Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Review Article

Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the T

literature
⁎
Chris Boultona, , Aysin Dedekorkut-Howesa, Jason Byrneb
a
Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia
b
School of Technology, Environments and Design, University of Tasmania, Australia

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Over the past two decades, there has been an efflorescence of park and greenspace research. This trend may
Urban greenspace reflect substantial increases in urban populations globally and concomitant pressures on land resources – in-
Parks cluding greenspace. But so far research has mainly tended to focus on demand rather than supply, and speci-
Supply factors fically the practice of provision – notwithstanding the body of literature studying disparities in greenspace access
Demand
and geographic distribution through an environmental justice lens (e.g. using spatial analysis). Comparatively
Systematic review
fewer studies have considered the interplay of factors that may shape local government’s capacity to supply
greenspace. This paper reports results of a systematic quantitative review of the greenspace provision literature:
assessing the factors that configure its supply, and different approaches to planning and assessing greenspace
provision. A conceptual model is offered, explaining the interaction between greenspace provision factors across
different scales. Findings suggest many cities continue to experience gaps between planned and actual green-
space provision. Moreover, urban greenspace is typically planned using a recreational standards approach,
despite increasing demands for a range of ecosystem functions, services, and benefits. Future research should
engage directly with greenspace managers responsible for urban greenspace delivery, especially in rapidly ex-
panding cities, to illuminate points of convergence and divergence between theory and practice. Policy im-
plications include consideration of holistic greenspace planning approaches that better recognise and respond to
emerging demands upon, and for, urban greenspace.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Chris.boulton@griffithuni.edu.au (C. Boulton), a.dedekorkut@griffith.edu.au (A. Dedekorkut-Howes), jason.byrne@utas.edu.au (J. Byrne).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.029
Received 2 August 2017; Received in revised form 22 May 2018; Accepted 31 May 2018
Available online 09 June 2018
0169-2046/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 1
Chronology of key milestones contributing to current greenspace standards for recreation.
Year Description Location Source

1883 Metropolitan Public Gardens Association’s Earl of Meath proposed “Public space for UK Holmes, 1911 and Theobold, 1984, p.194 in Wilkinson, 1985,
recreation should be within a quarter mile of everyone’s door”. p.192.
(Equivalent to 402 m radius)
1885 American Playground Movement established USA Gold, 1973, p.21
1893 302ft/child of the school for playground London, UK National Recreation & Parks Association, 1967, p.2 and
(Equivalent to 2.8 m2/child) Theobold, 1984, p.194 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.191
1906 Playground Association of America (PAA)a held first meeting and adopted (from London) USA Olmstead, 1906 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.191; Dickason, 1981,
30ft2/child for playgrounds (children in schools) p.84
(Equivalent to 2.8 m2/child)
1910 Recreation Movement (America) concluded that adequate play facilities must be within USA Curtis, 1910, p.125 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.191
walking distance of children
Development of facility concepts, service radii and approximate sizes of neighbourhood USA National Recreation & Parks Association, 1967, p.5 in
facilities Wilkinson, 1985, p.191
NRAa accepted and promoted standard of 10 acres/1000 population for recreation
(Equivalent to 4Ha or 40,469 m2/1000 population)
1923 Neighbourhood Playground concept formalised with a “Set of standards for play space USA Wilkinson, 1985, p.192
needed around elementary and secondary schools” recommended by Committee on
Recreation Problems in City Planning recommend to Recreation Congress 1923.
1925 National Playing Fields Association (Britain) (NPFA) established UK Wilkinson, 1985, p.193
1928 Playground and Recreation Association (America) (PRAa) adopted 200 ft2/child USA Butler, 1928 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.192
(Equivalent to 18.6 m2/child)
Playground and Recreation Association (America) (PRAa) then adopted USA Hamner et. Al., 1928 pp.118–21 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.192
• 25 ft2/child aged 5–15 years, and
• living within a radius of ¼ mile
(Equivalent to 2.3 m2/child and 402 m radius)
1934 National Recreation Association (America) (NRA)a issued standards of 1 acre of USA Butler, 1936, pp.9–19 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.192
neighbourhood playground/1000 of neighbourhood population
(Equivalent to 4047 m2 or 0.4 Ha/1000 population)
1948 National Recreation Association (America) (NRA)a modified standard to 1 acre of USA Wilkinson, 1985, p.193
neighbourhood playground/800 of neighbourhood population
(Equivalent to 4047 m2 or 0.4 Ha/800 population)
1955 National Playing Fields Association (Britain) (NPFA) adopted 6 acres permanent playing UK Gooch, 1964, p.480 in Wilkinson, 1985, p.193
space/1000 population excluding school playing fields, woodlands, commons, ornamental
gardens, full-length golf courses
(Equivalent to 24,281 m2 or 2.4Ha/1000 population)
plus 1 acre/1000 population of ornamental public open space
(Equivalent to 4047 m2 or 0.4 Ha /1000)

a
Playground Association of America (PAA) founded in 1906, became Playground and Recreation Association (America) (PRA) in 1911, was renamed the National
Recreation Association (NRA) in 1926, then merged with four other organisations to become National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) in 1965 (Dickason,
1981, p.84).

1. Introduction
How much greenspace does a city need? This surprisingly vexatious
question, often posed by politicians, residents, professional planners
and other local government greenspace stakeholders, is not simply
answered. Globally, many cities have experienced rapid population
growth over the past two decades, and that trend is set to continue.
Burgeoning populations can create pressure on greenspace in two ways:
(i) from the loss of undeveloped land as it is converted to housing,
commercial, warehousing and other land uses (Haaland & Van den
Bosch, 2015; Tomalty, 2012; Zerah, 2007; Zhou & Wang, 2011); and (ii)
from increasing congestion within existing greenspaces, as residents
seek out extant parks, playing fields and other spaces for traditional
purposes of recreation, leisure, mental restoration and solitude (Barton
& Pretty, 2010; Dahmann, Wolch, Jossart-Marcelli, Reynolds, & Jerrett,
2010; Daniel et al., 2012; Pretty, Peacock, Sellens, & Griffin, 2005). The
growing demand for parks to deliver “natural” services can threaten the
capacity of these spaces to provide traditional services (Burgess,
Harrison, & Limb, 1988). Local governments (and to some extent pro-
vincial/state governments) are experiencing a widening gap between
planned greenspace requirements and actual greenspace provision
(Hashem, 2015; Maruani & Amit-Cohen, 2007; Stubbs, 2008). The
challenge for greenspace planners and managers is seemingly un-
relenting, as many cities struggle to ensure that adequate areas of
greenspace are provided and maintained.
While commentators have recently observed a proliferating urban
greenspace literature, interest in the subject is not new, especially when
it raises concerns about greenspace provision. Over the past fifty years,
Jane Jacobs (1961), Seymour Gold (1973), Paul Wilkinson (1985) and
other scholar-activists have alerted us to the importance of under-
standing greenspace supply and demand, relative to population needs.
Calling for more attention to be given to parks, gardens, playing fields
and other greenspaces, they also cautioned about the financial and
social risks of oversupplying parks and playgrounds that are “too large,
too frequent, too perfunctory, too ill-located, and hence too dull or too
inconvenient to be used” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 110). A poor understanding
of the relationship between greenspace supply and demand can partly
be attributed to the rapid growth of greenspace in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries (especially parks). As Harnik (2010, p. 13) has
explained, up until the 1920s, “parks were such a wondrous new phe-
nomenon, that they were so rare, that the goal was to get as many as
possible.” By the mid-1970s though, the ‘more is better’ approach to
local government greenspace acquisition was creating problems for
residents, local government managers, urban planners and land devel-
opers alike. Indeed, Gold (1973 in Talen, 2010, p. 475) observed that:
“the non-use of neighbourhood parks emerged as a significant problem,
strongly suggesting that in some cases, ‘less may be more’”.
So how can we tell when supply of urban greenspace is sufficient
and appropriate? Is it just about the amount of space (e.g. area or ratio
per capita), or are other considerations important too? Findings from
the political ecology, political economy (growth machine), service
provision (governance) and environmental justice literatures suggest
that greenspace provision should be equitable (distance to residents,
quality of spaces, facilities and services); should be designed to meet the

