A Framework for Connecting Urban Green Infrastructure and Social Cohesion
This publication is part of my master’s thesis that I wrote in 2015. I hope it will be beneficial for those who are interested in pursuing this valuable research.
Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI)
For over a century and a half, UGI has established a longstanding history in the areas of planning and conservation. Therefore, it is not a recent opinion but a new term. This concept has evolved from two crucial aspects such as the connection between parks and other green spaces in order to retain advantages for people as well as the connection within natural spaces that contributes to benefit biodiversity (Benedict and McMahon, 2002).
UGI represents an elusive concept with various definitions, but the typical description of UGI is related to its potential for planning, designing, and managing nature and the city to promote services, varying from small features like green roofs to large-scale ecosystems for flood control (Wright, 2011; Mell, 2013; Rouse and Bunster-Ossa 2013). Nevertheless, most interpretations of Green Infrastructure (GI) are related to “networks” (Opdam 2002; Jongman and Pungetti 2004; Opdam et al. 2006).
Benedict and McMahon (2006) assert GI as an “interconnected network of green space that conserve natural ecosystem values and functions and provide associated benefits to the human population. GI is the ecological framework needed for environmental, social, and economic sustainability, and it differs from conventional approaches to open space planning because it looks at conservation values and actions in concern with land development, growth management, and built infrastructure planning”.
The European Commission described UGI as a “tool for providing ecological, economic, and social benefits through natural solutions, helping us to understand the advantages nature offers human society and to mobilize investments that sustain and enhance these benefits” (EC, 2013).
Social Cohesion
The sociologist Emile Durkheim was the first to evoke the concept of social cohesion. He described social cohesion as the association between individuals in a society that incorporates commitment and cooperation between them (Jenson 1998). Judith Maxwell (1996) argues that social cohesion creates opportunities for people to have a sense of belonging in a community enterprise, to share challenges and to have a feeling of membership.
Social cohesion emerges from the equal distribution of distinctive social outcomes (e.g., finance, well-being, education, and the environment) and it will debilitate by the failure of equal distribution of those outcomes (Stanley, 2003). For instance, equal distribution of public spaces such as urban parks plays an essential role in offering an opportunity for citizens to meet and interact with each other from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds (Lofland, 1998; Fainstein, 2005). Moreover, collaborating with others helps citizens to participate in society and experience a sense of belonging which leads to community strengthening and improvement (Putnam, 2000; Völker et al., 2007).
It is noteworthy to point out a few diverse viewpoints that lead to fortifying social cohesion such as:
- strengthens social inclusion
- enhances social capital
- eliminates disparities
- improves participation (Woolley, 1998; Jenson, 1998; Social Capital Initiative 1998; Beckley, 1995).
In addition, social capital is a critical factor in improving the quality of relationships and interactions between individuals or groups and their sense of commitment (McCracken, 1998; Woolley, 1998; Jenson 1998 Coleman, 1998).
As a consequence, social inclusion, social capital, and participation remain the essential factors for increasing social cohesion.
- Social Capital
The implication of social capital refers to two dimensions, rational capital (interpersonal relationship) and collective capital (various forms of social involvement in the local community or residential area). Social capital creates a network of trust and relationships between the members of a society (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1995). According to Granovetter (1973), social capital is the time that people spend together including the intensity of emotions and the opinions they exchange.
Putnam (1995) described social capital as: “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”.
Moreover, Putnam (2000) defined two types of social capital: “bonding and bridging”.
According to the table above, bridging social capital provides an inclusive environment where people of different ethnicities and backgrounds can engage and increase social community, whereas, bonding social capital is more considered a small part of a society where people have a close relationship with each other such as family and friends. Both aspects of social capital have powerful social impacts on individuals, groups, and different communities. For instance, bonding social capital helps individuals to strengthen their identity, get support from their parents or close friends, and avoid them feeling lonely. On the other hand, bridging social capital provides opportunities for people to recognize various cultures and to be able to exchange information as well as promote a strong network between communities (Putnam, 2000).
