IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i22p16038-d1282008.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ecological Efficiency of Green Materials in Sustainable Urban Planning—A Model for Its Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Isidoro Fasolino

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084 Fisciano, Italy)

  • Federica Cicalese

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084 Fisciano, Italy)

  • Alessandro Bellino

    (Department of Chemistry and Biology “Adolfo Zambelli”, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084 Fisciano, Italy)

  • Michele Grimaldi

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084 Fisciano, Italy)

  • M. Rosario del Caz-Enjuto

    (Department of Urbanism and Representation of Architecture, Universidad de Valladolid, Avenida Salamanca 18, 47014 Valladolid, Spain)

  • Daniela Baldantoni

    (Department of Chemistry and Biology “Adolfo Zambelli”, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II 132, 84084 Fisciano, Italy)

Abstract

Urban green planning is crucial in promoting sustainable urban ecosystems through the mindful use of vegetation, but few approaches are currently able to account for the ecosystem services provided by urban green planning in ex ante planning applications. The present research proposes a methodological approach to sustainable urban planning that accounts for the ecological role of vegetation in urban ecosystems. Indeed, by estimating the functions exerted by different vegetation elements in urban ecosystems through a purposely developed set of equations, the procedure allows for the optimization of the development of urban plans by maximizing the contribution of vegetation to ecosystem dynamics. Specifically, the proposed methodology is articulated in two phases, i.e., the functional role of vegetation is firstly modeled through simple geometric features and specific ecological traits accounting for plant interactions with the environment, and then the selected vegetation traits are used in guiding the choice of the species. The approach has been exemplified through case studies, thereby highlighting its ability to guide planning decisions based on the type, abundance, and spatial organization of vegetation to promote the sustainability of urban development.

Suggested Citation

  • Isidoro Fasolino & Federica Cicalese & Alessandro Bellino & Michele Grimaldi & M. Rosario del Caz-Enjuto & Daniela Baldantoni, 2023. "The Ecological Efficiency of Green Materials in Sustainable Urban Planning—A Model for Its Measurement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:16038-:d:1282008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/16038/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/16038/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    4. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    5. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    9. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    10. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    11. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    12. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    13. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    14. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    15. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    16. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    18. J. Amy Belaire & Heather Bass & Heather Venhaus & Keri Barfield & Tim Pannkuk & Katherine Lieberknecht & Shalene Jha, 2023. "High-Performance Landscapes: Re-Thinking Design and Management Choices to Enhance Ecological Benefits in Urban Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Ou Deng & Yiqiu Li & Ruoshuang Li & Guangbin Yang, 2022. "Estimation of Forest Ecosystem Climate Regulation Service Based on Actual Evapotranspiration of New Urban Areas in Guanshanhu District, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:16038-:d:1282008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.