83
C. Boulton et al.
needs of diverse residents (Wendel, Zarger, & Mihelcic, 2012; Wolch,
Byrne, & Newell, 2014) and should preserve ecosystem functions, ser-
vices and benefits (e.g. cooling, stormwater interception, biodiversity)
(Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; Speak et al., 2015). While these theories
have illuminated aspects of greenspace provision, they have not cap-
tured the full constellation of factors at play. Further, there is a sur-
prising discordance in the literature, especially about how much
greenspace cities need, what type it should be, whom it is for, what
benefits it should provide and who should pay for its acquisition and
management. Some greenspace provision criteria suggest urban
greenspace needs to be safe and secure; well maintained, well designed
and constructed; appropriately located; socially relevant; and physically
accessible (Springgate, 2008).
Previous research has effectively identified disparities in the under-
provision of greenspace and how patterns have emerged from differ-
ences in race, gender, age, class and ethnicity (for example Maroko,
Maantay, Sohler, Grady, & Arno, 2009; Talen, 2010; Wolch et al.,
2014), but has not explicitly focused on the array of factors that con-
figure supply/provision and how they operate. Indeed, urban planning
professionals face a delicate balancing act. In the face of increasing land
values and competing economic demands on local government meeting
the greenspace needs of diverse urban constituencies (Byrne & Sipe,
2010), alongside compelling social, economic, and environmental im-
peratives, has become one of the axiomatic urban and environmental
planning challenges of the 21st century. Could contemporary ap-
proaches to greenspace provision be wrong? How can we tell, and what
can we do about this?
Greenspace planning is now more than a century old, derived pri-
marily from early park planning in the United States (USA) and United
Kingdom (UK) (see Table 1). The standards approach to greenspace
planning in particular seems to be failing. For instance, Harnik (2010)
has demonstrated that many cities in the USA do not meet their planned
targets: Chicago, Illinois falls well short; Jacksonville, Florida far ex-
ceeds. Similarly, Jim and Chan (2016) have reported standards for open
space in Hong Kong, developed more than 80 years ago and embedded
in public policy from the 1980s until 2015, are ill-suited to the highly
urbanised Asian metropolis. In Australia, replicating the UK and USA
planning approach to park standards without considering contextual
differences, has resulted in greenspaces that do not meet residents’
needs (Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Such problems with the standards ap-
proach moved organisations such as the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA) in the USA to acknowledge that localities need to
develop their own goals based on their specific needs (National
Recreation, n.d.) and eliminate their one-size-fits-all standards (10
acres/1000 residents) (see Mertes & Hall, 1996). Further, Veal (2013)
has provided a comprehensive discussion about the origin and appli-
cation of open space standards for Australia. Such discussions prompt
further questions about greenspace standards: are they normative in
any way? Do standards lead to policies such as parkland dedication
requirements? Are they simply ‘recommendations’ that are not en-
forced? We address these compelling concerns in our discussion.
Moreover, many park standards have never been tested empirically
nor validated (Hamilton-Smith & Mercer, 1991 in Searle, 2011), al-
though they underpinned greenspace planning for much of the 20th
century (Wilkinson, 1985). Twenty-first century cities are very different
from those of a century ago (Grimm et al., 2008). Might it be timely to
review approaches to park and greenspace provision? Spurred by these
challenges and questions, this article reports the results of a systematic
quantitative review of the literature on urban greenspace provision. It
aims to answer two interrelated questions:
i. What factors influence the provision of greenspace in cities? (i.e. the
drivers and barriers for effective local government greenspace pro-
vision); and
ii. What are the current approaches to local government greenspace
provision - are they working, and how can we tell?
84
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
Specifically, this review has sought to evaluate the efficacy of cur-
rent approaches to local government greenspace provision and to
identify patterns, similarities, and differences between cities of different
size. It is intended to support further research into alternative ap-
proaches to greenspace provision. At a local level, such knowledge
could enable changes to greenspace planning and management, facil-
itating greater flexibility for local governments in meeting competing
greenspace demands. First, given the wide-ranging definitions of
greenspace, it is important to specify what this term and others mean in
the context of this review.
1.1. Definition of key terms
1.1.1. Greenspace
The academic literature employs a broad range of terms when re-
ferring to urban greenspace. Some scholars have adopted the term
“open space” (Burgess et al., 1988; Evans & Freestone, 2010; Grose,
2009); others use public and/or urban “greenspace” (Barbosa et al.,
2007; Choumert & Cormier, 2011; De Sousa, 2003; Griffith, 2000; Ka-
bisch & Haase, 2014; Lo & Jim, 2012). While some scholars specifically
include or exclude cemeteries, forests, road verges/roadways and golf
courses, a clear commonality is that all definitions include “parks”.
Recognising that Taylor and Hochuli (2017, p. 25) have recently
comprehensively assessed the definitional challenges related to the
term greenspace, here we define urban greenspace as constituting ve-
getated urban land that is public or semi-private (not private) such as
parks, sports fields, cemeteries, vegetated areas of street and road
corridors (including squares), natural and built corridors adjacent to
waterways and wetlands, and external areas to public buildings (for
example libraries, galleries, community centres, sports and aquatic
centres/swimming pools). This definition is adapted from Health
Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, and Medicine (2008 in Chong
et al., 2013) and is consistent with the suggestions of Taylor and
Hochuli (2017).
1.1.2. City and settlement size
The definitions of a ‘city’ or ‘urban settlement’ also require specifi-
cation, because cities are complex entities; finding consistent termi-
nology describing them comes with challenges, particularly when
making comparisons across multiple countries (Johnston, Poulsen, &
Forrest, 2007). For example, in the USA the term “city” is used syno-
nymously with “local government”, but this is not the case everywhere
else. Furthermore, administrative structure and complexity varies sig-
nificantly among nations. In some countries such as the USA, or some
states of Australia, local governments are generally parts of larger
metropolitan areas or urban regions that may include different levels of
administration. The public agencies that are responsible for providing/
maintaining greenspace may include local government, county, state/
province and even national parks and recreation departments. In other
countries a single local government may be responsible for a whole
metropolitan area. Settlement scale further complexifies service provi-
sion capacities. Scale typically determines the facilities deemed neces-
sary to support the needs of a population. Doxiadis (1970, p. 396), for
instance, asserts that: “to discuss quality of life or any other important
phenomenon in human settlements without referring to their size is
impossible”. Generally, there is an expectation that the greater the size
of the urban settlement: (i) the more (quantity and quality) greenspace
should be available to support the population; and (ii) the greater the
number of stakeholders to service. Researchers have demonstrated
these issues, including Tan and Samsudin (2017, p. 139) in their ana-
lysis of the effect of spatial scale on greenspace provision and “their
correlations with wealth, income and ethnicity”, and Bryant (2006),
observing challenges in conserving urban species and managing
greenways across local and metropolitan scales.
When assessing the factors that influence the provision of urban
greenspace, we must also consider settlement scale, so we can compare
C. Boulton et al.
similar urban contexts. Different sized settlements have different chal-
lenges; the issues facing towns are radically different from those facing
megacities (Grimm et al., 2008). The challenges of rapid growth are
acutely felt for service delivery and quality of life in small and medium
sized cities (Cohen, 2006). The definition of urban settlement size
ideally would be by local government area, to ensure consistency.
However, as the definition of this term varies significantly in the lit-
erature – dependent upon the unit of analysis and/or data source used
for the specific research – city size (by population) in this review is
simply “as reported” in the study selected.
1.1.3. Urban form
In this paper we describe changes to the urban form as expanding,
consolidating or both. We use ‘expanding’ to describe cities that are
increasing in physical area, usually through greenfield development, at
low density (population and dwellings) and establishing urban land
uses where previously there were none. The literature has varied ex-
planations of processes of urban consolidation, intensification and
densification. Haaland and Van den Bosch (2015) identify several au-
thors that describe consolidation, intensification, compaction and infill
development as a process of “densification”; Byrne, Sipe and Searle
(2010:163) suggest consolidation “is also related to, and sometimes
conflated with, ‘urban containment’, ‘smart growth’, ‘urban renewal’,
‘urban revitalisation’ or simply ‘densification’”. We have adapted the
explanation of urban ‘consolidation’ including infill development and
densification, from Forster (2006, p. 179 in Gray, Gleeson, & Burke,
2010, p. 336) in describing an approach to achieve a compact city form.
1.1.4. Alternative greenspace planning approaches
A needs-assessment or community-specific approach, is a more re-
cent, outcome-driven method for greenspace provision that emerged as
an alternative to the standards approach. Lucy (1981) has presented
“need” as one of five concepts for achieving equity in planning for local
services such as greenspaces. However there is no apparent, specific
source or adopted approach for this method (Barth, 2008). Despite the
perception of wide usage, particularly in the USA, only a few of the
papers we reviewed reported this method. Some scholars contend it is a
better approach for greenspace provision in denser urban areas (e.g.
Byrne & Sipe, 2010). Harnik (2010) has advocated for greenspace in
neighbourhoods where people need it most. There are a number of ci-
ties in the USA that have also prepared needs-based greenspace and
open space system plans (Lewis, 2008). In Ontario, Canada, a com-
munity-specific standard was applied in 1985 as a “customised”
strategy that considers a specific city’s assets, resources and community
needs (Wilkinson, 1985). However, studies reporting the application of
a needs assessment are exclusively from North America (Ibes, 2015;
Wolch et al., 2005) and Europe (Comber et al., 2008; Jansson &
Persson, 2010). Problematically, they tend to be silent about how to
manage competing needs – for older people, teenagers, people with
disabilities, and for non-human species. Nor do they suggest how
varying needs can be accommodated across a wide range of urban
morphologies, or over time.
Green zones, which Maruani and Amit-Cohen (2007:6) define as a
band of open space surrounding an adjacent urban area, have been
applied during the 20th century in several large metropolitan areas
including Vancouver, London and Sydney (Greenbelts) with dual
functions: urban growth management (containment) and open space
protection (Amati & Yokohari, 2006; Evans & Freestone, 2010;
Tomalty, 2012). While Sydney’s greenbelt has suffered from pressures
of urban growth and land shortages, London and Vancouver apparently
have not, despite urban development pressure. Li et al. (2005) have
presented the merits of greenbelts as part of a broader strategy, in their
conceptual framework incorporating a greenbelt, greenways and parks,
as an ecologically-focused greenspace planning approach for Beijing.
This aligns with Maruani and Amit-Cohen’s (2007) suggested ecological
model for open space planning, and warrants further exploration.
85
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
1.1.5. Factors
It is also useful to specify what we mean by factors. Here ‘factors’
describe the collective group of determinants or variables that con-
tribute positively or negatively to local government’s ability or capacity
to provide greenspace. In this context, ‘provision’ means to supply by
establishing, developing and/or maintaining. Previous research has
explored the influence of diverse factors, including interpersonal, in-
trapersonal and structural factors affecting urban greenspace visitation
(Liu, Li, Xu, & Han, 2015); physical and non-physical factors influen-
cing perceived greenspace accessibility (Wang, Brown, & Liu, 2015);
and environmental factors influencing adults’ participation in physical
activity (Humpel, Owen, & Leslie, 2002). Although a diverse range of
factors has been said to influence the provision of urban greenspaces
(Byrne & Wolch, 2009), there are few studies where these factors are
specifically elucidated. This is an important knowledge gap because
such factors can compound the challenge of urban greenspace service
delivery.
1.2. The relationship between greenspace demand and supply
The demand for greenspace in cities is well documented and un-
derstood. Active recreation (e.g. jogging, playing sports, cycling) has
emerged as a major driver of greenspace provision. Contemporary de-
mands for parks and other types of greenspace are often focused on the
health and wellbeing of residents, especially for combatting sedentary
lifestyles and the effects of depressogenic environments (Kohl et al.,
2012; World Health Organization, 2000). From our experience, con-
temporary local greenspaces in Australia host community fun-runs, dog
exercise areas, personal fitness training (individual and groups), and
drone-racing, among other activities. However, Australian standards for
greenspace provision – entrenched by the mid-20th century – are fo-
cused on meeting recreational demands characteristic of the mid-20th
century USA (e.g. fishing, hunting, bowling and driving for pleasure)
(Gold, 1973, p. 28). Some of the challenges in greenspace provision
may be attributable to this reliance on out-dated standards, a point we
return to below.
Ecosystem services, particularly climate change mitigation (Bolund
& Hunhammar, 1999), are also drivers of greenspace provision. For
instance, Lo, Byrne, and Jim (2017) found that Hong Kong residents
perceived urban trees to be of higher importance for mitigating
greenhouse effects (sequestering carbon) and heat reduction than other
functions of urban greenspace. Gill, Handley, Ennos, and Pauleit (2007)
have similarly demonstrated the benefits of green infrastructure for
heat reduction. Speak et al. (2015) described the value of allotment
gardens and greenspaces for community food production (growing ve-
getables and fruit trees), as well as other ecosystem services including
pollination. How then are cities attempting to ensure there is enough
greenspace to meet these potentially competing demands?
The adequacy of greenspace provision is typically expressed quan-
titatively as a target area per population (m2/person) and/or distance
from residents (access); that is, a “standard”. Another measure of
greenspace provision adequacy is its quality (for example, Lee & Hong,
2013; Lo & Jim, 2012) and/or the provision of facilities within green-
space (e.g. Jansson & Persson, 2010; Markwell & Ravenscroft, 2000). It
is important to remember though that within cities we find neigh-
bourhoods with widely different socio-demographic characteristics and
variegated urban forms, creating diverse pressures upon parks and
greenspaces.
The literature on how greenspace needs vary based on age, socio-
economic status, race/ethnicity, and type of settlement is large and
points to important considerations for park provision. First, physical
environment characteristics can differentiate greenspace need based on:
land use (for example, residential, commercial and industrial); the type
of residential development (attached; semi-detached; detached); po-
pulation; and residential density (see Maroko et al., 2010; Talen, 2010).
Thus residential neighbourhoods need more parks than industrial areas.
C. Boulton et al.
Similarly, low-density neighbourhoods with detached dwellings on
large lots may require less area of greenspaces than dense, attached
dwelling units (apartments) where residents lack access to private
yards. Second, demographics (age, socioeconomic status, and race and
ethnicity) can configure differentials in greenspace needs at the
neighbourhood level. Scholars suggest children and older adults are
more greenspace-dependent than other groups due to reduced personal
mobility (Loukaitou-Sideris & Stieglitz, 2002). Similarly, low household
income may constrain some residents’ ability to use private recreational
facilities (e.g. gyms) and/or travel to remote natural areas. Walkable
greenspaces in low-income neighbourhoods might be a more pressing
need (Romero, 2005). And cultural, ethnic and racial differences in
greenspace preference and use (Gobster, 2002; Loukaitou-Sideris &
Sideris, 2009) can mean that generic greenspaces are unsuitable or
perceived as unwelcoming (Byrne & Wolch, 2009).
Even when local governments have the benefit of clearly defined
requirements for the provision of greenspaces (endorsed and supported
by local government policy for example), they can be undermined by
competing political agendas and limited fiscal resources. Haaland and
Van den Bosch (2015, p. 763) report several challenges in providing
urban greenspace in densifying cities. These include institutional con-
straints, biodiversity loss, resident perspectives, and social inequalities.
There is, however, an imbalance in the research about greenspace
supply: the sizable literature on inequalities in distribution and access
to greenspace is not matched by the small quantum of studies ex-
amining challenges in the practice of providing greenspace. Under-
standing the complexities of greenspace provision is therefore critical
for devising effective policies and strategies for determining how much
greenspace is sufficient to meet the diverse needs of existing and future
residents and to satisfy sustainability objectives.
2. Methods
To answer the research questions, we conducted a systematic
quantitative literature review following Pickering and Byrne (2014),
and have used the protocols of the “Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Review Recommendations” (PRISMA Statement) from
Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman (2009) (Fig. 1). This method has
been widely applied in studies including climate change, energy policy
and justice (Byrne & Portanger, 2014); nature based recreation impacts
on birds (Steven, Pickering, & Castley, 2011); environmental sustain-
ability policy implementation failures (Howes et al., 2017); impacts of
trail infrastructure on vegetation and soils (Ballantyne & Pickering,
2015); and evaluation of ecological restoration approaches (Wortley,
Hero, & Howes, 2013).
A search of English-language, peer-reviewed academic literature
using the Google Scholar online database and the Boolean search
function of “‘green space’ OR ‘park’ AND ‘provision’ OR ‘supply’”, was
conducted between February 2015 and October 2016 to identify arti-
cles. From 8380 initial search results, the first 800 records were
screened for publication type before excluding records that were du-
plicates, book chapters, reviews, or grey literature (n = 610). The re-
maining 190 records were further screened for their relevance to the
research question and five more articles were excluded as irrelevant.
Eighty-one records were excluded on the basis that they were either not
reporting original data; were published by organisations either un-
known or with questionable reputations; or were not subjected to peer-
review. As a result, 104 papers were selected for detailed assessment
(Fig. 1).
Assessment criteria included the journal and authors; research
methods used; subject city/cities; and the characteristics, influences
and reported outcomes of greenspace provision (Table 2). The journal
discipline was classified using the assigned Field of Research categories
adapted from the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) 2015
Submitted Journal List (Australian Research Council (ARC), 2014).
Where journals selected for the review were not listed, they were
86
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
assigned a classification based on the publisher’s description of the
journal scope.
3. Overview of greenspace provision research
Research reported in the 104 peer-reviewed articles was notably
transdisciplinary. Papers were published in 47 different journals cov-
ering 12 fields (Table 3). Most of the research (54%) was published in
built environment and design (30 papers) and engineering (26 papers)
fields of research. Medical and health sciences journals were con-
spicuously absent in our search results, contrasting with the growing
number of studies investigating the importance of accessible urban
greenspace for physical and mental health and well-being (Giles-Corti
et al., 2005; Richardson, Pearce, Mitchell, & Kingham, 2013). This re-
sult could be partly attributable to our focus on ‘provision’ (i.e. supply)
rather than demand.
The location of the first authors of studies on urban greenspace
provision closely align with the continent/region that was the subject of
the research. Most studies (88%) examined Asian, European and North
American cities (Fig. 2). Just one study considered multiple Brazilian
cities. Despite the high level of urbanisation in South America and
Africa there remains a significant gap in the scholarly research on
compact and densely populated cities that are south of the equator,
such as Lima, Peru and Kinshasa, Congo, as identified by Jim and Chan
(2016). This finding corroborates observations elsewhere, stating that
reliance on government funding for research has been challenging for
Australia (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010), New Zealand (Universities New
Zealand, 2016), Latin America (Pearson, 2014) and South Africa (Van
Zyl, 2016).
Our results show that the volume of scholarly research has sub-
stantially increased over the past 20 years, from barely existent in the
late 1990s to peaking in 2015 with 16 papers (Fig. 3). Two decades ago,
greenspace provision research was in its infancy; much of the research
originated from the USA (Griffith, 2000; Nicholls, 2001) and the UK
(Markwell & Ravenscroft, 2000). While no evident cause explains
publication peaks, these timeframes coincide with (i) the recognition of
obesity as a chronic disease summoning global action (World Health
Organization, 2000), and United Nations’ activities focused on pro-
moting healthy urban communities (e.g. eight Millennium Develop-
ment Goals at the Millennium Summit of 2000, now superseded by 17
Sustainable Development Goals) (United Nations, 2015); and (ii) the
world’s population becoming predominantly urban (United Nations,
2010:2).
Most of the research (63%) has been published in just the past five
years, pointing to an increase in both scholarly interest and policy-
making. Early USA and European foci have been replaced by emerging
Asian metropolises, urban conurbations and megalopolises (19 papers),
for example, studies examining Chinese cities including Beijing (Gong,
Mao, Qi, & Xu, 2015), Hong Kong (Cheung & Tang, 2016), Shanghai (Li
& Liu, 2016), Guangzhou (Shan, 2014) and Shenzhen (You, 2016).
South Korean cities have also received growing attention, including
Seoul (Nam & Kim, 2014), Daegu (Lee & Hong, 2013) and Jeonju (Lee,
Gu, & An, 2016). Specific trends are also observable for: (i) the type of
research reported (methods used and range of urban settlements ana-
lysed); and (ii) the issues about greenspace provision (supply and de-
mand, approaches to describing, measuring and planning, and the in-
fluences on provision). For example, there is an apparent gap in the
literature for studies examining non-capital cities particularly mid-size
cities, as well as in providing comparative analysis of multiple cities.
Availability of resources is a significant factor, reported in more studies
than expected for both cities where the urban form was expanding as
well as those where it was densifying/consolidating. And finally, poli-
tical leadership and the availability of land in cities are major factors
influencing the provision of urban greenspace, except where cities are
densifying. We present these and other findings in more detail as fol-
lows.
C. Boulton et al.
Fig. 1. PRISMA Statement describing steps for systematic quantitative literature review.
3.1. Methods used in urban greenspace provision research
Mixed methods were applied for much of the research (63 papers),
including different combinations of quantitative, qualitative and/or
spatial methods. Kabisch and Haase (2014), for example, employed
city-wide spatial data (land use and demographics) with former project
records (postal survey and focus group results) to evaluate the provision
of urban greenspace in Berlin. Tzoulas and James (2010) reviewed
Warrington’s (UK) local newsletters and meeting minutes from orga-
nisations and local groups to explore community use and concerns
about greenspace and facility provision. Fewer studies employed solely
qualitative or quantitative methods (17 papers each), while a minority
of studies (7 papers) used only geospatial methods.
Given the prominence of mixed method approaches, results un-
surprisingly demonstrate that most studies (88 papers) used multiple
data sources and more used secondary data than collected primary data
(Fig. 4). Surveys (32 papers) have been salient: for example, studies on
the impact of greenspace on residents’ well-being in Berlin (Bertram &
Rehdanz, 2015) and the costs and benefits of urban greening in Zhuhai,
China (Chen & Jim, 2008). Interviews were employed almost as often as
surveys (31 papers), including the use of stakeholders as advisory
87
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
groups to determine the role of ecological greenways (Bryant, 2006),
and using informants to determine the influence of activism and policy-
making on green city visions (Curran & Hamilton, 2012). Almost half of
the research using primary data sources (26 papers) was grounded in
observations of either people and/or greenspaces, including an analysis
of urban greenspace and water bodies in Kazan, Russia (Galeeva,
Mingazova, & Gilmanshin, 2014), and user experience of greenspace
and urban form in Stockholm, Sweden (Ståhle, 2010). Focus group
research is less common (7 papers), including two studies concerning
community values of urban waterways in Washington, DC (Bryant,
2006) and Jakarta, Indonesia (Vollmer, Prescott, Padawangi, Girot, &
Grêt-Regamey, 2015).
Public records, particularly government databases, registers and
inventories of parks (as one type of greenspace) are typically readily
accessible, low cost and highly relevant to greenspace provision re-
search. Unsurprisingly, they informed most of the studies (71 papers).
Perhaps for similar reasons, GIS datasets (55 papers) and census data
(44 papers) were often employed (Fig. 3). For example, Hashem (2015)
used GIS to assess the spatial equality of urban greenspace provision for
Greater Doha, Qatar, and Lara-Valencia and García-Pérez (2015) ex-
amined socioeconomic variations of greenspace provision in
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 2 described the population status (Fig. 5). Contrary to expectations, just
Criteria used to review the selected articles on greenspace provision. 55 papers described the urban form of the city/cities discussed: slightly
Review Categories under half (25 papers) reported ongoing expansion; fewer observed
consolidating cities (22 papers); and fewer still examined cities that
Journal, article and authors • First author location were both expanding and consolidating (8 papers), for example Bris-
• Journal discipline
• Research
bane; Gold Coast (Byrne, Sipe & Searle, 2010) and Sydney (Evans &
focus
• Year of publication Freestone, 2010), Australia. Our review found that more research was