2. Social Inclusion
The European Commission defined social inclusion as “enabling every citizen, notably the most disadvantaged, to fully participate in society, including having a job”.
According to Cameron 2006, “Where a conceptualization of inclusion does appear in the social exclusion literature, it is often only indirect. Frequently, for example, it appears in invocations of ‘normal’ social expectation/participation or, more commonly, ‘mainstream’ applied to various things that people are understood to be excluded from the labor market, economy, society, culture, citizenship, etc. The meaning and location of the mainstream are routinely taken to be self-evident. As this implies, social inclusion is most commonly defined only negatively — as whatever is not socially excluded. For this reason, much of the discussion of social inclusion is conceptually dominated by exclusion — social exclusion is the datum point against which social inclusion is both empirically measured and conceptually defined”.
3. Participation
Several research studies indicated that participation is related to the decision-making process performed by various stakeholders like neighborhood individuals and NGOs (Smith, 1983; Rowe et al., 2004). However, there are some scholarly debates about stakeholder participation. Innes and Booher (2004) argued participation should involve a wide range of stakeholders such as special interest groups, non-profit organizations, and the private and public sectors that can enhance social capital in modern society. In contrast, Brody (2003) stated that the significant issue regarding participation is to consider only specific stakeholders who can increase the quality of plans and decisions rather than involving a large number of stakeholders.
A participatory approach must be effective and provide satisfactory administration to dodge failure in improving the quality of decision-making, project implementation, and citizens’ requests (Innes and Booher, 2004; Olander and Landin, 2008). For instance, community states of mind are known as an essential factor in planning and project development (Rogers, 1998). Each group of stakeholders considers different demands and a program can only accommodate a few of them. Subsequently, it is vital to take care of different points of view from stakeholders to perform an appropriate decision (Watson et al., 2002).
The Framework
Abbreviation's definition: UGIA: Urban Green Infrastructure assets; UP: urban park; CG: community garden; NA: natural area; UGI F & S: Urban Green Infrastructure functions and service; AP: air purification; CR: climate and radiation regulation; WP: water purification; HP: habitat provision; AS: aesthetic and spiritual; NP: noise pollution control; PH: psychological health; PE: positive emotion; RS: relaxation from stress; HB: health and body function; EN: enjoyment; SC: social cohesion; DM: decision making; CE: community empowerment; SW: social welfare; PA: participation; SI: social inclusion; SC: social capital.
The principal matter that this framework discusses concerns the correlation between social cohesion and urban green infrastructure (UGI). The relationship between the aforementioned concepts is intricate and is illustrated in the diagram presented below. This conceptual framework pertains to a scholarly inquiry that elucidates the functional interconnections among green infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health (Tzoulas et al., 2007). In light of the primary outcomes of this empirical inquiry, a correlation between the aforementioned factors and social solidarity would be discernible.
Hence, this framework incorporates four principal notions, namely the urban green infrastructure assets, the function and services of such infrastructure, as well as its impact on psychological health and social cohesion.
The graphical representation, as depicted in the figure above, highlights the correlations that exist between The UGI system and social cohesion, as posited by the framework. The implementation of green infrastructure, with its inherent ecosystem functions and associated services, engenders environmental conditions influential to community health (Tzoulas et al., 2007). The diagram presented the figure depicts the urban green infrastructure assets wherein their corresponding functions and services are illustrated. Furthermore, the lower section of the said figure exhibits social community and network alongside psychological health.
The present investigation deliberates upon the urban park, community garden, and natural area as essential components of the urban green infrastructure. the urban park assumes a significant role in society as it facilitates connectivity between the grey infrastructure and the green infrastructure (Tzoulas et al., 2007). The enhancement of social interactions is facilitated by means of organized gatherings and communal physical activities, while concurrently establishing designated spaces for strolling and unwinding. In addition, the aesthetic quality of parks, which is fostered by intentional design and planning efforts, holds substantial significance for psychological well-being by fostering positive emotions and reducing stress among park users (Benedict and McMahon, 2002). The present framework demonstrates the interrelation between the assets of the UGI and the services and functions they enable through a one-way arrow.
