Green infrastructure indicators for urban planning: applying the integrated approach for Russian largest cities

Abstract

Modern approaches to urban planning assume the dualistic nature of urban green infrastructure (GI). On the one hand, green infrastructure is as an integrated network of natural and semi-natural areas, featuring a delivery of various benefits to humans. On the other hand, GI is multifunctional and provides the residents by complex of ecosystem services to be user-oriented. Most official reports and programs use common indicators that do not characterize distribution, dynamics or state of GI. In our research, we assessed the quality of GI in 15 largest Russian cities by using an integrated assessment of 13 indicators that make up three groups: the ones 1) characterizing general GI availability; 2) supporting a comfortable urban environment («recreational indicators»); and 3) forming a stable ecosystem («integrity indicators»). The cities were ranked by values of every indicator from 1 to 15 and then the results were summed and normalized to get a total mark (max. 100). To assess the development of GI elements of each group, we also ranked cities separately by values of different groups indicators. Thus, our study revealed that satisfactory marks for both recreational and integrity indicators have Ufa, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Ekaterinburg, Perm and Voronezh. In contrast, Saint Petersburg, being a densely built-up city in an auspicious natural zone, got the worst result. According to the final assessment, the quality of green infrastructure in Krasnoyarsk, a large industrial city, and four cities from the steppe zone (Rostov-on-Don, Samara, Omsk, Novosibirsk) is also unsatisfactory. Our method does not cover all GI aspects (like vegetation health) and since it is based solely on remote sensing data and statistics data, there is definitely a room for improvement. However, this method, while being relatively quick and simple to accomplish, allows to assess not only general availability of GI, but its quality and distribution as well, which are essential for urban spatial planning.

Conceptualisation of the Regulatory Framework of Green Infrastructure for Urban Development: Identifying Barriers and Drivers

“…Both in Serbia and Italy, there are no mandatory planning tools for the design and management of GI, and they are now a part of traditional land use plans [69]. Moreover, the lack of financial resources allocated towards the development of "green standards" presents a challenge for the majority of the public administrations in Serbia as well as in other countries [69][70][71]. Therefore, it is proposed to abolish the monopolies held by public utility companies for green spaces to foster competition, deliver higher-quality services at more-affordable rates, and establish a cohesive management strategy.…”

The Green Space Availability in Ufa City Metropolis

“…Estimating the number of green stands involves rationing these. The London Department for Communities and Local Government has set a standard of 40% green infrastructure as a percentage of the city's total land [58,61]. However, the notion of green infrastructure goes beyond green spaces.…”

“…The World Health Organization recommends the minimum availability of green space per inhabitant to −9 m 2 per person and the ideal −50 m 2 per person [9]. Each city resident should have a green space within a 15 min walk [60,61]. The 15 min walking distance to green areas has also been defined as an indicator of urban environmental quality at the European level.…”

Urban Quality of Life Evaluation Using Land Price With Status-Quality Trade-Off Theory and Ecosystem Services

“…The above three measures can be evaluated on the scale of pedestrian movement or on the whole system by using the DepthmapX open-source software. Some studies suggested that five, ten, or fifteen minutes of walk (equivalent to the distance of 400, 800, and 1200 m respectively) are comfortable walking times to reach services and facilities (Klimanova & Illarionova, 2020). This research used an average value of 800 m to perform the analysis on the pedestrian movement scale.…”