Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability
Abstract
:1. Summary
2. Data Description
3. Methods
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary File 1Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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).
- 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]
- 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]
- Parker, J.; Simpson, G. Green Infrastructure Contribution to City Liveability: A Systematic Quantitative Review. Land 2018. under review. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 110, 433–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Met Office. Helping You Understand Weather and Climate; Met Office, Government of the UK: Exeter, UK, 2012; pp. 2–3.
- 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]
- 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]
- ProQuest Summon® 2.0. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/products-services/The-Summon-Service.html (accessed on 7 October 2018).
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Battisti, C. Experiential key species for the nature-disconnected generation. Anim. Conserv. 2016, 19, 485–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Massey, D. Liveable town and cities: Approaches for planners. Town Plan. Rev. 2005, 76, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Čavić, L.; Beirão, J.N. Open Public Space Attributes and Categories—Complexity and Measurability. Arhit. Razisk. 2014, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Balding, M.; Williams, K.J. Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 1192–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Hagerman, C. Shaping neighborhoods and nature: Urban political ecologies of urban waterfront transformations in Portland, Oregon. Cities 2007, 24, 285–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Revell, G.; Anda, M. Sustainable urban biophilia: The case of greenskins for urban density. Sustainability 2014, 6, 5423–5438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Thompson, C.W. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Dale, P.E.R.; Connelly, R. Wetlands and human health: An overview. Wetlands Ecol. Manag. 2012, 20, 165–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kurniawati, W. Public space for marginal people. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 36, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Zhang, W. Research on how to Improve the Liveability of City Community. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 174–177, 3503–3506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Gelissen, J. Explaining popular support for environmental protection: A multilevel analysis of 50 nations. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 392–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, N.J. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- Turner, W.R.; Nakamura, T.; Dinetti, M. Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. BioScience 2004, 54, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Whitehouse, A. Common economic oversights in green infrastructure valuation. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Jerome, G. Defining community-scale green infrastructure. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Salata, K.; Yiannakou, A. Green Infrastructure and climate change adaptation. TeMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2016, 9, 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Lennon, M. Green infrastructure and planning policy: A critical assessment. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 957–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Wilker, J.; Rusche, K.; Rymsa-Fitschen, C. Improving participation in green infrastructure planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2016, 31, 229–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
Descriptors | Data Type | Description |
---|---|---|
Paper ID | Numeric | Assigned by researchers 1 to 87 so that papers/sources could be discovered and added to review database |
Authors | Text | Names of authors as listed on front of paper/source |
First In-text Ref. | Text | Initial APA-formatted in-text reference for paper/source |
Subsequent In-text Ref. | Text | Subsequent APA-formatted in-text reference for paper/source |
APA Citation | Text | Full APA-formatted citation for use in bibliography/reference list |
Year | Date | Year of publication of paper/source |
Title | Text | Title of paper/source |
Journal/Source | Text | Name of journal or type of source |
Vol(Iss/Num)/Chap, pp. | Text | Numeric identifiers |
Type of Paper | Categorical | 1 = Research paper/report 2 = Review paper/report 3 = Combination of review and research 4 = Editorial/thought piece |
Descriptors | Data Type | Description |
---|---|---|
Focus of Paper/Report | Categorical | 1 = Australia 2 = International (countries other than Australia) 3 = Global (broadly focused, but specific countries not named) |
Country | Text | Country/countries named in paper/report or global |
Region | Text | Regional focus of paper/report or global |
City | Text | City/cities named in paper/report NA = Not applicable for global/review papers NS = Not specified |
Type of Space(s) | Categorical | 1 = 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) | Text | Name/description of spaces from paper/report or not specified |
Population Density | Text | Number of people per square km NA= Not applicable ND = No data NS = Not specified |
Climate | Categorical | E = Equatorial A = Arid M = Mediterranean T = Temperate S = Snow P = Polar NA = Not applicable NS = Not specified |
2015 EIU | Text | 1 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 Mercer | Text | 1 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 EIU | Text | 1 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 Mercer | Text | 1 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 |
Measurement Tools and Methods | ||
Descriptors | Data Type | Description |
Proposed New Tool | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
GIS | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Qualitative | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Quantitative | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
No. of Study Participants | Text | Numeric value = number of participants (research papers) Text = Alternate source of human data NA = Not applicable (review paper or no participants) |
Other/Comments | Text | Text = Other types of measurement tools or methods used NA = Not applicable (review paper/no other tools/methods) |
Focus Areas Covered in Paper | ||
Descriptors | Data Type | Description |
Health/Well-Being | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Quality POS | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Environmental/Ecological | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Planning/Policy | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Liveability | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Economic | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Social | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Other/Comments | Text | Text = Other focus areas/insights provided in paper/report NA = Not applicable (other focus areas not covered) |
Contributors of City Liveability | ||
Descriptors | Data Type | Description |
Easy Access to GI/POS | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Walkability | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Tree Canopy Cover | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Green/POS Infrastructure | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Quality GI/POS | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Biodiversity/Ecological Opportunity | Categorical | 1 = Yes 0 = No |
Other | Text | Text = Other contributors/insights regarding city liveability NA = Not applicable (no other contributors to liveability) |
Recommendations of paper | ||
Descriptors | Data Type | Description |
Claim Lack of Research | Categorical | 1 = Yes 2 = No |
Suggestion for Further Research | Categorical | 1 = Yes 2 = No |
Other | Text | Extract/summary of recommendations provided in paper |
Primary Search Terms | Secondary 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” |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
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
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 StyleSimpson, 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