The concept of green infrastructure and urban landscape planning: a challenge for urban forestry planning in Belgrade, Serbia

doi:10.3832/ifor2683-011

The concept of green infrastructure and urban landscape planning: a challenge for urban forestry planning in Belgrade, Serbia

Nevena Vasiljević⁽¹⁾, Boris Radić⁽¹⁾ , Suzana Gavrilović⁽¹⁾, Biljana Šljukić⁽²⁾, Milan Medarević⁽²⁾, Ratko Ristić⁽³⁾

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 491-498 (2018)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor2683-011
Published: Jul 18, 2018 - Copyright © 2018 SISEF

Research Articles

PDF Version

Full Text

Citation

Geo-mapping

The beginning of the 21^st century has witnessed a growth in our understanding of the importance of planning urban landscapes in the context of urban population growth and unpredictable climatic conditions. In the search for responses to the challenges set by the development of contemporary urban landscapes, researchers have offered solutions based on the concept of sustainable and resilient cities, whose spatial development would be based on an interdisciplinary approach to strategy development: biodiversity, urban ecological networks and connectivity, multifunctionality and modularity. Although the concepts of a green infrastructure, in their spatial and functional dimensions, allow the application of such strategies, there are still problems when it comes to implementation and measuring the results achieved. At the same time, there is a growing discussion of the important role played by urban forestry in the context of the collaborative planning of urban landscapes and the application of the ideas of a green infrastructure. The key question is: what are the modalities of application of the concept of green infrastructure in the process of planning the development of the modern city and how can the resulting benefits be evaluated? With the modalities of application of the concept of green infrastructure in mind, we discuss its multi-scale and multifunctional dimensions as applied in the case of Serbia. The realisation of the green infrastructure concept is presented through the example of the Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Belgrade - Mladenovac Municipality. The results of using the spatial-ecological approach in creating the plan and establishing connectivity as a new aim in forest management planning show that the implementation of the green infrastructure concept, and the achieved multifunctional ecosystem values, can be presented on the basis of the parameters of landscape metrics. In light of the new urban world, future research should focus on the application of the landscape ecological approach of the green infrastructure concept in collaborative planning at the urban landscape scale, which allows the creation of ecosystem services and benefits to human well-being.

Keywords

Green Infrastructure (GI), Urban Landscape Planning, Urban Forestry, Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity, Recreation, Connectivity

Authors’ address

(1)

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, Belgrade (Serbia)

(2)

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forestry, Belgrade (Serbia)

(3)

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Ecological Engineering in Soil and Water Resources Protection, Belgrade (Serbia)

Corresponding author

Boris Radić
boris.radic@sfb.bg.ac.rs

Citation

Vasiljević N, Radić B, Gavrilović S, Šljukić B, Medarević M, Ristić R (2018). The concept of green infrastructure and urban landscape planning: a challenge for urban forestry planning in Belgrade, Serbia. iForest 11: 491-498. - doi: 10.3832/ifor2683-011

Academic Editor

Raffaele Lafortezza

Paper history

Received: Nov 13, 2017
Accepted: May 16, 2018

First online: Jul 18, 2018
Publication Date: Aug 31, 2018
Publication Time: 2.10 months

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 10745
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 8312
Abstract Page Views: 658
PDF Downloads: 1504
Citation/Reference Downloads: 8
XML Downloads: 263

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 750
Overall contacts: 10745
Avg. contacts per week: 100.29

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Jun 2020)

Total number of cites (since 2018): 7
Average cites per year: 2.33

(no records found)

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ^©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

(1)

Ahern J (2011)
From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (4): 341-343.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(2)

Ahern J (2013)
Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology 28 (6): 1203-1212.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(3)

Ahern J (2016)
Novel urban ecosystems: concepts, definitions and a strategy to support urban sustainability and resilience. Landscape Architecture Frontiers 4 (1): 10-21.
Online | Gscholar

(4)

Albert C, Aronson J, Furst C, Opdam P (2014a)
Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecology 29 (8): 1277-1285.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(5)

Albert C, Hauck J, Buhr N, Von Haaren C (2014b)
What ecosystem services information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecology 29 (8): 1301-1313.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(6)

Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2000)
Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 43-58.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(7)

Benedict M, McMahon E (2006)
Green infrastructure - Linking landscapes and communities. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 320.
Gscholar

(8)

Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F (2008)
Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 141-150.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(9)

Botequilha Leitao A, Ahern J (2002)
Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59 (2): 65-93.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(10)

Botequilha Leitao A, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K (2006)
Measuring landscapes. A planner’s handbook. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, pp. 272.
Gscholar

(11)

Casado-Arzuaga I, Onaindia M, Madariaga I, Verburg PH (2014)
Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landscape Ecology 29: 1393-1405.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(12)

Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006)
Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLOS Biology 4 (11): 2138-2152.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(13)

Colantonio Venturelli R, Gall A (2006)
Integrated indicators in environmental planning: Methodological considerations and applications. Ecological Indicators 6: 228-237.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(14)

Correa Ayram CA, Mendoza ME, Etter A, Perez Salicrup DR (2016)
Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: a review of recent studies and applications. Progress in Physical Geography 40 (1): 7-37.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(15)

Daniel TC (2001)
Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 267-281.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(16)

Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, Von Der Dunk A (2012)
Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109 (23): 8812-8819.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(17)

Davies C, MacFarlane R, McGloin C, Roe M (2006)
Green infrastructure planning guide. North East Community Forest, Anfield Plain, UK, pp. 1-45.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(18)