The implementation of UGI assets holds the potential to provide diverse ecological and societal functions, such as air purification, regulation of climate and radiation, and reduction of noise pollution. Such functions and services are expected to ameliorate the environmental quality and confer benefits to society (Benedict and McMahon, 2002).
The lower segment of the framework depicts the reciprocal association and interplay of psychological well-being and social cohesion through a bidirectional arrow. Psychological health denotes an individual’s emotional well-being, characterized by the experience of positive affective states, such as pleasure and contentment, as well as the ability to minimize and cope with stressors effectively. The manifold positive emotions that individuals experience play a pivotal role, as they confer various advantages and imbue them with physical and mental well-being, thereby enabling them to engage in interpersonal communication and interaction, as well as partake in diverse group activities, including sports. It is posited that engagement in varying undertakings and green initiatives within urban locales engenders an inclusive social atmosphere that imparts to social capital. In essence, the nexus of individuals will be fortified through increased social cohesion (Konijnendijk et al., 2013; De Vries et al., 2003; Takano et al., 2002; Maas et al., 2006).
Recommendation for UGI planning
Based on the principal findings of this research regarding social cohesion, different concepts such as participation, social capital, social inclusion, equal distribution, and justice access to green spaces are significant factors for enhancing social cohesion. Below the different arguments gently explain why these factors are significant for this review:
Justice access and equal distribution of green spaces
The research findings have acknowledged that justice and equitable access are fundamental components that foster social participation, social capital, and social cohesion within society. In line with the strategies designed to promote equal access to green spaces in Malmö and Bristol, a comprehensive analysis has been conducted to evaluate various categories of green spaces. The analysis has entailed determining the thresholds of maximum distances separating respective green spaces from the dwellings of residents (Bristol’s Park and Green Space Grönplan för Malmö, 2003)
According to the data presented in the table above, there exists a dissimilarity in the allocation of green spaces between Bristol City and Malmö’s green strategic approach.
The Bristol strategies entail the allocation of green spaces that cater to the recreational needs of both the younger population and children, as well as to individuals who seek to engage in leisure activities in formal green spaces, such as parks or gardens. Additionally, these strategies also aim to address the demands of residents who require an appropriate venue to partake in athletic pursuits such as football or tennis.
The City of Malmö delineates green spaces in both neighborhood and city landscapes as parks. The maximum distance required to access a garden or nearest park in each respective city is approximately 300 meters. Of note, there exists a disparity between the two cities with regard to the maximum distance allowable for reaching natural green spaces. Bristol permits a maximum distance of up to 700 meters, while Malmö allows for a distance of up to 3000 meters. Furthermore, the two cities prioritize the quantification of the duration required to access the proximate green space from the domicile of the inhabitants, with Malmo presenting a 5-minute walking time and Bristol requiring a 9-minute walking time. According to the presented data, individuals residing in Bristol can access various green spaces within a maximum travel time of 18 minutes. Conversely, in the urban area of Malmö, the furthest city park may require up to 30 minutes.to reach. (Bristol’s Park and Green 2008 and Grönplan för Malmö, 2003).
The allocation and magnitude of green spaces hold significant relevance in fostering social connectivity amongst inhabitants. Conversely, the principles of quality and safety are significant factors in ensuring overall satisfaction of the citizenry. The general populace exhibits a marked inclination towards a higher standard of quality in parks, as opposed to a greater number of parks possessing a meager quality (Bristol’s Park and Green Space Strategy, 2008). The matter of disseminating safety and excellence within parks correlates with the inquiry conducted by Seaman et al. (2010), which delineated that the availability of green spaces serves not only to enhance physical exercise and psychological well-being, but it also constitutes a significant aspect in fostering social inclusivity and integration.
Based on the findings of this investigation, individuals exhibit a tendency to favor parks that offer a superior standard of amenities and amenities that facilitate the chance to engage in leisure activities with their offspring and take pleasure in the environment. The mitigation and reduction of anti-social conduct, mainly attributable to youth, such as drug consumption, within park grounds constitutes a crucial element in fostering a secure and enhanced park environment. Consequently, individuals experience a sense of security when allocating their time in green spaces.