• Data
concerned with large cities (38 papers) metropolises (17 papers) and
Research methods source/s
• Method of analysis mid-size cities (16 papers) than smaller or very large urban settlements
(Fig. 5) suggesting that greenspace provision is of greater concern for
Subject city/s • Area 2
(km )
• City (capital/non-capital) and
settlement type
growing cities.

• Continent 3.3. Greenspace supply and demand

• Country/Countries
• Development phase
• Population
Most papers (90%) were concerned with issues of greenspace supply
and growth
• Urban form (provision) as expected given the search terms, while the balance (10%)

• Area
were concerned primarily with greenspace demand but addressed
Greenspace provision characteristics provided/planned/desired
• Definition/types supply too. These latter studies (32 papers) examined competing social
• Intended purpose/s demands for, and spill-over effects of, adjacent local government
• Nomenclature greenspace provision (Choumert & Cormier, 2011); playground provi-
• Planning approach sion and demands (Jansson & Persson, 2010); and disparities in access
Influence/s on greenspace provision • Economies and markets to greenspace based on differential socio-economic and ethno-racial
• Governance structure stress (Sister, Wolch, & Wilson, 2010). Papers about greenspace supply
• Governance tools
• Political
have tended to be concentrated in cities of North America (40 papers)
leadership
• Opportunity to acquire land
including studies by Lara-Valencia and García-Pérez (2015), Perkins
• Organisational culture (2009) and Pincetl (2003), as well as Asia (37 papers) and have been
• Resources concerned with spatial equity in greenspace provision (Hashem, 2015;
Reported greenspace provision • Actual versus planned Lo & Jim, 2012; Yasumoto, Jones, & Shimizu, 2014). Papers more fo-
outcomes • Consistency and equity cused on demand were often concerned with the socio-economic dy-
• Environmental namics associated with greenspace provision and use in Asian cities (for
• Recreational
• Social equity/justice
example, Schetke, Qureshi, Lautenbach, & Kabisch, 2016; Xu, Cui, Xu,
& Ma, 2013). Almost two-thirds of the literature identified and de-
scribed issues related to accessibility or distance to greenspace areas
Hermosillo, Mexico. Choumert and Cormier (2011) used census data to (66 papers) and distributional equity, such as the availability, size, area
evaluate spill-over effects on urban parks in Angers, France, and Wang, and/or quantity of greenspace (62 papers).
Brown, Liu, and Mateo-Babiano (2015) employed the same to assess Our review found urban greenspace is provided for a variety of
urban greenspace provision and accessibility in Brisbane, Australia. The intended purposes – in most cases (74%) for multiple purposes (Fig. 6).
use of non-agency data sources such as databases of independent or- Predictably, recreation (72%) and/or environmental (59%) purposes
ganisations and groups, media, and remote sensing have been less were the most common reasons. Few studies found transport or climate
common. mitigation as intended functions. Interestingly, Lo and Jim (2012)
identified that carbon dioxide sequestration, urban air temperature
reduction and air purification were important to residents’ perception
3.2. Urban settlement focus for greenspace provision studies of greenspace functions and Kabisch (2015) showed how temperature
reduction and food production were recognised functions in Berlin’s
Most studies have examined urban greenspace in capital cities (50 Urban Development Plan 2030. Less-recognised functions were also
papers) rather than non-capital cities (31 papers). Few studies have identified (7 papers) including noise abatement (Lo & Jim, 2012),
examined city-states (6 papers) such as the challenges of greenspace erosion control (Griffith, 2000) and education (Gowda, Sridhara, &
provision in Hong Kong (including Cheung & Tang, 2016; Tang & Rajan, 2008; Henderson, 2013).
Wong, 2008; Tian, Jim, & Wang, 2014) and Singapore (Henderson,
2013). Studies that took a higher-level approach to exploring and 3.4. Approaches to describing, measuring and planning greenspace and the
comparing issues of greenspace provision by analysing multiple cities outcomes
are less apparent (17 papers). They have tended to focus on Europe
(such as Badiu et al., 2016; Speak, Mizgajski, & Borysiak, 2015) and Few studies provided explicit definitions for greenspace (10%) (such
North America (BenDor, Westervelt, Song, & Sexton, 2013; Stewart, as Daker, Pieters, & Coffee, 2016; Hashem, 2015) and more of the re-
Bacon, & Burke, 2014). Such multi-city studies have included case search discussed its types (40%). We found a range of terms used to
studies within regions (Byrne, Sipe, & Searle, 2010; Van Dijk, 2009), refer to greenspace with the most prominent being “green”, “park”,
nations (Sandstrom, 2002; Van Zoest & Hopman, 2014), and continents “public” and “open space” as well as a range of other types examined
(Fuller & Gaston, 2009). (Table 4) and permanency was typically implied. More than half of the
Regarding settlement type, nearly all studies (99%) have focused on papers reviewed (63%) addressed the adequacy of greenspace provision
established urban settlements. Most of those papers (93%) reported an (either area, access, quality and/or facilities): 80% of these reported
increasing settlement size, which supports the view that greenspace substandard urban greenspace; and 63% reported sub-optimal/in-
provision studies are being spurred by concerns with population sufficient greenspace area provision (including Kabisch & Haase, 2014;
change. Few studies (4 papers) observed declining populations, in- Lara-Valencia & Garcia-Perez, 2015). Nearly a fifth of studies suggested
cluding those in Belgium (Van Herzele & Wiedemann, 2003), Korea greenspace provision was adequate, although most of these cases did
(Lee et al., 2016), the USA (Boone, Buckley, Grove, & Sister, 2009) and not provide a quantitative measure (m2/person) for either current or
Sweden (Jansson & Persson, 2010). Yet fewer studies (54 papers) have optimum provision, except the cases of Baltimore, Maryland USA

88
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 3
Scope of journals reporting on urban greenspace provision.
ERA field of research ERA field of research sub-category Journals (and number of articles)

1. Agriculture and veterinary sciences (8%) Forestry sciences Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (8)
2. Biological sciences (2%) Biological sciences Biology Letters (2)
3. Built environment and design (29%) Built environment and design International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (1)
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering* (1)
Building Habitat International (2)
Design practice and management Environment and Planning B (1)
Urban and regional planning Australian Planner (2)
Cities (4)
Environment and Planning A (3)
European Urban and Regional Studies (1)
Journal of Architecture and Urbanism (2)
Journal of Urban Design (1)
Planning Practice and Research (3)
Real Estate Economics (1)
Space and Polity (1)
The Annals of Regional Science (1)
Town Planning Review (1)
Urban Design International (1)
Urban Geography (3)
Urban Policy and Research (1)
4. Chemical sciences (3%) Chemical sciences Ecological Indicators (1)
Environmental Research Journal (1)
Land Degradation and Development (1)
5. Commerce, management, tourism and services (3%) Commercial services Managing Leisure (3)
6. Earth Sciences (7%) Geology Environmental Earth Sciences (1)
Physical geography and environmental geoscience Annals of the Association of American Geographers (1)
Applied Geography (3)
Chinese Geographical Science (1)
South African Geographical Journal (1)
7. Economics (1%) Applied economics Forest Policy and Economics (1)
8. Engineering (25%) Engineering Landscape and Urban Planning (24)
Civil engineering Indoor and Built Environment (1)
Environmental engineering Journal of Cleaner Production (1)
9. Environmental Sciences (7%) Environmental Sciences Local Environment (1)
Environmental science and management Ecological Economics (2)
Ecological Processes (1)
10. Law and legal studies (1%) Law Wake Forest Law Review (1)
11. Multidisciplinary (13%) Multidisciplinary Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
(1)
Environmental Science and Technology (1)
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (1)
Land Use Policy (6)
Management of Environmental Quality (1)
Pakistan Journal of Science* (1)
Social Science Quarterly (1)
Urban Climate* (1)
12. Studies in human society (3%) Studies in human society Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences* (1)
Human geography Antipode (1)
GeoJournal (1)

* Journal not listed in 2015 ERA Submitted Journal List.

