developments that retain more remnant trees have greater bird diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 136, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Čavić, L.; Beirão, J.N. Open Public Space Attributes and Categories—Complexity and Measurability. Arhit. Razisk. 2014, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  42. Balding, M.; Williams, K.J. Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kázmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Schneider, J.; Lorencová, H. Recreational activities, practices and attitudes of visitors to the protected landscape areas as a basis for resolving conflicts of recreation and nature protection. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2015, 63, 1555–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Soga, M.; Yamaura, Y.; Aikoh, T.; Shoji, Y.; Kubo, T.; Gaston, K.J. Reducing the extinction of experience: Association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 143, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hughes, M. Researching the links between parklands and health. In Wellness Tourism: A Destination Perspective; Voigt, C., Pforr, C., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014; pp. 147–160. ISBN 978-1-1-380820-0-7. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hagerman, C. Shaping neighborhoods and nature: Urban political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations in Portland, Oregon. Cities 2007, 24, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dietsch, A.M.; Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 1212–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Revell, G.; Anda, M. Sustainable urban biophilia: The case of greenskins for urban density. Sustainability 2014, 6, 5423–5438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249, 118–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Hillsdon, M.; Panter, J.; Foster, C.; Jones, A. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health 2006, 120, 1127–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shanahan, D.F.; Lin, B.B.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Dean, J.H.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Toward improved public health outcomes from urban nature. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; Gärling, T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Thompson, C.W. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Appiah-Opoku, S. Using protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation and ecotourism: A case study of Kakum National Park in Ghana. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2011, 24, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Do, Y.; Kim, S.B.; Kim, J.Y.; Joo, G.J. Wetland-based tourism in South Korea: Who, When, and Why. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 2015, 23, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dale, P.E.R.; Connelly, R. Wetlands and human health: An overview. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 2012, 20, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 913–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Shanahan, D.F.; Lin, B.B.; Gaston, K.J.; Bush, R.; Fuller, R.A. What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Staats, H.; Kieviet, A.; Hartig, T. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Francis, J.; Giles-Corti, B.; Wood, L.; Knuiman, M. Creating sense of community: The role of public space. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hock Teck, L.H.; Chin Siong, H.; Ali, H.M.; Tu, F. Do institutions matter in neighbourhood commons governance? A two-stage relationship between diverse property-rights structure and residential public open space (POS) quality: Kota Kinabalu and Penampang, Sabah, Malaysia. Int. J. Commons 2016, 10, 294–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Conteh, F.M.; Oktay, D. Measuring Liveability by Exploring Urban qualities of Kissy Street, Freetown, Sierra Leone. Open House Int. 2016, 41, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  66. Cattell, V.; Dines, N.; Gesler, W.; Curtis, S. Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health Place 2008, 14, 544–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Nasution, A.D.; Zahrah, W. Public open space privatization and quality of life, case study Merdeka Square Medan. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 466–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kurniawati, W. Public space for marginal people. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sugiyama, T.; Gunn, L.D.; Christian, H.; Francis, J.; Foster, S.; Hooper, P.; Owen, N.; Giles-Corti, B. Quality of public open spaces and recreational walking. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 2490–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Francis, J.; Wood, L.J.; Knuiman, M.; Giles-Corti, B. Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 74, 1570–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zhang, W. Research on how to Improve the Liveability of City Community. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 174–177, 3503–3506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Stanley, M.C.; Beggs, J.R.; Bassett, I.E.; Burns, B.R.; Dirks, K.N.; Jones, D.N.; Linklater, W.L.; Macinnis-Ng, C.; Simcock, R.; Souter-Brown, G.; et al. Emerging threats in urban ecosystems: A horizon scanning exercise. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015, 13, 553–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Howley, P.; Scott, M.; Redmond, D. Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 847–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Horan, E.; Craven, J.; Goulding, R. Sustainable urban development and liveability. How can Melbourne retain its title as the world’s most liveable city and strive for sustainability at the same time? Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 3, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Giap, T.K.; Thye, W.W.; Aw, G. A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities: The Global Liveable Cities Index. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 11, 176–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hausmann, A.; Slotow, R.O.B.; Burns, J.K.; Di Minin, E. The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv. 2016, 43, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shamsuddin, S.; Hassan, N.R.A.; Bilyamin, S.F.I. Walkable environment in increasing the liveability of a city. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 50, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gelissen, J. Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 392–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bennett, N.J. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Manfredo, M.J.; Teel, T.L.; Dietsch, A.M. Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Wetzstein, S. Perceptions of Urban Elites on Four Australasian Cities: How does Perth Compare; Committee for Perth, University of Western Australia: Perth, Australia, 2010; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  83. Sushinsky, J.R.; Rhodes, J.R.; Possingham, H.P.; Gill, T.K.; Fuller, R.A. How should we grow cities to minimize their biodiversity impacts? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 19, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Turner, W.R.; Nakamura, T.; Dinetti, M. Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. BioScience 2004, 54, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Young, R.; Zanders, J.; Lieberknecht, K.; Fassman-Beck, E. A comprehensive typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 2571–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jarden, K.M.; Jefferson, A.J.; Grieser, J.M. Assessing the effects of catchment-scale urban green infrastructure retrofits on hydrograph characteristics. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 1536–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Whitehouse, A. Common economic oversights in green infrastructure valuation. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ambrey, C.; Byrne, J.; Matthews, T.; Davison, A.; Portanger, C.; Lo, A. Cultivating climate justice: Green infrastructure and suburban disadvantage in Australia. Appl. Geogr. 2017, 89, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Jerome, G. Defining community-scale green infrastructure. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Heckert, M.; Rosan, C.D. Developing a green infrastructure equity index to promote equity planning. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 19, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Salata, K.; Yiannakou, A. Green Infrastructure and climate change adaptation. TeMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2016, 9, 7–24. [Google Scholar]
  92. Lennon, M. Green infrastructure and planning policy: A critical assessment. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 957–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Derkzen, M.L.; van Teeffelen, A.J.; Verburg, P.H. Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation: How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 106–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Wilker, J.; Rusche, K.; Rymsa-Fitschen, C. Improving participation in green infrastructure planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2016, 31, 229–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Green, T.L.; Kronenberg, J.; Andersson, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Insurance value of green infrastructure in and around cities. Ecosystems 2016, 19, 1051–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Raquel, C.D.S.M.; Montalto, F.A.; Palmer, M.I. Potential climate change impacts on green infrastructure vegetation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Andersson, E.; Barthel, S.; Borgström, S.; Colding, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Folke, C.; Gren, Å. Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem Services. Ambio 2014, 43, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Netusil, N.R.; Levin, Z.; Shandas, V.; Hart, T. Valuing green infrastructure in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 124, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Data 03 00051 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA Expression for systematic quantitative literature review.
Figure 1. PRISMA Expression for systematic quantitative literature review.
Data 03 00051 g001
Table
Table 1. Metadata specification for paper/source descriptors.
Table 1. Metadata specification for paper/source descriptors.
DescriptorsData TypeDescription
Paper IDNumericAssigned by researchers 1 to 87 so that papers/sources could be discovered and added to review database
AuthorsTextNames of authors as listed on front of paper/source
First In-text Ref.TextInitial APA-formatted in-text reference for paper/source
Subsequent In-text Ref.TextSubsequent APA-formatted in-text reference for paper/source
APA CitationTextFull APA-formatted citation for use in bibliography/reference list
YearDateYear of publication of paper/source
TitleTextTitle of paper/source
Journal/SourceTextName of journal or type of source
Vol(Iss/Num)/Chap, pp.TextNumeric identifiers
Type of PaperCategorical1 = Research paper/report
2 = Review paper/report
3 = Combination of review and research
4 = Editorial/thought piece