It is of paramount importance to underscore that each of the case studies presented in this paper has addressed the key objectives of enhancing safety and social capital within green spaces, as well as bolstering participation and trust among members of society. However, a limited number of recommendations effectively address the issue of unsafe areas, necessitating further investigation to yield a viable solution that enhances security for inhabitants within a particular locality. The following recommendations pertain to Bristol’s Park and Green Space Strategy of 2008:
- dog fouling represents a ubiquitous concern among visitors to public park spaces located in Bristol. Individuals most affected by this matter include minors, caregivers, and individuals with disabilities. In response to the aforementioned concern, a designated area prohibiting the presence of dogs has been established, replete with a diverse array of recreational amenities designed to appeal to young children and facilitate physical activity, as well as spaces intended purely for leisurely pursuits.
- additionally, criminal activities as well as anti-social behavior, exemplified by drug usage, engender a sense of insecurity and simultaneously compromise the caliber of the natural surroundings. Several measures have been implemented to mitigate these issues. Examples of such interventions include augmenting the number of park custodians to regulate the safety of the vicinity, and fostering effective dialogue between law enforcement agencies and the anti-social behavior team.
- an additional concern pertains to the proliferation of exuberant vegetation, including bushes and trees, within and throughout park facilities. Such growth exacerbates the dimness of the area, thereby contributing to a compromised sense of safety. Consequently, it is imperative that a systematic plan is devised for park maintenance personnel to undertake the removal of excessive flora and foliage in order to augment illumination within the designated premise.
UGI planning challenges and barriers
According to the results of this investigation, the primary challenges and impediments for planners are population expansion and urban spread, resulting in a requirement for increased gray infrastructure development (Benedict and McMahon, 2002; Bristol’s Park and G Strategy, 2008).
In response to these challenges, the city of Malmö is endeavoring to attain a balance between land usage demands and the expansion of green spaces within urban locales. Moreover, their key priorities entail enhancing safety and quality, whilst also offering versatile “green” areas that serve a multitude of purposes (Socially sustainable Malmö, 2013).
Furthermore, Bristol is offering easily reachable ecological areas to foster an all-encompassing atmosphere that may facilitate fairness and impartiality. Furthermore, efforts are being made to facilitate collaborative engagement with the community in the conception and administration of ecologically sustainable spaces (Bristol’s Park and G Strategy, 2008).
Conversely, the city of Aarhus is confronted with an inadequacy of ample financial resources for the execution of a comprehensive blueprint for the upkeep of its verdant domains. The limited allocation of financial resources from the local government may impede the pace of the process and occasionally result in stagnant progress (Stahl Olafsson et al., 2015).
Participation and decision-making
The engagement of citizens in social endeavors and its effect on the process of urban planning can bestow upon them an opportunity to experience a sense of affiliation and entitlement to participate as members of diverse social communities (Socially sustainable Malmö, 2013). The ameliorated entrenchment and engagement within the community are the results of active participation and decision-making processes. Such involvement facilitates a sense of belonging which affords individuals the capability to engage with activities and construct plans whilst effectively articulating their demands regarding park facilities, quality, and design (Putnam, 2000; Völker et al., 2007).
Llausàs and Roe (2012) deliberated on the potential merits of merging cultural assets with GI to augment community empowerment and enhance overall quality. According to the findings of this study, the distribution of green spaces is a significant determinant of landscape character. As such, the adoption of GI has the potential to serve as a crucial link, connecting individuals with their surroundings (Beatley, 2000). The establishment of such associations serves to increase cognizance about the ways in which GI can enhance social unity and civic engagement. Demonstratively, the implementation of Comm planting and project management in England may serve as a means to prevent social marginalization (see Blackman & Thackray, 2007). An exemplar instance can be witnessed in the city of Aarhus, wherein the engagement of diverse individuals in the design and planning process, such as through urban gardening, leads to their participation in the social conglomeration (Stahl Olafsson et al., 2015).