Fig. 2. Distribution of reviewed papers by location of first author and research area.

(Boone et al., 2009); Zhuhai, China (Jim & Chen, 2008); and Berlin,
Germany (Kabisch & Haase, 2014). Baltimore was the only example to
be reported as over-provided with green space, and is atypical because
this non-capital city was experiencing a declining population against a
history of adequately provided greenspace (Boone et al., 2009). A
quarter of studies (26%) reported that cities were exceeding their
target. Most of the cities identified as meeting or exceeding greenspace
provision targets either have very low greenspace standards, reflecting
a heavily constrained urban morphology (e.g. 2 m2/person Hong Kong,
10 m2/person Guangzhou), or are not providing greenspace

89
C. Boulton et al.
Fig. 3. Journal publications on greenspace provision 1997-2016a.
consistently across the city (e.g. Sydney, Australia).
We also found that 62% of the papers described at least one plan-
ning approach for achieving greenspace provision: standards (47 pa-
pers); needs assessment (15 papers); and greenbelt zone (3 papers)
(Table 5). Standards-based approaches were reported for cities
throughout Asia (34%), Europe (31%), North America (20%) and
Australia (11%). Studies have criticised standards for failing to provide
an adequate variety and quality of greenspaces that are relevant to the
community’s needs, as well as for affordability issues (Byrne et al.,
2010; Wilkinson, 1985) – a point we return to in the discussion. The
reporting of recreational, environmental and social objectives relative
to the adequacy of urban greenspace provision adequacy appears to be
related (Fig. 7). Most papers reported the achievement of social (88%),
environmental (82%) and recreational (80%) objectives. Overall
greenspace provision was frequently described as inadequate (80%),
however, specifically greenspace area/population was reported as
being inadequate less often (63%). This apparent disconnect between
overall adequacy and greenspace area was further investigated using
statistical analysis for count data.
We found several cities reported inadequate achievement of both
recreational and social objectives for greenspace provision. Meeting
social objectives where greenspace provision was inadequate (n = 29)
was reported less often than would be expected based on the number of
Fig. 4. Greenspace provision research data sources.
90
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
studies in non-capital cities (5.7) compared to studies in capital cities
(12.9) (Chi-squared test, p < 0.05). Similarly, meeting recreational
objectives where greenspace provision that was inadequate in (n = 24)
was reported less often than expected based on the number of studies
from non-capital cities (5.3) compared to capital cities (11.5) (Chi-
squared test, p < 0.01). This suggests that capital cities may experi-
ence greater difficulty in meeting social and recreational objectives
when greenspace provision was inadequate, which is not surprising
given the higher demand for facilities and services associated with
larger cities.
3.5. Factors influencing the provision of greenspace
Results suggest seven distinct factors exert a positive or negative
influence on the provision of urban greenspace: resources; governance
tools; political leadership; opportunity (for land); governance structure;
economies and markets; and organisational culture (Fig. 8). The most
commonly reported factors were resources and governance tools (81
papers each), while the least prevalent were economies and markets (17
papers) and organisational culture (7 papers).
Resource factors included budgets (38 papers), local knowledge (31
papers), data availability (21 papers), supportive processes (e.g. fi-
nancial plans or work programs) (17 papers), professional expertise (12
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Fig. 5. Urban settlement characteristics of research on greenspace provision.

papers) and effective information technology systems (6 papers)
(Fig. 7). Where the availability of resources was reported as a factor
influencing greenspace provision (n = 29), it was reported in more
studies than expected for both cities where the urban form was ex-
panding (5.5) as well as those where it was densifying/consolidating
(5.5) (Chi-squared test, p < 0.001). This suggests that pressures lim-
iting resources to provide greenspaces are amplified in cities
experiencing urban growth (either expanding or consolidating/densi-
fying) when there is increased demand for all types of infrastructure to
support an increasing population.
Studies have consistently demonstrated that funding greenspace
provision is an ongoing challenge for local governments. For example,
Van Dijk (2009) found that the willingness of private businesses to help
fund open space provision decreases as the scale increases; the initiative

Fig. 6. Intended purpose/s of urban greenspace.

91
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 4 greenspaces are valued politically where it is important to promote a

Urban greenspace types (excluding green/park/public/open space) in the lit- positive city image due to global inter-competition (e.g. liveable cities
erature on greenspace provision. metrics). Some examples of this factor at play include Johannesburg’s
Greenspace Types Authors Country urgent preparations for a leafy appearance for the FIFA 2010 World
Cup, which saw expedited tree planting efforts implemented at the
Agricultural lands Evans and Freestone (2010) Australia expense of broad-scale community engagement (Schäffler & Swilling,
Cemeteries Samadhi and Tantayanusorn Thailand
2013). In Mumbai, conflicting priorities to conserve greenspace and
(2006) USA
Wendel, Downs, and Mihelcic provide residential areas are driven by politicians promoting new set-
(2011) tlements in the face of opposition by community groups (Zérah, 2007).
Educational/Institutional lands Badiu et al. (2016) Romania Similarly, Sandstrom (2002) observed that despite the Swedish gov-
Gowda et al. (2008) India
ernment’s prioritisation of six criteria for greenspace provision, several
Li and Liu (2016) China
Lin, Meyers, and Barnett (2015) Australia
cities’ plans compromised this outcome. A lack of political desire to
Forests/Natural Areas/ Bryant (2006) USA enforce regulations (Lara-Valencia & García-Pérez, 2015); poor ad-
Environmental lands Higgs, Fry, and Langford UK ministration of planning processes at the local level; and a reluctance to
(2012) China make good planning decisions for fear of revenue loss (Pincetl & Gearin,
Li and Liu (2016) Belgium
2005) can all affect local greenspace provision and management.
Van Herzele, De Clercq, and South Africa
Wiedemann (2005) China Even where financial and political support facilitates greenspace
Willemse (2013) China provision, and there are no legislative impediments, scholars have re-
Xu et al. (2013) ported that the opportunity must exist for land acquisition (36 papers).
Yang et al. (2015)
Urban form, as well as the opportunity to acquire land influenced
Playgrounds Jansson and Persson (2010) Sweden
Markwell and Ravenscroft UK
greenspace provision (n = 15), but there were fewer such studies than
(2000) expected for both cities where the urban form was expanding (3.8) as
Private lands Badiu et al. (2016) Romania well as those where it was densifying/consolidating (6.4) (Chi-squared
Barnett, Doherty, and Beaty Australia test, p < 0.01). This could be because expanding cities may have more
(2005) India
land available on their peripheries, but for densifying cities, the results
Gowda et al. (2008) USA
Griffith (2000) Australia were unexpected. Perhaps in the densifying cities studied, the oppor-
Sivam, Karuppannan, and USA tunity to acquire land for new greenspace is regarded as virtually im-
Mobbs (2012) possible. It should be noted, however, that in many cities there still
Voicu and Been (2008) remains the opportunity for introducing new/additional greenspaces
Water bodies Frischenbruder and Pellegrino Brazil
(2006) Thailand
via green roofs and urban renewal.
Samadhi and Tantayanusorn Indonesia In North America, scholars have indeed noted that alternative sites
(2006) USA for parks include brownfields, such as flood-prone land that was re-
Vollmer et al. (2015) China claimed in Toronto, Canada following a hurricane (De Sousa, 2003) and
Wendel et al. (2011)
similarly in New Orleans (Fields, 2009). Other novel sources of green-
You (2016)
space and include bequests in Baltimore (Boone et al., 2009); land re-
clamation in Milwaukee (Perkins, 2009); and conversion of surplus land
and expense of community gardens on vacant lots in New York City from infrastructure projects (e.g. rail lines, flood levees) in Los Angeles
have mostly been borne by local community groups (Voicu & Been, (Hise & Deverell, 2000 in Pincetl & Gearin, 2005). In Hong Kong,
2008, p. 274), while Van Zoest and Hopman (2014) successfully de- scholars have noted that topography can also play a role – land too
veloped a tool that facilitates self-funding of greenspace and ecosystem steep or swampy for development has enabled the creation of generous
services. Cost effective innovative solutions can be hampered by data greenspaces on the city’s periphery (Lo & Jim, 2012).
availability, as Kremer, Hamstead, and McPhearson (2013) found in Governance structure can also affect the provision of parks and
their study of vacant lots in New York City. greenspace (28 papers). Where both urban form and the governance
Scholars have also shown how greenspace provision can be influ- structure were reported as a factor influencing greenspace provision
enced by governance tools. Specifically, studies have assessed policy (n = 12), there were fewer studies than expected about provision in
(46 papers), legislation/regulation (34 papers), strategy (27 papers), densifying/consolidating cites (3.8) (Chi-squared test, p < 0.01). Here,
policy amendments (23 papers) and plans (18 papers) (Fig. 7). How to the dynamics of how governance structures affected the provisioning of
ensure a stable governance framework has been a consistent research greenspaces in densifying/consolidating cities was somewhat unclear,
theme. For example, Li and Liu (2016) observed that the Chinese but several studies did discuss the impact of non-profits in achieving
government’s citywide urban greenspace goal (35% and 10 m2/person) greenspace provision. Community dissatisfaction with local governance
presents challenges at a local level in Shanghai, particularly in ad- of greenspaces (Markwell & Ravenscroft, 2000; Tyrväinen, Mäkinen, &
dressing greenspace availability (abundance, access and quality) in Schipperijn, 2007), and an increasing presence of non-profit organisa-
areas of concentrated socioeconomic disadvantage. Breuste and Rahimi tions was especially evident. For example, Roy (2011) has identified the
(2015) reported park and greenspace strategies for Iranian cities have roles of non-profits in community-based greenspace provision in
been unsuccessful because greenspace provision is not prescribed and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pincetl (2003) has reported Trust for Public
measured at both local and city scales. Even when governance tools are Land’s leadership role in negotiating and securing funds for greenspace
established, implementation can be undermined by other factors. provision in Los Angeles; and Rosol (2010) has detailed the role of
Multiple studies have revealed political leadership as an issue in public participation in urban greenspace governance in Berlin.
greenspace provision (37 papers). Studies about capital and non-capital Economic conditions and financial markets have also been shown to
cities where political leadership was reported as a factor influencing affect greenspace provision across multiple scales (17 papers) (Fig. 8)
greenspace provision (n = 27), were more common than expected for for example in the Middle East (Hashem, 2015). At the local level,
studies in capital cities (16.6), and less common than expected among greenspace provision in Berlin was curtailed following “severe cuts in
the studies in non-capital cities (10.3) (Chi-squared test, p < 0.05). public funding for public green space, due to a severe fiscal crisis”
This suggests that in capital cities, political leadership is a stronger (Rosol, 2010, p. 551). In contrast, in Yokohama, Japan, cheap land
factor supporting urban greenspace provision, perhaps because urban prices enabled development and provision of greenspaces by developers
in some places, at the expense of others (Yasumoto et al., 2014); while

92
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 5
Papers selected for systematic quantitative literature review grouped by greenspace planning approach/s.
Reference City, Country

