4.5 Review

Towards a comprehensive green infrastructure typology: a systematic review of approaches, methods and typologies

期刊

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 15-35

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11252-016-0578-5

关键词

Urban greening; Classification schemes; Typologies; Systematic review; Ecosystem services; Spatial scales

资金

  1. Graduate Research School - UNSW (University International Postgraduate Award - UIPA)
  2. CRC for Low Carbon Living (Top-up scholarship)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is no consensus on a comprehensive classification for green infrastructure (GI). This is a consequence of the diversity of disciplines, application contexts, methods, terminologies, purposes and valuation criteria for which a GI typology is required. The aim of this systematic literature review is to evaluate the existing evidence on how GI is being categorised and characterised worldwide. We reviewed a total of 85 studies from 15 countries that were analysed for contextual trends, methods, parameters and typologies. Results show that relevant literature lacks a common terminology and that a universal typology for all scenarios is impractical. Analysis reveals that GI can be organised into four main GI categories: (a) tree canopy, (b) green open spaces, (c) green roofs and (d) vertical greenery systems (facades/walls). Green open spaces and tree canopy attracted the attention of researchers due to their complexity, variability and important roles in GI planning. Evidence suggests that a ternary approach in terms of the functional (purpose, use, services), structural (morphology) and configurational (spatial arrangements) attributes of GI should be applied for a more comprehensive classification. Although this approximation is inherently generic, since it can be used across different research disciplines, it is also sufficiently specific to be implemented for individual scopes, scenarios and settings. Further research is needed to develop a typology capable of responding to particular research aims and performance analyses based upon the findings discussed in this paper.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据