The present paper’s case studies reveal a correlation between the act of participating and decision-making outcomes. The municipality and local government are typically charged with making the final decision, although citizens and NGOs may avail themselves of opportunities to participate and contribute their expertise. In order to effectively address the aforementioned scenarios, a robust organizational framework bolstered by the backing of local administrative authorities is imperative. Community engagement initiatives may sometimes be subsidized, yet budget constraints can potentially act as an impediment to their advancement.
The issue of inadequate public awareness and insufficient understanding about the benefits of nature constitutes an additional obstacle to participation. Nevertheless, educational gatherings such as tree planting sessions, particularly for educational institutions, can provide a platform for enhancing the public’s knowledge regarding nature and green spaces, while simultaneously facilitating engagement with diverse cultures and fostering communal interaction (Socially sustainable Malmö, 2013).
Social capital
Granovetter (1973) explicated that social capital pertains to the duration in which individuals congregate to exchange their knowledge. According to the assertion made by Putnam (1995), social organization is poised to foster collaboration among individuals with mutual interests.
According to the findings of the present study, green spaces provide an opportunity for individuals to experience relaxation, relieve themselves of stress associated with daily life, and relish their exposure to verdant areas. Investing in green spaces plays a crucial role in advancing social capital among local communities. In order to comprehend more comprehensively the situational landscape that surrounds us, individuals must engage in interpersonal exchange wherein they exchange viewpoints, articulate requests, and take an active role in diverse ventures and undertakings. Parks offer an appropriate venue for individuals to participate in various pursuits and endeavors (Konijnendijk et al., 2013; St Leger, 2003; Stokols et al., 2003).
The reinforcing of social capital can be facilitated by two significant elements, namely bridging and bonding social capital. It is of paramount importance to ensure that society encompasses both of these facets. A society that solely relies on bonding social capital, such as interpersonal relationships amongst close friends and families, is liable to generate a community that is insular in nature, thereby potentially leading to weakened inter-personal connections amongst its constituents. Thus, the cultivation of bridging social capital engenders an all-embracing milieu, and exhibits a salutary influence in fostering interconnection among individuals, notably from diverse cultural and societal backgrounds (Putnam, 2000).
Numerous academic works have expounded upon how the presence of green spaces enhances social capital by affording individuals the opportunity to convene and socialize within a given region. However, scant attention has been devoted to strategies aimed at fostering increased motivation to interact amongst green space users, ultimately culminating in the bolstering of mutual trust. One possible solution entail implementing voluntary initiatives, particularly educational activities, aimed at fostering a sense of community connection among local residents. This approach seeks to encourage individuals to engage in meaningful interactions, ultimately leading to the formation of robust social networks within their respective communities.
References
Beckley, T., (1995). Community stability and the relationship between economic and social well-being in forest dependentcommunities. Society & Natural Resources 8, 261–266.
Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities (Washington: Island Press).
Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century, Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series. URL: www. sprawlwatch. org (verified June 2007).
Benedict, M. A., and McMahon, E. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities (Washington, DC: Island Press).
Blackman, D. & Thackray, R. (2007) The Green Infrastructure of Sustainable Communities, England’s Community Forests. Available at http://www.communityforest.org.uk/resources/ECF_GI_Report.pdf (accessed 9 December 2009).
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
Bristol City Council., (2008). Bristol Parks and Green Space Strategy [Online]. Available from: www.bristol.gov.uk/page/-leisure-and-culture/bristol-parks-and-green-space-strategy; accessed 25/09/2014.
Brody, S. D., (2003). Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of Local Plans Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22: 407–419.
Cameron, C. (2006). “Geographies of welfare and exclusion: Social Inclusion and Exception” in Progress in Human Geography 30, 3 (2006) Pp. 396–404
De Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and planning A,35(10), 1717–1732.