Standards
1. Alphan, H. (2003). Land-use change and urbanization of Adana, Turkey. Land Degradation and Development, 14(6), 575–586. Adana, Turkey
2. Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J. A., Armsworth, P. R., Davies, R. G., Fuller, R. A., Johnson, P., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Who benefits from Sheffield, England
access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2), 187–195.
3. Baycan-Levent, T., Vreeker, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). A multi-criteria evaluation of green spaces in European cities. European Multiple Cities/Countries
Urban and Regional Studies, 16(2), 193–213.
4. Breuste, J., & Rahimi, A. (2015). Many public urban parks, but who profits from them? The example of Tabriz, Iran. Ecological Tabriz, Iran
Processes, 4(1), 1.
5. Chen, W. Y., & Jim, C. (2008). Cost–benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese city of Zhuhai. Cities, Zhuhai, China
25(5), 298–309.
6. Cheung, D. M.-w., & Tang, B.-s. (2016). Recreation space or urban land reserve? Land-use zoning patterns and the transformation Hong Kong, China
of open space in Hong Kong. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142(3), 04016004, 1–11.
7. Choumert, J., & Cormier, L. (2011). The provision of urban parks: An empirical test of spatial spillovers in an urban area using Angers, France
geographic information systems. The Annals of Regional Science, 47(2), 437–450. doi:https://doi.org//10.1007/s00168-010-0366-8
8. Daker, M., Pieters, J., & Coffee, N. T. (2016). Validating and measuring public open space is not a walk in the park. Australian Adelaide, Australia
Planner, 53(2), 143–151.
9. De Sousa, C. A. (2003). Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(4), 181–198. Toronto, Canada
10. Galeeva, A., Mingazova, N., & Gilmanshin, I. (2014). Sustainable urban development: Urban green spaces and water bodies in the Kazan, Russia
City of Kazan, Russia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(24), 356.
11. Gong, L., Mao, B., Qi, Y., & Xu, C. (2015). A satisfaction analysis of the infrastructure of country parks in Beijing. Urban Forestry Beijing, China
and Urban Greening, 14(3), 480–489.
12. Gowda, K., Sridhara, M., & Rajan, S. (2008). Planning and management of parks and green areas: the case of Bangalore Bangalore, India
metropolitan area. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(3), 270–282.
13. Griffith, J. C. (2000). The preservation of community green space: Is Georgia ready to combat sprawl with smart growth. Wake Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Forest L. Review, 35, 563.
14. Grose, M. J. (2009). Changing relationships in public open space and private open space in suburbs in south-western Australia. Perth, Australia
Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(1), 53–63.
15. Hashem, N. (2015). Assessing spatial equality of urban green spaces provision: A case study of Greater Doha in Qatar. Local Greater Dohar, Qatar
Environment, 20(3), 386. doi: https://doi.org//10.1080/13549839.2013.855182
16. Jim, C., & Chen, W. Y. (2010). External effects of neighbourhood parks and landscape elements on high-rise residential value. Land Hong Kong, China
Use Policy, 27(2), 662–670.
17. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, S. S. (2003). Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing Nanjing, China
City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(3), 95–116.
18. Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2008). Pattern and divergence of tree communities in Taipei's main urban green spaces. Landscape and Taipei, Taiwan
Urban Planning, 84(3), 312–323.
19. Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Berlin, Germany
Urban Planning, 122, 129–139. doi: https://doi.org//10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016
20. Lara-Valencia, F., & García-Pérez, H. (2015). Space for equity: Socioeconomic variations in the provision of public parks in Hermosillo, Mexico
Hermosillo, Mexico. Local Environment, 20(3), 350. doi: https://doi.org//10.1080/13549839.2013.857647
21. Lee, G., & Hong, I. (2013). Measuring spatial accessibility in the context of spatial disparity between demand and supply of urban Daegu, South Korea
park service. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 85–90. doi: https://doi.org//10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.001
22. Liu, H., Li, F., Xu, L., & Han, B. (2015). The impact of socio-demographic, environmental, and individual factors on urban park Beijing, China
visitation in Beijing, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.012
23. Lo, A. Y. H., & Jim, C. Y. (2012). Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Hong Kong, China
Policy, 29(3), 577.
24. Markwell, S., & Ravenscroft, N. (2000). Ethnicity and the integration and exclusion of young people through urban park and Reading, England
recreation provision. Managing Leisure, 5(3), 135–150. doi: https://doi.org//10.1080/13606710050084838
25. Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S., & Koskela, T. (2007). Access to green areas and the frequency of visits – A case study in Helsinki, Finland
Helsinki. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6(4), 235–247.
26. Pincetl, S., & Gearin, E. (2005). The reinvention of public green space. Urban Geography, 26(5), 365–384. Los Angeles, California, USA
27. Romero, F. (2016). Challenges of open space preservation: A Texas case study. Town Planning Review, 87(2), 159–178. San Antonio, Texas, USA
28. Searle, G. (2011). Urban consolidation and the inadequacy of local open space provision in Sydney. Urban Policy and Research, Sydney, Australia
29(02), 201–208.
29. Shan, X.-Z. (2014). The socio-demographic and spatial dynamics of green space use in Guangzhou, China. Applied Geography, 51, Guangzhou, China
26–34.
30. Sivam, A., Karuppannan, S., & Mobbs, M. (2012). How “open” are open spaces: Evaluating transformation of open space at Adelaide, Australia
residential level in Adelaide – a case study. Local Environment, 17(8), 815–836.
31. Ståhle, A. (2010). More green space in a denser city: Critical relations between user experience and urban form. Urban Design Stockholm, Sweden
International, 15(1), 47–67.
32. Yang, J., Li, C., Li, Y., Xi, J., Ge, Q., & Li, X. (2015). Urban green space, uneven development and accessibility: A case of Dalian's Dalian, China
Xigang District. Chinese Geographical Science, 25(5), 644–656.
33. Yasumoto, S., Jones, A., & Shimizu, C. (2014). Longitudinal trends in equity of park accessibility in Yokohama, Japan: An Yokohama, Japan
investigation into the role of causal mechanisms. Environment and Planning A, 46(3), 682.

Needs Assessment
34. Badiu, D. L., Iojă, C. I., Pătroescu, M., Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Niță, M. R., Gradinaru, S.R., Hossu, C.A. & Onose, D. A. (2016). Is Multiple cities, Romania
urban green space per capita a valuable target to achieve cities’ sustainability goals? Romania as a case study. Ecological Indicators,
70, 53–66.
35. *BenDor, T., Westervelt, J., Song, Y., & Sexton, J. O. (2013). Modelling park development through regional land use change Raleigh & Durham, North Carolina, USA
simulation. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 1–12. doi: https://doi.org//10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.012
36. *Boone, C. G., Buckley, G. L., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 767–787.
37. *Byrne, J., Sipe, N., & Searle, G. (2010). Green around the gills? The challenge of density for urban greenspace planning in SEQ. Brisbane & Gold Coast, Australia
Australian Planner, 47(3), 162–177.
(continued on next page)

93
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 5 (continued)

Reference City, Country

38. * Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility Leicester, England
for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(1), 103–114.
39. Ibes, D. C. (2015). A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: A novel methodology and case Phoenix, Arizona, USA
study application. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 122–137.
40. * Jansson, M., & Persson, B. (2010). Playground planning and management: an evaluation of standard-influenced provision Glumslov & Degeberga, Sweden
through user needs. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9(1), 33–42. doi: https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ufug.2009.10.003
41. Nicholls, S. (2001). Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: A case study using GIS. Managing Leisure, 6(4), 201–219. Bryan, Texas, USA
42. Pincetl, S. (2003). Nonprofits and park provision in Los Angeles: An exploration of the rise of governance approaches to the Los Angeles, California, USA
provision of local services. Social Science Quarterly, 84(4), 979–1001. Doi: https://doi.org//10.1046/j.00384941.2003.08404019.x
43. Sister, C., Wolch, J., & Wilson, J. (2010). Got green? Addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal, 75(3), Los Angeles, California, USA
229–248. doi: https://doi.org//10.1007/s10708-009-9303-8
44. *Van Herzele, A., & Wiedemann, T. (2003). A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Antwerp, Belgium
Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109–126.
45. Wang, D., Brown, G., & Liu, Y. (2015). The physical and non-physical factors that influence perceived access to urban parks. Brisbane, Australia
Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 53–66.
46. * Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Los Angeles, California, USA
Geography, 26(1), 4–35.
47. Willemse, L. (2013). A Flowmap – geographic information systems approach to determine community neighbourhood park Cape Town, South Africa
proximity in Cape Town. South African Geographical Journal, 95(2), 149–164.

Land-use Zone (Greenbelt)

48. Amati, M., & Yokohari, M. (2006). Temporal changes and local variations in the functions of London's green belt. Landscape and London, UK
Urban Planning, 75(1), 125–142.
49. Evans, C., & Freestone, R. (2010). From green belt to green web: Regional open space planning in Sydney, 1948–1963. Planning, Sydney, Australia
Practice and Research, 25(2), 223–240.
50. Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J., & Liu, X. (2005). Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: Beijing, China
A case study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 72(4), 325–336.

No Planning Approach Identified

51. Alam, R., Shirazi, S., Zia, M. B. S., & Bhalliand, M. (2014). Spatial distribution of urban green spaces in Lahore, Pakistan: A case Lahore, Pakistan
study of Gulberg Town. Pakistan Journal of Science, 66(3).
52. Aljoufie, M., & Tiwari, A. (2015). Valuing ‘Green Infrastructure’ in Jeddah: A City lost in ‘Grey’ Infrastructure. Journal of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Architecture and Urbanism, 39(4), 248–259.
53. Barnett, G., Doherty, M., & Beaty, M. (2005). Urban greenspace: connecting people and nature. Environment: Science and Policy for Melbourne, Australia
Sustainable Development, 13, 1.
54. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecological Economics, 120, 139–152. Berlin, Germany
55. Bryant, M. M. (2006). Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales. Washington, DC, USA
Landscape and Urban Planning, 76(1), 23–44.
56. Bullock, C. H. (2008). Valuing urban green space: hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. Journal of Environmental Planning Dublin, Ireland
and Management, 51(1), 15–35.
57. Chen, W. Y., & Hu, F. Z. Y. (2015). Producing nature for public: Land-based urbanization and provision of public green spaces in Multiple cities, China
China. Applied Geography, 58, 32–40.
58. Choumert, J. (2010). An empirical investigation of public choices for green spaces. Land Use Policy, 27(4), 1123–1131. Multiple municipalities, France
59. Curran, W., & Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: Contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local New York, NY, USA
Environment, 17(9), 1027–1042.
60. Fields, B. (2009). From green dots to greenways: Planning in the age of climate change in post-Katrina New Orleans. Journal of New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Urban Design, 14(3), 325–344.
61. Frischenbruder, M. T. M., & Pellegrino, P. (2006). Using greenways to reclaim nature in Brazilian cities. Landscape and Urban Multiple cities, Brazil
Planning, 76(1), 67–78.
62. Fuller, R. A., & Gaston, K. J. (2009). The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology Letters, 5(3), 352–355. Multiple Cities/Countries
63. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase Sheffield, UK
with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–394.
64. Henderson, J. C. (2013). Urban parks and green spaces in Singapore. Managing Leisure, 18(3), 213–225. Singapore
65. Higgs, G., Fry, R., & Langford, M. (2012). Investigating the implications of using alternative GIS-based techniques to measure Cardiff, UK
accessibility to green space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(2), 326–343.
66. Jim, C., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation – amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Guangzhou, China
Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1), 81–96.
67. Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2010). Levelling the playing field? Urban disparities in funding for local parks and recreation in the Los Los Angeles, California, USA
Angeles region. Environment and Planning A, 42(5), 1174.
68. Joassart-Marcelli, P., Wolch, J., & Salim, Z. (2011). Building the healthy city: The role of non-profits in creating active urban parks. Multiple municipalities, Southern
Urban Geography, 32(5), 682–711. California, USA
69. Jones, A. P., Brainard, J., Bateman, I. J., & Lovett, A. A. (2009). Equity of access to public parks in Birmingham, England. Birmingham, UK
Environmental Research Journal, 3(2), 237–256.
70. Kabisch, N. (2015). Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning — The case of Berlin, Germany
Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy, 42, 557–567.
71. Kong, F., Yin, H., & Nakagoshi, N. (2007). Using GIS and landscape metrics in the hedonic price modelling of the amenity value of Jinan, China
urban green space: A case study in Jinan City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3), 240–252.
72. Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z. A., & McPhearson, T. (2013). A social – ecological assessment of vacant lots in New York City. Landscape New York, NY, USA
and Urban Planning, 120, 218–233.
73. Lee, Y., Gu, N., & An, S. (2016). Residents' perception and use of green space: Results from a mixed method study in a deprived Jeonju, Korea
neighbourhood in Korea. Indoor and Built Environment, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X16661024
74. Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2016). Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and urban public green spaces availability: A localized Shanghai, China
modelling approach to inform land use policy. Land Use Policy, 57, 470–478.
75. Lin, B., Meyers, J., & Barnett, G. (2015). Understanding the potential loss and inequities of green space distribution with urban Sydney, Australia
densification. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(4), 952–958.
(continued on next page)

94
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Table 5 (continued)

