2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126450
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Role of geospatial technology in understanding urban green space of Kalaburagi city for sustainable planning

Abstract: This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Kabisch and Hasse [66], in their study on green spaces in European cities revisited over the period 1990-2006, showed that there was no correlation between per capita UGS and population density, showing that a decrease in the population does not necessarily lead to more UGS. Silva and Viegas [67], in their studies on environmental justice and inaccessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities, identified that the level of UGS in Tartu, Estonia, at 20.8 m 2 /inhabitant, was higher than in Faro, Portugal, at 6.2 m 2 /inhabitant. The high proportion of UGS in Tartu was attributed to the low density of the development in the city [67].…”
Section: Urban Green Spaces and Population Densitymentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Kabisch and Hasse [66], in their study on green spaces in European cities revisited over the period 1990-2006, showed that there was no correlation between per capita UGS and population density, showing that a decrease in the population does not necessarily lead to more UGS. Silva and Viegas [67], in their studies on environmental justice and inaccessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities, identified that the level of UGS in Tartu, Estonia, at 20.8 m 2 /inhabitant, was higher than in Faro, Portugal, at 6.2 m 2 /inhabitant. The high proportion of UGS in Tartu was attributed to the low density of the development in the city [67].…”
Section: Urban Green Spaces and Population Densitymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Silva and Viegas [67], in their studies on environmental justice and inaccessibility to green infrastructure in two European cities, identified that the level of UGS in Tartu, Estonia, at 20.8 m 2 /inhabitant, was higher than in Faro, Portugal, at 6.2 m 2 /inhabitant. The high proportion of UGS in Tartu was attributed to the low density of the development in the city [67]. Correspondingly, Shekhar and Aryal [68] argued that there is a negative correlation between population density and per capita green space, i.e., high-density wards have less per capita UGS, while outer wards have relatively high per capita UGS, because of the presence of low-density settlement.…”
Section: Urban Green Spaces and Population Densitymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In that case, the trend of fragmentation should not be simply interpreted as a "negative" consequence. While many studies investigated greenspace distribution [86][87] as well as its change over time [52,83], seldom did researchers measure its impact on accessibility at the same time. This study indicated that both fragmentation and accessibility increased between 2005-2015 in Beijing, which may constitute a trade-off for greenspace planning, especially in densely populated urban areas.…”
Section: Fragmented Greenspace Increased Accessibilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Urban greenspaces have increasingly been recognized as providing multiple benefits for improving urban sustainability and liveability (Grilo et al, 2020;Shekhar and Aryal, 2019;Verdú-Vázquez et al, 2017). Greenspaces include parks and reserves, sports fields, community gardens, street trees, and nature conservation areas, as well as less conventional spaces such as green walls and green alleyways (Wolch et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%