European Commission (2014). Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/green_infrastructure_broc.pdf
Ericson, G., Jönsson, J., Jönsson, L., Klingberg, B., (2003). Grönplan för Malmö. Sweden [Online]. Available form: http://malmo.se/download/18.5d8108001222c393c008000101293/1383647019267/Gr%C3%B6nplan+f%C3%B6r+Malm%C3%B6+2003.pdf
Fainstein, S.S., (2005). Cities and diversity. Urban Affairs Review 41, 3–19.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Innes, J. E., Booher, D. E., (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice 5(4), 419–436.
Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Canadian policy research networks, CPRN study no. F03, Ottawa.
Jongman, R.H.G. and Pungetti, G., eds., (2004). Ecological networks and greenways; conception, design, implementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Konijnendijk, C. C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A. B., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2013). Benefits of urban parks: A systematic review. Copenhagen.
Lofland, L.H., (1998). In: The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Llausàs, A., & Roe, M. (2012). Green infrastructure planning: Cross-national analysis between the north east of England (UK) and Catalonia (Spain).European planning studies, 20(4), 641–663.
Maxwell, J. (1996). Social dimensions of economic growth. University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
McCracken, M. (1998). Social cohesion and macroeconomic performance. Centre for the study of living standards (CSLS), conference: The state of living standards and the quality of life, Ottawa, Ontario/Canada.
Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 587–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125
Mell, I.C., (2013). Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of green infrastructure development. Local Environment, 18 (2), 152–166.
Opdam, P., (2002). Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In: K.J. Gutzwiller, ed. Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. New York City, NY: Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 381–404.
Opdam, P., Steingro¨ver, E., and Rooij, S.V., (2006). Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75 (3–4), 322–332.
Olander, S., Landin, A., (2008). A Comparative Study of Factors Affecting the External Stakeholder Management Process. Construction Management and Economics 26(6), 553–561.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). ´Bowling alone`: America´s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Putnam, R., (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster, NY.
Rogers, G. O., (1998). Siting Potentially Hazardous Facilities: What Factors Impact Perceived and Acceptable Risk? Landscape and Urban Planning 39(4), 265–281.
Rouse, D.C. and Bunster-Ossa, I.F., (2013). Green infrastructure: a landscape approach. Washington, DC: American Planning Association.
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., Frewer, L. J., (2004). Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference in Science. Technology and Human Values 29, 88–121.
Stanley, D. (2001). Strategic research and analysis. Department of Canadian heritage, Ottawa. Holding the centre. SRA558
Smith, L. G., (1983). Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resource Management. Longman, Harlow, UK.
Social Capital Initiative (SCI), World Bank. (1998). the initiative on defining, monitoring and measuring social capital. Overview and program description. Social capital initiative working paper, №1. Washington, D.C.
Stahl Olafsson, A., Hjorth Caspersen, O., Steen Møller, M. (2015). Green Surge report of case study city portraits. Københavns Universitet (UCPH), Denmark. Retrieved from http://greensurge.eu/products/case studies/GREEN_SURGE_Report_of_City_Portraits_small.pdf
St Leger, L., (2003). Health and nature — new challenges for health promotion. Health Promot. Int. 18, 173–175.
Stokols, D., Grzywacz, J.G., McMahan, S., Phillips, K., (2003). Increasing the health promotive capacity of human environments. Am. J. Health Promot.18, 4–13.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemelä, J., James, P. (2007). Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 81. 167–178. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
Takano, T., Nakamura, K.,Watanabe, M., (2002). Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in mega-city areas: the importance of walkable green space. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 56 (12), 913–916.
Völker, B., Flap, H.D. & Lindenberg, S. (2007). When are neighborhoods communities? Community in Dutch neighborhoods. European Sociological Review 23, 99–114.
Watson, T., Osborne-Brown, S., Longhurst, M., (2002). Issues Negotiation — Investing in Stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 7(1), 54–61.
Woolley, F. (1998). Social cohesion and voluntary activity: making connections. Center for the study of living standards (CSLS), conference: The state of living standards and the quality of life, Ottawa, Ontario/Canada
Wright, H., (2011). Understanding green infrastructure: the development of a contested concept in England. Local Environment, 16 (10), 1003–1019.