De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010)
Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7 (3): 260-272.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(19)

Dolnicar S, Crouch GI, Long P (2008)
Environment friendly tourists: what do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16 (2): 197-210.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(20)

EC (2013)
Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe’s natural capital. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European Commission, 6 May 2013, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 11.
Gscholar

(21)

Fahrig L (2003)
Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 487-515.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(22)

Forman RTT (1995)
Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press, USA, pp. 656.
Gscholar

(23)

Geneletti D (2002)
Ecological evaluation for environmental impact assessment. Netherlands Geographical Studies, NGS, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 218.
Online | Gscholar

(24)

Hansen R, Pauleit S (2014)
From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. AMBIO 43 (4): 516-529.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(25)

Hauck J, Schweppe-Kraft B, Albert C, Gorg C, Jax K, Jensen R, Furst C, Maes J, Ring I, Honigova I, Burkhard B, Mehring M, Tiefenbach M, Grunewald K, Schwarzer M, Meurer J, Sommerhauser M, Priess JA, Schmidt J, Gret-Regamey A (2013)
The promise of the ecosystem services concept for planning and decision making. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 22 (4): 232-236.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(26)

Hornsten L, Fredman P (2000)
On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning 51: 1-10.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(27)

Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Chong GW (2006)
Spatial heterogeneity influences native and non-native plant species richness. Ecology 87 (12): 3186-3199.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(28)

Lafortezza R, Davies C, Sanesi G, Konijnendijk CCC (2013a)
Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest 6: 102-108.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(29)

Lafortezza R, Sanesi G, Chen J (2013b)
Large-scale effects of forest management in Mediterranean landscapes of Europe. iForest 6: 342-346.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(30)

Lee SW, Ellis CD, Kweon BS, Hong SK (2008)
Relationship between landscape structure and neighbourhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 60-70.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(31)

McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995)
FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Forest Science Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA, pp. 141.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(32)

Medarević M, Banković S, Karadžić D, Mihajlović Lj, Pantić D, Šljukić B, Petrović N, Obradović S, Vasiljević N, Pešić B, Filipović D (2013)
Urban forest management plan for the city of Belgrade - Mladenovac Municipality. Faculty of Forestry, University of Belgrade, Secretariat for Environmental Protection, Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 92. [in Serbian]
Gscholar

(33)

Mell IC (2009)
Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Engineering Sustainability 162 (1): 23-34.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(34)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC, USA, pp. 155.
Gscholar

(35)

Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008)
Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23: 633-644.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(36)

Ndubisi F (2002)
Ecological planning: a historical and comparative synthesis. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore and London, pp. 304.
Gscholar

(37)

Noss RE (1990)
Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4 (4): 355-364.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(38)

Pauleit S, Liu L, Ahern J, Kazmierczak A (2011)
Multifunctional green infrastructure planning to promote ecological services in the city. In: “Urban Ecology Patterns, Processes, and Applications” (Niemela J, Breuste G, Elmqvist T, Guntenspergen G James P, McIntyre T eds). Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp. 272-285.
Gscholar

(39)

Poelmans L, Van Rompaey A (2009)
Detecting and modelling spatial patterns of urban sprawl in highly fragmented areas: a case study in the Flanders-Brussels region. Landscape and Urban Planning 93: 10-19.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(40)

Prokop G, Jobstmann H, Schonbauer A (2011)
Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects in EU-27. Technical Report 2011-50, Environment Agency, European Communities, Austria, pp. 231.
Gscholar

(41)

Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008)
Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 20770-20775.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(42)

Randrup TB, Konijnendijk C, Dobbertin MK, Pruller R (2005)
The concept of Urban Forestry in Europe. In: “Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book” (Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup T, Schipperijn J eds). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 9-21.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(43)

Rudnick DA, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps CW, Gerber LR, Hartter J, Jenness JS, Kintsch J, Merenlender AM, Perkl RM, Preziosi DV, Trombulak SC (2012)
The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology 16: 1-20.
Online | Gscholar

(44)

Samsonova VP, Blagoveshchenskii N, Meshalkina YL (2017)
Use of empirical Bayesian kriging for revealing heterogeneities in the distribution of organic carbon on agricultural lands. Soil Chemistry 50 (3): 305-311.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(45)

Sax DF, Gaines SD (2003)
Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18 (11): 561-566.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(46)

Tobias S (2013)
Preserving ecosystem services in urban regions: challenges for planning and best practice examples from Switzerland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9 (2): 243-251.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(47)

Vasiljević N, Radić B, Šljukić B, Ristić R (2016)
Landscape planning and green infrastructure in Serbia: from national to Belgrade city planning. In: Proceedings of “5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning - Landscapes and Greenways of Resilience” (Valanszki I, Jombach S, Filep-Kovacs K, Fabos JG, Ryan RL, Lindhult MS, Kollanyi L eds). Szent István University, Budapest (Hungary) 01 July 2016. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MS, USA, pp. 389-397.
Gscholar

(48)

Weyland F, Laterra P (2014)
Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: a method based in the ecosystem services approach and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators 39: 34-43.
CrossRef | Gscholar

(49)

Zonneveld IS (1995)
Land ecology: an introduction to landscape ecology as a base for land evaluation, land management and conservation. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 199.
Gscholar

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry

Contents

Search

Journal Info

Journal Subjects and Fields

For Authors

For Reviewers

For Readers

SISEF Publishing

Search iForest Contents