Reference City, Country

76. Lotfi, S., & Koohsari, M. J. (2009). Measuring objective accessibility to neighborhood facilities in the city (A case study: Zone 6 in Tehran, Iran
Tehran, Iran). Cities, 26(3), 133–140.
77. Nam, J., & Kim, H. (2014). The correlation between spatial characteristics and utilization of city parks. Journal of Asian Architecture Seoul, Korea
and Building Engineering, 13(2), 515.
78. Perkins, H. A. (2009). Turning feral spaces into trendy places: A coffee house in every park? Environment and Planning A, 41(11), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
2615–2632.
79. Poudyal, N. C., Hodges, D. G., Tonn, B., & Cho, S.-H. (2009). Valuing diversity and spatial pattern of open space plots in urban Roanoke, Virginia, USA
neighborhoods. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(3), 194–201.
80. Reyes, M., Páez, A., & Morency, C. (2014). Walking accessibility to urban parks by children: A case study of Montreal. Landscape Montreal, Canada
and Urban Planning, 125, 38–47.
81. Rosol, M. (2010). Public Participation in post‐Fordist urban green space governance: The case of community gardens in Berlin. Berlin, Germany
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 548–563.
82. Rosol, M. (2012). Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in Berlin. Antipode, 44(1), 239–257. Berlin, Germany
83. Roy, P. (2011). Non-profit and community-based green space production in Milwaukee: Maintaining a counter-weight within neo- Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
liberal urban environmental governance. Space and Polity, 15(2), 87–105.
84. Samadhi, T. N., & Tantayanusorn, N. (2006). Reinventing religious land as urban open space: The case of Kuang in Chiang Mai Chiang Mai, Thailand
(Thailand). Habitat International, 30(4), 886–901.
85. Sandstrom, U. G. (2002). Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), 373–385. Multiple cities, Sweden
86. Schäffler, A., & Swilling, M. (2013). Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg Johannesburg, South Africa
case. Ecological Economics, 86, 246–257.
87. Schetke, S., Qureshi, S., Lautenbach, S., & Kabisch, N. (2016). What determines the use of urban green spaces in highly urbanized Karachi, Pakistan & Ho-Chi-Minh City,
areas? – Examples from two fast growing Asian cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 16, 150–159. Vietnam
88. Speak, A., Mizgajski, A., & Borysiak, J. (2015). Allotment gardens and parks: Provision of ecosystem services with an emphasis on Manchester, UK & Poznan, Poland
biodiversity. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(4), 772–781.
89. Stewart, I. T., Bacon, C. M., & Burke, W. D. (2014). The uneven distribution of environmental burdens and benefits in Silicon Santa Clara County, California, USA
Valley's backyard. Applied Geography, 55, 266–277.
90. Tang, B.-s., & Wong, S.-w. (2008). A longitudinal study of open space zoning and development in Hong Kong. Landscape and Urban Hong Kong, China
Planning, 87(4), 258–268.
91. Thompson, C. W., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A., & Miller, D. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in Dundee, UK
deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229.
92. Tian, Y., Jim, C., & Wang, H. (2014). Assessing the landscape and ecological quality of urban green spaces in a compact city. Hong Kong, China
Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 97–108.
93. Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., & Schipperijn, J. (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Helsinki, Finland
Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1), 5–19.
94. Tzoulas, K., & James, P. (2010). Peoples’ use of, and concerns about, green space networks: A case study of Birchwood, Warrington Warrington, UK
New Town, UK. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9(2), 121–128.
95. Van Dijk, T. (2009). Who is in charge of the urban fringe? Neoliberalism, open space preservation and growth control. Planning, Seattle, Washington & Portland, Oregon,
Practice and Research, 24(3), 343–361. USA
96. Van Herzele, A., De Clercq, E. M., & Wiedemann, T. (2005). Strategic planning for new woodlands in the urban periphery: Through Antwerp, Belgium
the lens of social inclusiveness. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 3(3), 177–188.
97. Van Zoest, J., & Hopman, M. (2014). Taking the economic benefits of green space into account: The story of the Dutch TEEB for Multiple municipalities, The Netherlands
Cities project. Urban Climate, 7, 107–114.
98. Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Real Estate Economics, 36(2), New York, NY, USA
241–283.
99. Vollmer, D., Prescott, M. F., Padawangi, R., Girot, C., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2015). Understanding the value of urban riparian Jakarta, Indonesia
corridors: considerations in planning for cultural services along an Indonesian river. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 144–154.
100. Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015). A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park Brisbane, Australia
use. Cities, 42, 85–96. doi: https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.003
101. Wendel, H. E. W., Downs, J. A., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2011). Assessing equitable access to urban green space: The role of engineered Tampa, Florida, USA
water infrastructure. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(16), 6728–6734.
102. Xu, X., Cui, C., Xu, L., & Ma, L. (2013). Method study on relative assessment for ecosystem service: A case of green space in Beijing, China
Beijing, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 68(7), 1913–1924.
103. You, H. (2016). Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International, Shenzhen, China
56, 176–180.
104. Zérah, M. H. (2007). Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park Mumbai, India
in Mumbai. Cities, 24(2), 122–132.

*
Paper also referenced “Standards”.

in Hermosillo, Mexico, the arrival of international investment in 4. Discussion

property development resulted in “privatization of public space and
intensified uneven urban development” (Lara-Valencia & García-Pérez,
2015, p. 362).
Finally, some scholars (7 papers) have reported that organisational
culture can hinder greenspace provision. Examples include bureaucratic
behaviours toward effective use of resources (Choumert, 2010) and the
application of “informal, administrative plans rather than formal,
statutory plans” in Hong Kong (Tang & Wong, 2008, p. 260). In
Milwaukee, the city’s ability to provide greenspaces was impacted as a
result of disparate views held by the County Executive, the Parks
Manager, and County Supervisors about approaches to reduce ex-
penditure and increase revenue (Perkins, 2009).
This review has sought to systematically evaluate peer-reviewed
studies on urban greenspace provision to: (i) identify the drivers and
barriers for effective local government greenspace provision; (ii) eval-
uate the efficacy of current approaches to local government greenspace
provision; and (iii) identify patterns, similarities and differences be-
tween cities of different size. A diverse and complex array of challenges
affects the provision of urban parks and greenspace, and local gov-
ernments often struggle to reconcile competing demands. While this
issue has been acknowledged for decades, it has only recently emerged
as a prominent research topic, initially dominated by scholars from
North America (Griffith, 2000; Nicholls, 2001) and now shifting focus
to Asia and Europe.

95
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Fig. 7. Relationship of existing urban greenspace supply and demand.

Studies have found that governance tools play an important role. efficacious provision: the process or the outcomes? (iii) what factors are
Legislation and laws, policy, strategy, plans, programs, guidelines, critical for the effective provision of greenspace to deliver intended
standards and other such instruments can strongly delimit the provision benefits? and (iv) does settlement size, age or density matter when
of greenspace. Even when clear intentions are enshrined in governance providing greenspace? We address these in turn.
tools, other factors can inhibit greenspace acquisition and management
– including local finances, land availability and local politics (Jim &
4.1. How much greenspace is enough? Does type matter?
Chen, 2006; Li, Wang, Paulussen, & Liu, 2005). Less obvious influences
can also affect decision-making about the timing and extent of green-
How much greenspace is sufficient to meet the needs of human and
space provision.
non-human users? Greenspace provision can be conceptualised as a
Four key questions have emerged from our review that require
function of the interplay between extensive and diverse demands and
further attention because their answers affect both urban liveability and
the capacity of local governments to supply land to meet those de-
the capacity of city governments to protect greenspace functions, ser-
mands, which is often impacted by resources and governance tools,
vices and benefits. These questions are: (i) do cities actually need parks,
among other factors (Fig. 9). There appears to be an emerging con-
or will other types of greenspace suffice? (ii) what is more important to
sensus among researchers that if urban populations are to derive the

Fig. 8. Prominence of factors that influence greenspace provision.

96
C. Boulton et al.
Fig. 9. Conceptual model of the factors that shape urban greenspace provision.
greatest benefits from greenspace, diverse types of greenspace must be
provided. Moreover, greenspace must be accessible to the variegated
communities it is intended to serve, and provision must flexibly facil-
itate a range of current and future uses.
Studies suggest that most cities are failing to meet the greenspace
demands of their populace through greenspace provision alone. These
findings are not new: Gold (1973) reported the findings of a study from
1940 that of 1282 cities ranging from 2500 to more than one million,
one quarter met their area standard (one acre per 100 persons); and
later in 1950, another study of 189 cities found that little had changed
with just 27% achieving their area standard. European and Asian cities
have tended to refer to greenspace rather than solely ‘parks’. Here at-
tention has been given to “urban vegetation” generally rather than
“nature/natural areas”. And in densely populated Chinese cities,
greenspaces tend to be considered for their multiple-functions and
benefits – single-purpose nature conservation areas are rare. But if we
concentrate on the functions, services and benefits of greenspaces, then
what they are called (e.g. park, playground, reserve, open space) mat-
ters less than how they are managed to meet competing demands. If we
focus on how best to meet different needs, the provision questions shift
to what types of land are available, where are they located, and how
best to manage them given available resources and political pressure.
For example, Jim and Chen (2003) have described a flexible approach
in Nanjing City, China that attempts to meet current demands (in-
cluding recreation, transport, environment) and to future-proof the city
against unforeseen needs (and local politics). Conversely, Byrne,
Kendrick, and Sroaf (2007) have shown how the conversion of a de-
commissioned oilfield in Los Angeles into a greenspace provided un-
anticipated recreation and biodiversity benefits - an outcome that might
not have occurred if a local politician had not championed protection of
this land.
Greenspace needs to be accessible, available and adaptable.
Accessibility is typically measured by distance: perceived, network
and/or Euclidian. In Guangzhou, Jim and Chen (2006) found “proxi-
mity to residence, workplace or school” was an important factor for
greenspace use; in Reading, UK, young people congregated in their
nearest greenspace despite substandard facilities and condition due to
uneven greenspace facility distribution (Markwell & Ravenscroft,
2000). In their study of Brisbane greenspace provision, Wang, Brown,
97
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
Liu, et al. (2015) found that perceived distance was more accurate than
geographical distance when predicting use of greenspaces, and
Neuvonen, Sievänen, Tönnes, and Koskela (2007) demonstrated that
green areas close to residents in Helsinki, Finland encouraged physical
activity. Many studies illustrate the challenges that arise when com-
munities have inadequate quantities of greenspace available. Lo and
Jim (2012) have shown that when too many people are sharing
greenspaces in compact cities, problems of disengagement with nature
arise. Ibes (2015) reported an inequitable distribution of urban core
greenspaces was associated with socio-economic disadvantage and high
population density. Greenspace also needs to be adaptable to changing
socio-demographic profiles if it is to be valued by the community.
Poudyal, Hodges, Tonn, and Cho (2009) for instance, have found that in
Roanoke, Virginia, residents prefer a variety of open spaces of larger
sizes and regular shapes. So we might reasonably conclude that the
important question is not how much is necessary, but rather, how to
meet diverse demands effectively? A critical task for planners and re-
searchers then, is to determine the efficacy of different greenspace
frameworks, and to consider how multiple types of greenspace may
contribute to meeting the over-arching greenspace needs for a variety of
purposes.
4.2. Prioritising the process or the outcome?
Our review suggests that cities use one of three planning approaches
for greenspace provision: standards; needs assessment; and land-use
zones such as a greenbelt. Despite all the research on greenspace de-
mand, we still do not have a definitive answer to the question of how
much greenspace cities need. Indeed, we may never get a simple answer
because, as discussed in the introduction, cities are highly hetero-
geneous. A one-size-fits-all approach (e.g. setting rigid standards)
simply cannot deliver what it intends. Yet, the standards approach has
historically been dominant for recreation and is still in place in many
parts of the world.
Gold (1973) and Wilkinson (1985) have documented the origins,
strengths, and challenges of the standards approach (see Table 1 for
chronology) including the enormous pressure it can place on local
governments as developers vie for reductions and local authorities are
left with large areas of greenspace to manage and maintain, straining
C. Boulton et al.
local government coffers. Moreover, such standards may not even de-
liver their intended outcomes. In neighbouring Australian cities Bris-
bane, Gold Coast (Byrne & Sipe, 2010) and Logan (Boulton, Byrne, &
Dedekorkut-Howes, 2015) for example, greenspace provision has failed
to meet the planned targets expressed within a “standards” approach.
Of concern, such approaches may encourage ‘gaming’ of performance
indicators; local governments may include marginal areas (e.g. traffic
islands, drainage easements) in their reporting of greenspace (to boost
figures) because greenspace has become a ‘quality of life’ indicator.
Perversely, such actions can reduce the availability of greenspace in
some localities. Given these and other experiences, it seems that while
greenspace standards have frequently informed policy and parkland
acquisition (see Barbosa et al., 2007; Comber, Brunsdon & Green, 2008;
Markwell & Ravenscroft, 2000) they are typically not enforced or en-
acted (see Lara-Valencia & Garcia-Perez, 2015; Searle, 2011).
We must question the validity and utility of greenspace standards.
Cities such as Hong Kong and Guangzhou, have comparatively small
urban greenspace targets (2 and 10 m2/person respectively) and in-
clude large areas of unusable greenspace within the city’s greenspace
ledger (e.g. steep hillsides, marshland). Even so, Jim and Chen (2010)
have noted that there is not enough land available in Hong Kong to
meet prevailing greenspace standards. In Leicester, UK natural areas,
wetlands, commons and cemeteries are included in greenspace calcu-
lations (Comber, Brunsdon & Green, 2008) and Australia’s Gold Coast is
contemplating including beachfront land (MAK Planning & C Change
Sustainable Solutions Pty Ltd, 2015). While scholars report that
greenspace provision had been met in whole in Lahore, Pakistan (Alam,
Shirazi, Zia, & Bhalliand, 2014), and Montreal, accessibility remains an
issue (Reyes, Páez, & Morency, 2014). The process of requiring the
ceding of a percentage of the developable area for greenspace at the
time of development has also been used in the past, varying from 3% to
10% for public open space, with divergent conservation and recreation
outcomes (Grose, 2009). There are other problems with standards as
well. If a standard specifies walking distance, how do we account for
the different abilities of children, the elderly, pregnant mothers and
people with a disability – challenges recently flagged for future research
(Stafford & Baldwin, 2018)? And, if standards prescribe a service area
(e.g. distance), how do we account for perceived versus actual distance?
Is it more important that greenspaces are nearby, irrespective of whe-
ther they are informal or highly manicured? Should local governments
seek to provide an overall mix of diverse types rather than a uniform
distribution of neighbourhood greenspaces? And, if a standard specifies
types of facilities, how do we accommodate different socio-demo-
graphic and environmental variations and community needs? Might we
more meaningfully activate currently underutilised greenspaces to
better meet a populations’ needs (e.g. cemeteries and street verges)?
Rupprecht and Byrne (2014) for example, have documented the diverse
types of informal greenspaces that exist in cities and suggest they too
can play an important role in supporting recreation and ecosystem
service delivery.
4.3. What factors are critical to providing greenspace effectively?
Our review suggests that five factors influence the effective provi-
sion of greenspace: governance tools; political leadership; resources;
governance structure; and organisational culture. These factors operate
across scales (from local to global) as well as both external and internal
to local and regional governance (e.g. councils). We have illustrated the
potential interplay of these factors in a conceptual model (Fig. 9),
which guides the remainder of our discussion.
Governance tools (e.g. legislation, local laws, policy, strategy, plans)
can facilitate or disable effective greenspace provision, as demonstrated
by Alphan (2003), Pincetl (2003) and Rosol (2010). Moreover, such
instruments are only effective when supported by political leadership.
While a third of the papers we assessed discussed political leadership, it
was mostly the absence that was attributed to the under-provision of
98
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
greenspace. Researchers described how failures to secure greenspace
arose from reluctance to enforce policy provisions through fear of
conflict with developers and fear of losing revenue (Lara-Valencia &
García-Pérez, 2015; Pincetl & Gearin, 2005; Searle, 2011). These find-
ings corroborate those of previous research, including how political
leadership can (re)produce inequalities in greenspace provision for
communities differentiated by race/ethnicity, age (Markwell &
Ravenscroft, 2000); income (Talen, 1997); and home ownership
(Koehler & Wrightson, 1987, p. 89).
Studies also point to the importance of adequate resourcing, in-
cluding: for maintenance budgets; community engagement; data ac-
quisition and management; professional expertise; and systems opera-
tion. Competing demands for funding greenspace acquisition,
development and maintenance can hamper effective provision; budget
cuts in greenspace management and acquisition may result from
Neoliberalist, growth-oriented, laissez-faire approaches to public gov-
ernance (Perkins, 2009; Joassart-Marcelli et al., 2011; and Roy, 2011),
with perverse consequences. For example, outsourcing park program
service delivery to volunteers in Southern California resulted in an
uneven distribution of services, favouring white and affluent popula-
tions (Joassart-Marcelli, Wolch, & Salim, 2011), while funding pro-
grams resourcing non-profit organisations’ delivery of greenspaces in
Los Angeles resulted in worsening inequalities in greenspace distribu-
tion for non-white communities (Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenbach, 2005).
In Qatar, challenges posed by water provision for Greater Doha
greenspaces resulted in high maintenance costs and an informal policy
of reduced standards compared with other settlements (Hashem, 2015).
However, the financial demand for ongoing greenspace asset re-
newal was rarely identified by researchers. This is a notable gap in the
literature. If agencies responsible for greenspace provision cannot fund
effective maintenance, the acquisition and development of greenspace
becomes futile. In Milwaukee, for example, the transition from local
government-managed greenspaces to non-profit “adopted” greenspaces
resulted from reduced staff funding and the transfer of greenspace
management (Roy, 2011, p. 95). The establishment of the Green Flag
Award program (Keep Britain Tidy, 2017) and the emergence of com-
munity garden volunteers in Berlin (Rosol, 2012) demonstrate the
community reaction when fiscal austerity measures impact greenspace
provision and conditions deteriorate. Engaging community stake-
holders to support effective greenspace provision was also identified by
a number of researchers, where limited or no engagement resulted in
dissatisfaction with greenspace facilities (Gong et al., 2015; Schetke
et al., 2016).
Effective governance structures and supportive organisational cul-
tures are also important. For some major cities, including Hong Kong
and Los Angeles, this factor can play a significant role. Scholars have
found that inadequate attention to governance structure and organi-
sational culture, especially in fostering collaboration and collective
agreement, can impact a city’s strategic greenspace priorities, in turn
undermining provision. In Los Angeles for example, some local gov-
ernment functions (e.g. transport, sanitation and greenspaces) have
been privileged over others, often to the detriment of marginalised and
vulnerable communities (Pincetl & Gearin, 2005, Wolch et al., 2005). In
Romania, a lack of government interest has impeded adequate re-
porting and assessment of urban greenspace condition (Badiu et al.,
2016). In Hong Kong, government and developer relationships have
hindered effective provision (Cheung & Tang, 2016) and the privileging
of technocratic advice at the expense of local knowledge (i.e. park user
views) has produced poor-quality greenspaces (Lo & Jim, 2012).
Similarly in their study of multiple Chinese cities, Chen and Hu (2015)
found that local governments’ reliance on revenue from leased land to
fund more greenspace was unlikely to be successful. And in
Washington, DC, enhancing the biodiversity of a prominent greenway
was frustrated by lack of local government action, despite a policy es-
tablished to support the conservation outcomes (Bryant, 2006).
Similarly, Pincetl (2003) described the impacts of business community
C. Boulton et al.
and not-for-profit interests on greenspace provision, particularly their
role relative to public governance structures. Although organisational
culture is closely related to the success of governance structure in
providing urban greenspace it was less prominent in the studies we
reviewed and remains an important knowledge gap.
4.4. Does city size, age or density matter?
The literature suggests that greenspace provision problems may be
particularly acute among established, expanding and densifying capi-
tals with one to five million population. Seemingly, the larger the city,
the greater the concern about urban greenspace provision. However,
our review found several papers about non-capital cities that were
concentrated in the USA (including Fields, 2009; Romero, 2016;
Wendel et al., 2011) and the UK (such as Barbosa et al., 2007; Comber
et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2012). These cities can often be larger in
population and area than their administrative capital city counterparts
yet are not privileged with the financial support and investment pro-
vided by Federal agencies and corporations established in global, na-
tional and state administrative centres. Some non-capital cities may
also have less opportunity for development and employment generation
and may therefore be more vulnerable to the resourcing challenges of
urban greenspace provision.
At the macro scale, global markets and economies can also influence
greenspace provision, by changing the value of the local currency. In
Australia, for example, the Federal Reserve Bank adjusts interest rates
to influence borrowing and spending, impacting investors and shaping
property market trends, especially for building and construction. Just as
“larger firms have advantages in terms of long planning horizons, ex-
cess capacity, finance, advertising, land acquisition strategies and so
on” (Coiacetto, 2009), so too do larger cities. Joassart-Marcelli (2010,
p. 1184) has observed that the size of cities affects their capacity to
support investment in greenspace: “cities with larger governments are
more likely to have their own park and recreation agency, with a larger
number of employees able to handle the complexity of public finance,
including preparing proposals and reports, and combining various
sources of funding”. However, fewer than half the studies we assessed
noted that global and national economic fluctuations can affect the
provision of greenspaces locally. One of the reasons that standards have
been so readily adopted appears to be that some cities are not resourced
to undertake comprehensive greenspace planning. Mid-size cities,
challenged by “low-density, dispersed land use and travel patterns”
(Bunting, Filion, Hoernig, Seasons, & Lederer, 2007), as well as eco-
nomic stimulus and market volatility (Jacobs, 2006), may compromise
greenspace provision to attract housing and investment (Simard &
Simard, 2005). Yet this phenomenon was not apparent in the research
that we reviewed. This remains a gap in our understanding that war-
rants further attention.
5. Conclusions
This review has systematically evaluated peer-reviewed studies on
urban greenspace provision. At the beginning of this paper, we posed
the provocative question “How many greenspaces does a city need?”
There is no simple answer. Our review of the literature suggests two
interrelated questions may be more pertinent: (i) what are the factors
that influence the provision of greenspace in cities; and (ii) what are the
current approaches to providing municipal greenspace? Are they
working, and how can we tell? In answering these questions, we have
attempted to evaluate the efficacy of current approaches to municipal
greenspace provision, and to identify patterns, similarities, and differ-
ences between cities and urban settlement scales.
Our results corroborate the emerging consensus among scholars,
planning professionals and urban residents that the pressure and impact
of rapid urbanisation affects greenspace supply in the world’s densely
populated cities, especially those in Asia (Bengston, Fletcher, & Nelson,
99
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
2004; Jim, 2002). High rates of population growth and the problems
that greenspace scarcity poses for liveable cities and climate change
(e.g. physical and mental health impacts, heat island effect) appear to
be driving research interest. The World Health Organisation (2016) for
example, has also acknowledged the level of renewed interest in
greenspace issues, through its contribution to supporting urban com-
munities.
However, the literature on urban greenspace is dominated by stu-
dies of greenspace demand, with much less attention given to issues of
provision. Findings from the political ecology, political economy
(growth machine), service provision (governance) and environmental
justice literatures have highlighted important aspects of greenspace
provision (for example, Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2015; Pincetl & Gearin,
2005; Perkins, 2009), however have not adequately captured the
broader range of factors at play. Moreover, our professional experience
suggests that there is a notable, and perhaps increasing gap between
policy and practice. While the search terms we used may have missed
some articles, especially those published in languages other than
English, we are confident that the quantity and variety of papers we
have reviewed here is representative of the emerging trends in urban
greenspace provision. There are some other limitations to this study.
Our review was limited to peer-reviewed academic papers published in
the past 20 years. It did not include book chapters or grey literature,
which may have provided some more contemporary and applied ex-
periences of greenspace managers, including the challenges, achieve-
ments and new initiatives in practice.
For example, we know surprisingly little about the motivations of
greenspace managers and how they are coping with competing de-
mands. Future research is needed to address this knowledge gap. We
also found that most greenspace provision studies have employed sur-
veys and interviews. So, addressing this knowledge gap may necessitate
some novel mixed-methods approaches such as the combination of
ethnographic techniques (e.g. participant observation) with focus
groups and/or document analysis, to engage directly with greenspace
managers responsible for urban greenspace provision. An ethnographic
study of greenspace managers (poorly represented in the current lit-
erature) could illuminate their ‘world’, enabling us to better see points
of convergence and divergence between theory and practice, and to
identify if/how other approaches have been considered and/or exe-
cuted. A detailed analysis of how greenspace documents are prepared
could address current knowledge gaps about how professional and
political experience affects greenspace provision and management.
Such studies would help researchers better understand how the factors
influencing provision of urban greenspace ‘play out on the ground’.
Here, there is also the opportunity to undertake ‘action-oriented’
research that better connects scholars and practitioners. Urban plan-
ning and design professionals responsible for urban greenspace provi-
sion need to better understand the broad range of services that this type
of ‘green infrastructure’ provides to cities; the factors that influence
provision; as well as what is required to achieve effective outcomes. In
reality, how many greenspace managers are aware of ecosystem func-
tions, services and benefits and try to build them into greenspace pro-
vision? Is there a political appetite to try different approaches that
consider social needs at the risk of inequitable distribution? Are com-
munities willing to support less urban greenspace in the traditional
form of ‘a park’ in exchange for more ‘informal’ greenspace types? Can
public agencies coalesce with business community and non-profits to
support equitable and sustainable greenspace provision? How effective
is public agency collaboration between levels and departments of
government? Should managing city greenspace be a statutory respon-
sibility, given the demonstrated manifest benefits of urban greenspace?
Is good quality urban greenspace on a trajectory to becoming a luxury -
rather than a right - for our future cities, and what are the health,
wellbeing, ecological sustainability and social cohesion implications if
this is the case? These are just some of the important questions that
must be answered by further research.
C. Boulton et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101

Acknowledgements Gray, R., Gleeson, B., & Burke, M. (2010). Urban consolidation, household greenhouse
emissions and the role of planning. Urban Policy and Research, 28(3), 335–346.
Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J.
The authors acknowledge and sincerely thank Professor Catherine M. (2008). Global change and the ecology of cities. Science, 319(5864), 756–760.
Pickering for contributing to the statistical analysis of our data. We also Haaland, C., & Van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-
thank the anonymous reviewers of this article, particularly those who space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 14(4), 760–771.
provided extensive feedback about our research and advice on sug- Hamilton-Smith, E., & Mercer, D. (1991). Urban parks and their visitors: A review.
gested improvements and additions to drafts. All errors remain of Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.
course, our own. Harnik, P. (2010). Urban green: Innovative parks for resurgent cities. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Health Scotland, Greenspace Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage & Institute of
References Occupational Medicine (2008). Health Impact Assessment of Greenspace – A Guide.
Stirling, United Kingdom: Greenspace Scotland. http://www.greenspacescotland.org.
uk/SharedFiles/Download.aspx?pageid=133&mid=129&fileid=41 (accessed
Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication per-
February 21, 2018).
formance – An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834.
Hise, G., & Deverell, W. F. (2000). Eden by design: The 1930 olmstead-bartholomew plan for
Australian Research Council (ARC). (2014). ERA 2015 submitted journal list. http://
the los angeles region. University of California Press.
www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/filedepot/Public/ERA/ERA%202015/ERA2015_
Holmes (1911). Open spaces, gardens and recreation grounds. Transactions of the Town
Submitted_Journal_ListV2.xlsx (accessed January 30, 2018).
Planning Conference, The Conference, London.
Ballantyne, M., & Pickering, C. M. (2015). The impacts of trail infrastructure on vege-
Howes, M., Wortley, L., Potts, R., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., Serrao-Neumann, S., Davidson,
tation and soils: Current literature and future directions. Journal of Environmental
J., & Nunn, P. (2017). Environmental sustainability: A case of policy implementation
Management, 164, 53–64.
failure? Sustainability, 9(2), 165. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9020165.
Barth, D. (2008). How do you effectively assess a community's need for parks and open
Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’
space? In M. E. Lewis (Ed.). From recreation to re-creation: New directions in parks and
participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
open space system planning. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
22(3), 188–199.
Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2010). What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great american cities. New York: Vintage.
improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environmental Science and
Jacobs, A. J. (2006). Embedded localities: Employment decline, inner city population
Technology, 44(10), 3947–3955.
growth, and declining place stratification among Japan's mid-size and large cities.
Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing
City and Community, 5(3), 269–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2006.
urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in
00181.x.
the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2), 271–286.
Jim, C. (2002). Planning strategies to overcome constraints on greenspace provision in
Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological
urban Hong Kong. Town Planning Review, 73(2), 127–152.
Economics, 29(2), 293–301.
Jim, C., & Chan, M. W. (2016). Urban greenspace delivery in Hong Kong: Spatial-in-
Boulton, C., Byrne, J., & Dedekorkut-Howes, A. (2015). The role of political and financial
stitutional limitations and solutions. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 18, 65–85.
factors in the provision of parks: The case of Logan City, Queensland. State of
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., & Forrest, J. (2007). The geography of ethnic residential
Australian Cities 2015 Conference Proceedings, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
segregation: A comparitive study of five countries. Annals of the Association of
Bunting, T., Filion, P., Hoernig, H., Seasons, M., & Lederer, J. (2007). Density, size, dis-
American Geographers, 97(4), 713–738.
persion: Towards understanding the structural dynamics of mid-size cities. Canadian
Keep Britain Tidy (2017). Award History. Green Flag Award. http://www.greenflagaward.
Journal of Urban Research, 16, 27.
org.uk/about-us/award-history/ (accessed February 21, 2018).
Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: a
Koehler, D. H., & Wrightson, M. T. (1987). Inequality in the delivery of urban services: A
study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies,
reconsideration of the Chicago parks. The Journal of Politics, 49(01), 80–99.
25(6), 455–473.
Kohl, H. W., Craig, C. L., Lambert, E. V., Inoue, S., Alkandari, J. R., Leetongin, G., &
Butler, G. D. (Ed.). (1928). Play areas: Their design and equipment. New York: A.S. Barnes.
Kahlmeier, S. (2012). The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public
Butler, G. D. (1936). Playgrounds: Their administration and operation. New York: A.S.
health. The Lancet, 380(9838), 294–305.
Barnes.
Lewis, M. E. (2008). Parks and open space system plans. In M. E. Lewis (Ed.). From re-
Byrne, J., Kendrick, M., & Sroaf, D. (2007). The park made of oil: Towards a historical
creation to re-creation: New directions in parks and open space system planning. Chicago,
political ecology of the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area. Local Environment,
IL: American Planning Association.
12(2), 153–181.
Lo, A. Y., Byrne, J. A., & Jim, C. (2017). How climate change perception is reshaping
Byrne, J., & Portanger, C. (2014). Climate change, energy policy and justice: A systematic
attitudes towards the functional benefits of urban trees and green space: Lessons from
review. Analyse and Kritik, 36(2), 315–344.
Hong Kong. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 23, 74–83.
Byrne, J., & Sipe, N. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation – A
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Sideris, A. (2009). What brings children to the park? Analaysis
review of the literature and best practice. Issues Paper, 11.
and measurement of the variables affecting children’s use of parks. Journal of the
Byrne, J., & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions
American Planning Association, 76(1), 89–107.
for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 743–765.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Stieglitz, O. (2002). Children in Los Angeles Parks: A study of
Chong, S., Lobb, E., Khan, R., Abu-Rayya, H., Byun, R., & Jalaludin, B. (2013).
equity, quality and children’s staisfaction with neighbourhood parks. The Town
Neighbourhood safety and area deprivation modify the associations between park-
Planning Review, 73(4), 467–488.
land and psychological distress in Sydney, Australia. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 422.
Lucy, W. (1981). Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American Planning
Cohen, B. (2006). Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projec-
Association, 47(4), 447–457.
tions, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in Society, 28(1), 63–80.
MAK Planning & Design, C Change Sustainable Solutions Pty Ltd and John Wood
Coiacetto, E. (2009). Industry structure in real estate development: Is city building
Consultancy Services (2015) Open Space Practices in High Density Areas. Gold Coast,
competitive? Urban Policy and Research, 27(2), 117–135.
Australia: Gold Coast City Council. http://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/
Curtis, H. S. (1910). Provision and responsibility for playgrounds. Annals of the American
open-space-practises-high-density-areas.pdf (accessed March 2, 2018).
Academy of Political and Social Science, 35 188-128.
Maroko, A. R., Maantay, J. A., Sohler, N. L., Grady, K. L., & Arno, P. S. (2009). The
Dahmann, N., Wolch, J., Jossart-Marcelli, P., Reynolds, K., & Jerrett, M. (2010). The
complexities of measuring access to parks and physical activity sites in New York
active city? Disparities in provision of urban public recreation resources. Health and
City: A quantitative and qualitative approach. International Journal of Health
Place, 16(3), 431–445.
Geographics, 8(1), 34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-8-34.
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R., ...
Maruani, T., & Amit-Cohen, I. (2007). Open space planning models: A review of ap-
Gobster, P. H. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services
proaches and methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(1), 1–13.
agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(23), 8812–8819.
Mertes, J., & Hall, J. (1996). Parks, recreation and open space greenway guidelines. Ashburn,
Dickason, J. G. (1981). Play for America: The National Recreation Association, 1906-
VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
1965, Richard F. Knapp and Charles E. Hartsoe. Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 84.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
Doxiadis, C. A. (1970). Ekistics, the science of human settlements. Science, 170(3956),
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal
393–404.
Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
Forster, C. (2006). The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the
National Recreation and Parks Association (1967). Outdoor recreation space standards.
new millennium. Geographical Research, 44(2), 173–182.
Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., ...
National Recreation and Park Association (n.d.). National Recreation and Park Association
Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attrac-
Metrics. https://www.nrpa.org/publications-research/ParkMetrics/ (accessed
tiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
February 14, 2018).
28(2), 169–176.
Olmstead, F.L. Snr (1906). The normal requirements of American towns and cities in
Gill, S., Handley, J., Ennos, A., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change:
respect to public open space. Charities and the Commons July, 411–17.
the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment (1978-), 115–133.
Pearson, S. (2014). New funding models aim to reverse Latin America’s academic decline.
Gobster, P. H. (2002). Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse cli-
Special Report: The Future of the University. https://www.ft.com/content/20384cb6-
entele. Leisure Sciences, 24(2), 143–159.
283c-11e4-9ea9-00144feabdc0 (accessed October 7, 2014).
Gold, S. M. (1973). Urban recreation planning. Henry Kimpton: London, UK.
Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative lit-
Gooch, R. B. (1964). Planning for recreation. Town and Country Planning, 32, 480–484.
erature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher

100
C. Boulton et al.
Education Research and Development, 33(3), 534–548.
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin, M. (2005). The mental and physical health
outcomes of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research,
15(5), 319–337.
Richardson, E. A., Pearce, J., Mitchell, R., & Kingham, S. (2013). Role of physical activity
in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health, 127(4),
318–324.
Romero, A. J. (2005). Low-income neighborhood barriers and resources for adolescents’
physical activity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 253–259.
Rupprecht, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). Informal urban green-space: Comparison of quantity
and characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. PLoS One, 9(6),
e99784. https://doi.org/99710.91371/journal.pone.0099784.
Simard, M., & Simard, C. (2005). Toward a culturalist city: A planning agenda for per-
ipheral mid-size cities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14(1), 38–56.
Springgate, L. (2008). Defining parks and park systems. In M. E. Lewis (Ed.). Recreation to
Re-creation. American Planning AssociationChicago, IL: American Planning
Association.
Stafford, L., & Baldwin, C. (2018). Planning walkable neighbourhoods: Are we over-
looking diversity in abilities and ages? Journal of Planning Literature, 33(1), 17–30.
Steven, R., Pickering, C., & Castley, J. G. (2011). A review of the impacts of nature based
recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2287–2294.
Stubbs, M. (2008). Natural green space and planning policy: Devising a model for its
delivery in regional spatial strategies. Landscape Research, 33(1), 119–139.
Talen, E. (1997). The social equity of urban service distribution: An exploration of park
access in Pueblo, Colorado, and Macon, Georgia. Urban Geography, 18(6), 521–541.
Talen, E. (2010). The spatial logic of parks. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 473–491.
Tan, P. Y., & Samsudin, R. (2017). Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity
of urban park provision. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 139–154.
Taylor, L., & Hochuli, D. F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple
disciplines. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 25–38.
Theobold, W. (1984). A history of recreation resource planning: the origins of space
standards. Leisure Studies, 3, 189–200.
Tomalty, R. (2012). Growth management in the Vancouver region. Local Environment,
7(4), 431–445.
United Nations (2010). Worlds Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. Department of
Economics and Social Affairs – Population Division. New York. https://www.scribd.
com/document/78681125/World-Urbanization-Prospects-2009-Revision-United-
101
Landscape and Urban Planning 178 (2018) 82–101
Nations-2010 (accessed February 21, 2018).
United Nations (2015). Sustainable Development Goals. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
files/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf (accessed
February 21, 2018).
Universities New Zealand (2016). Universities welcome budget funding. 26 May 2016.
http://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/latest-news-and-publications/universities-
welcome-budget-funding (accessed February 21, 2018).
Van Zyl, V. (2016). How the funding of science research in South Africa can be over-
hauled. The Conversation. Australia. Available from http://theconversation.com/how-
the-funding-of-science-research-in-south-africa-can-be-overhauled-65272.
Veal, A. J. (2013). Open space planning standards in Australia: In search of origins.
Australian Planner, 50(3), 224–232.
Wendel, H. E. W., Zarger, R. K., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2012). Accessbility and usability: Green
space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin
America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 272–282.Wikipedia contributors
(2017, 31 January 2017 22:35 UTC). Settlement hierarchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/
w/index.php?title=Settlement_hierarchy&oldid=763017538 (accessed January 31,
2017).
Wilkinson, P. F. (1985). The golden fleece: The search for standards. Leisure Studies, 4(2),
189–203.
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
World Health Organisation (2016). Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence.
Available from Copenhagen, Denmark: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/
environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2016/urban-green-spaces-and-
health-a-review-of-evidence-2016.
World Health Organization (2000). Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic.
Report of a WHO Consultation (WHO Technical Report Series 894). http://www.who.
int/nutrition/publications/obesity/WHO_TRS_894/en/ (accessed February 21,
2018).
Wortley, L., Hero, J. M., & Howes, M. (2013). Evaluating ecological restoration success: A
review of the literature. Restoration Ecology, 21(5), 537–543.
Zhou, X., & Wang, Y.-c. (2011). Spatial-temporal dynamics of urban green space in re-
sponse to rapid urbanization and greening policies. Landscape and Urban Planning,
100(3), 268–277.