Table
Table 2. Metadata specifications for geographic data. EIU, Economist Intelligence Unit.
Table 2. Metadata specifications for geographic data. EIU, Economist Intelligence Unit.
DescriptorsData TypeDescription
Focus of Paper/ReportCategorical1 = Australia
2 = International (countries other than Australia)
3 = Global (broadly focused, but specific countries not named)
CountryTextCountry/countries named in paper/report or global
RegionTextRegional focus of paper/report or global
CityTextCity/cities named in paper/report
NA = Not applicable for global/review papers
NS = Not specified
Type of Space(s)Categorical1 = Specific/individual space
2 = Few local spaces in single city
3 = Broadly focused single city
4 = Few local spaces in multiple cities, single/multiple countries
5 = Broadly focused multiple cities, single country
6 = Broadly focused multiple cities, multiple countries
Name of Space(s)TextName/description of spaces from paper/report or not specified
Population DensityTextNumber of people per square km
NA= Not applicable
ND = No data
NS = Not specified
ClimateCategoricalE = Equatorial
A = Arid
M = Mediterranean
T = Temperate
S = Snow
P = Polar
NA = Not applicable
NS = Not specified
2015 EIUText1 to 140 = EIU City Liveability ranking for 2015
NA = Not applicable
NR = Not ranked by EIU as one of the 140 most liveable cities
NS = Not specified which cities were included in study
2015 MercerText1 to 231 = Mercer Quality of Living ranking for 2017
NA = Not applicable
NR = Not rated as one of Mercer’s 231 most liveable cities
NS = Not specified which cities were included in study
2018 EIUText1 to 140 = EIU City Liveability ranking for 2015
NA = Not applicable
NR = Not ranked by EIU as one of the 140 most liveable cities
NS = Not specified which cities were included in study
2018 MercerText1 to 231 = Mercer Quality of Living ranking for 2017
NA = Not applicable
NR = Not rated as one of Mercer’s 231 most liveable cities
NS = Not specified which cities were included in study
Table
Table 3. Metadata specifications for data of systemic literature review reported in Land [8]. GIS, geographic information system(s); POS, public open space.
Table 3. Metadata specifications for data of systemic literature review reported in Land [8]. GIS, geographic information system(s); POS, public open space.
Measurement Tools and Methods
DescriptorsData TypeDescription
Proposed New ToolCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
GISCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
QualitativeCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
QuantitativeCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
No. of Study ParticipantsTextNumeric value = number of participants (research papers)
Text = Alternate source of human data
NA = Not applicable (review paper or no participants)
Other/CommentsTextText = Other types of measurement tools or methods used
NA = Not applicable (review paper/no other tools/methods)
Focus Areas Covered in Paper
DescriptorsData TypeDescription
Health/Well-BeingCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Quality POSCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Environmental/EcologicalCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Planning/PolicyCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
LiveabilityCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
EconomicCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
SocialCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Other/CommentsTextText = Other focus areas/insights provided in paper/report
NA = Not applicable (other focus areas not covered)
Contributors of City Liveability
DescriptorsData TypeDescription
Easy Access to GI/POSCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
WalkabilityCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Tree Canopy CoverCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Green/POS InfrastructureCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Quality GI/POSCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
Biodiversity/Ecological OpportunityCategorical1 = Yes
0 = No
OtherTextText = Other contributors/insights regarding city liveability
NA = Not applicable (no other contributors to liveability)
Recommendations of paper
DescriptorsData TypeDescription
Claim Lack of ResearchCategorical1 = Yes
2 = No
Suggestion for Further ResearchCategorical1 = Yes
2 = No
OtherTextExtract/summary of recommendations provided in paper
Table
Table 4. Search terms used to identify papers included in the literature review. Potential papers were filtered using the primary and secondary search terms in the preliminary search.
Table 4. Search terms used to identify papers included in the literature review. Potential papers were filtered using the primary and secondary search terms in the preliminary search.
Primary Search TermsSecondary Search Terms
“public green infrastructure”
“public open space”
“POS”
“urban open space”
“green space”
“urban nature”
“park”
“wetland”		“liveability/livability”
“city liveability/livability”
“user satisfaction”
“visitor satisfaction”

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Simpson, G.D.; Parker, J. Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability. Data 2018, 3, 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/data3040051

AMA Style

Simpson GD, Parker J. Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability. Data. 2018; 3(4):51. https://doi.org/10.3390/data3040051

Chicago/Turabian Style

Simpson, Greg D., and Jackie Parker. 2018. "Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability" Data 3, no. 4: 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/data3040051

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop