Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Improving access to greenspaces in the Mediterranean city of Faro

1 Biotox Lab, MARE, Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal
2 Engineering Institute, University of Algarve, Campus da Penha, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal
3 Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-Being, University of Algarve, Campus da Penha, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal

Special Issues: Green built environment

Green infrastructure has received increasing attention in urban strategies in a sustainable and resilience context, since greenspaces provide diverse ecosystem services. Green roofs can be a form of compensating the loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity in urban areas, contribute to safe access to greenspaces, which is important in times of social isolation, due to viral pandemics, and can guarantee self-reliance food. Thus, this urban measure should be integrated in urban planning and management, by using urban indicators associated with citizens access to greenspaces. Hence, we study pedestrian accessibility to green areas and propose an urban solution to improve access to greenspaces. The assessment is developed using indicators related to the citizens living in the surroundings of green areas and the residential buildings that exist in these areas; the residents living in potential green buildings or blocks with private green roofs and the potential green buildings with private green roofs. The ideal standard distances were considered to analyze the proximity of green areas to the dwellings of residents. We used GIS for the assessment of distances over the pedestrian network. The results indicate the necessity of building green roofs through the private sector. The developed indicators provide an important contribution to the municipal management in the definition of criteria for the urban location of green roofs to promote better access to ecosystem services.
  Article Metrics

Keywords greenspaces; green roofs; ecosystem services; pedestrian accessibility; geographic information system

Citation: Vanessa Duarte Pinto, Catarina Martins, José Rodrigues, Manuela Pires Rosa. Improving access to greenspaces in the Mediterranean city of Faro. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(3): 226-246. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020014


  • 1. UN General Assembly. Transforming our world: From 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015. Available from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html.
  • 2. World Health Organization (2016) Urban green spaces and health, a review of evidence. Copenhagen: WHO regional office for Europe.
  • 3. European Communities (2000) Towards a local sustainability profile: European common indicators. In: Towards an urban atlas, Technical Report, Directorate-General for Environment, Luxembourg, European Commission.
  • 4. Cavaco C, Vilares E, Rosa F, et al. (2015) The Portuguese Strategy for Sustainable Cities towards smarter urban development. GEOSPATIAL World Forum: Workshop Measuring Progress Achieving Smarter Cities. Available from: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/hlm/prgm/urbandevt/Measuring_Progress__Achieving_Smarter_Cities_/Presentations/Cristina_Cavaco.pdf.
  • 5. Fisher B, Costanza R, Turner K, et al. (2007) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. CSERGE, University of East Anglia, Norwich 07-04.
  • 6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. In: Island Press, Washington DC.
  • 7. Escobedo FJ, Varela S, Zhao M, et al. (2010) Analysing the efficacy of subtropical urban forests in offsetting carbon emissions from cities. Environ Sci Policy 13: 362-372.    
  • 8. Gill S, Handley J, Ennos A, et al. (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33: 115-133.    
  • 9. Simpson JR, McPherson EG (1996) Potential of tree shade for reducing residential energy use in California. J Arboricult 22: 10-18.
  • 10. Comber A, Brunsdon C, Green E (2008) Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landsc Urban Plan 86: 103-114.    
  • 11. Handley J, Pauleit S, Slinn P, et al. (2003) Providing accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities: a practical guide to assessing the resource and implementing local standards for provision. Centre for Urban and Regional Ecology 1-36.
  • 12. Maidstone Borough Council: Green and blue infrastructure strategy, 2016. Available from: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/164659/Green-and-Blue-Infrastructure-trategy-June-2016.pdf.
  • 13. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, et al. (2010) A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10: 456.    
  • 14. Thompson K, Coon JB, Stein K, et al. (2011) Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ Sc. Technol 45: 1761-1772.
  • 15. de Vries S, Verheij R, Groenewegen P, et al. (2003) Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ Plan A 35: 1717-173.
  • 16. Fuller R, Irvine K, Devine-Wright P, et al. (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3: 390-394.    
  • 17. Owen N, Healy GN, Matthews CE, et al. (2010) Too much sitting: the population-health science of sedentary behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 38: 105-113.    
  • 18. Li Q, Morimoto K, Kobayashi M (2008) Visiting a forest, but not a city, increases human natural killer activity and expression of anti-cancer proteins. Int J Immunopath Ph 21: 117-127.    
  • 19. Kuo M (2015) How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Front Psych 25: 1093.
  • 20. Madureira H., Nunes F., Oliveira JV, et al. (2015) Urban residents' beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forest Urban Green 14: 56-64.    
  • 21. Sunyer J, Ballester F, Le Tetre A, et al. (2003) The association of daily sulfur dioxide air pollution levels with hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases in Europe (The Aphea-II study). Eur Heart J 24 (8): 752-760.
  • 22. Bernstein JA, Alexis N, Barnes C, et al. (2004) Health effects of air pollution. J Allergy Clin Inmun 114 (5): 1116-1123.
  • 23. Kim J, Kaplan R (2004) Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: new urbanist kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environ Behav 36: 313-340.    
  • 24. Seeland K, Dubendorfer S, Hansmann R (2009) Making friends in Zurich's urban forests and parks: The role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy Econ 11: 10-17.    
  • 25. Mitchell R, Popham F (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372: 1655-1660.    
  • 26. Brown SC, Perrino T, Lombard J, et al. (2018) Health disparities in the relationship of neighborhood greenness to mental health outcomes in 249,405 U.S. Medicare beneficiaries. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15: 430.    
  • 27. James P, Banay RF, Hart JE, et al. (2015) A Review of the Health Benefits of Greenness. Curr Epidemiol Rep 2:131-142.    
  • 28. van den Berg M, Wendel-Vos W, van Poppel M, et al. (2015) Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forest Urban Green 14: 806-816.    
  • 29. Twohig-Bennett C, Jones A (2018) The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ Res 166: 628-637.    
  • 30. Forsyth A, Musacchio L, Fitzgerald F (2005) Designing small parks: a manual for addressing social and ecological concerns, In: John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
  • 31. Berardi U, GhaffarianHoseini A, GhaffarianHoseini A (2014) State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl Energy 115: 411-428.    
  • 32. Emilsson T (2008) Vegetation development on extensive vegetated green roofs: influence of substrate composition, establishment method and species mix. Ecol Eng 33: 265-77.    
  • 33. Liu K, Baskaran B (2003) Thermal performance of green roofs through field evaluation. Proceedings of the First North American Green Roof Infrastructure Conference, Chicago, USA, May 29-30, 1-10.
  • 34. GhaffarianHoseini A, Dahlan N, Berardi U, et al. (2013) Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: a review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 25: 1-17.    
  • 35. Weng Q, Lu D, Schubring J (2004) Estimation of land surface temperature-vegetation abundance relationship for urban heat island studies. Remote Sens Environ 89: 467-83.    
  • 36. Bates A, Sadler J, Mackay R (2013) Vegetation development over four years on two green roofs in the UK. Urban Forest Urban Green 12: 98-108.    
  • 37. Baumann N (2006) Ground-nesting birds on green roofs in Switzerland: Preliminary observations. Urban Habitats 4 (1): 37-50.
  • 38. Colla SR, Willis E, Packer L (2009) Can green roofs provide habitat for urban bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? CATE 2:1-12.
  • 39. MacIvor S, Lundholm J (2011) Insect species composition and diversity on intensive green roofs and adjacent level-ground habitats. Urban Ecosyst 14: 225-241.    
  • 40. Kim KG (2004) The application of the biosphere reserve concept to urban areas: the case for green rooftops for habitat network in Seoul. Ann NY Acad Sci 1023: 187-214.    
  • 41. Ignatieva M, Stewart G, Meurk C (2011) Planning and design of ecological networks in urban areas. Landscape Ecol Eng 7: 17-25.    
  • 42. Baldock K, Goddard M, Hicks D, et al. (2019) A systems approach reveals urban pollinator hotspots and conservation opportunities. Nat Ecol Evol 3: 363-373.    
  • 43. Whittinghill L, Rowe D, Cregg B (2013) Evaluation of vegetable production on extensive green roofs. Agroecol Sust Food 37: 465-484.    
  • 44. Dubbeling M, Renting H, Hoekstra F, et al. (2015) City Region Food Systems. Urban Agr Mag 29: 1-72.
  • 45. Mears M, Brindley P (2019) Measuring Urban Greenspace Distribution Equity: The Importance of Appropriate Methodological Approaches. Int J Geo-Inf 8: 286.    
  • 46. VTPI, Accessibility evaluating peoples to reach desired goods, services and activities: From TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2017. Available from: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm84.htm.
  • 47. Litman T (2017) Accessibility for transportation planning: Measuring people's ability to reach desired goods and activitie. TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
  • 48. Barton H, Davis G, Guise R (1995) Sustainable Settlements-a guide for planners, designers and developers, In: Bristol University of the West of England and The Local Government Management Board.
  • 49. Rioux L, Werner C, Mokounkolo R, et al. (2016) Walking in two French neighbourhoods: A study of how park numbers and locations relate to everyday walking. J Environ Psychol 48: 169-184.    
  • 50. Dai D (2011) Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landsc Urban Plan 102: 234-244.    
  • 51. Astell-Burt T, Feng X, Mavoa S, et al. (2014) Do low-income neighbourhoods have the least green space? A cross-sectional study of Australia's most populous cities. BMC Public Health 14: 292.
  • 52. Heckert M (2013) Access and equity in greenspace provision: A comparison of methods to assess the impacts of greening vacant land. Trans GIS 17: 808-827.    
  • 53. Shen Y, Sun F, Che Y (2017) Public green spaces and human wellbeing: Mapping the spatial inequity and mismatching status of public green space in the Central City of Shanghai. Urban Forest Urban Green 27: 59-68.    
  • 54. Calthorpe P (1994) Shokokusya: The Next American Metropolis-Ecology, Community and the American Dream, In: Architectural Press, Princeton.
  • 55. European Environment Agency (2002). Towards an urban atlas: Assessment of spatial data on 25 European cities and urban areas. In: Environmental issue report No 30/2002, Copenhagen.
  • 56. van Herzele A, Wiedemann T (2003) A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc Urban Plan 63: 109-126.    
  • 57. Natural England: From 'Nature Nearby' Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance, 2010. Available from: http://www.ukmaburbanforum.co.uk/docunents/other/nature_nearby.pdf.
  • 58. Barbosa O, Tratalos J, Armsworth P, et al. (2007) Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 83: 187-195.
  • 59. Higgs G, Fry R, Langford M (2012) Investigating the implications of using alternative GIS-based techniques to measure accessibility to green space. Environ Plann B: Planning and Design 39: 326-343.    
  • 60. Comber A, Brunsdon C, Green E (2008) Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landsc Urban 86: 103-114.    
  • 61. Li L, Du Q, Ren F, et al. (2019) Assessing Spatial Accessibility to Hierarchical Urban Parks by Multi-Types of Travel Distance in Shenzhen, China. Int. J Environ Res Public Health 16: 1038.    
  • 62. Herman K, Sbarcea M, Panagopoulos T (2018) Creating Green Space Sustainability through Low-Budget and Upcycling Strategies. Sustainability 10: 1857.    
  • 63. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE): From Base Geográfica de Referenciação da Informação, 2011. Available from: http://mapas.ine.pt/download/index2011.phtml.
  • 64. Figure 1 from: Map data copyrighted OpenStreetMap contributors. Available from: https://www.openstreetmap.org.
  • 65. Alves R, Bento R, Ramos L, et al. (2015) Integração dos usos do solo e transportes em cidades de média dimensão (InLUT). In: Relatório final, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto douro, Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade técnica de Lisboa e Universidade do Algarve.
  • 66. Rosa MP, Martins C, Rodrigues J (2017) The development of indicators of sustainable mobility associated with an urbanism of proximity. The Case of the City of Faro. In: INCREaSE, Proceedings of the International Congress on Engineering and Sustainability, Faro, Portugal, Springer 47-66.
  • 67. Berte E, Panagopoulos T (2014) Enhancing city resilience to climate change by means of ecosystem services improvement: A SWOT analysis for the city of Faro, Portugal. Int J Urban Sust Dev 6: 241-253.    
  • 68. Santos A, Terremoto R, Brito J, et al. (2008) Plano Verde de Faro-Princípios, Objectivos e Conteúdo. Câmara Municipal de Faro e Gabinete de Apoio Técnico de Faro.
  • 69. Guimarães ET, Bragança L, Almeida MG, et al. (2015) Analysis of Portuguese Residential Building and Proposed Solutions, Connecting People and Ideas. In: Proceedings of EURO ELECS, Guimarães, Portugal.
  • 70. Noocity: Urban Ecology. Available from: https://www.noocity.com/pt-pt/#.
  • 71. Huang R, Hawley D (2009) A data model and internet GIS framework for safe routes to school. URISA J 21: 21-30.
  • 72. Salvo G, Sabatini S (2014) Advanced or and AI methods in transportation a Gis approach to evaluate bus stop accessibility. Available from: http://www.iasi.cnr.it/ewgt/16conference/ID108.pdf.
  • 73. Scheurer J, Curtis C (2007) Accessibility measures: Overview and practical applications. Urbanet Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University.
  • 74. Geurs K, Ritsema van Eck J (2001) Accessibility measures: review and applications, evaluation of accessibility impacts of land-use transport scenarios and related social and economic impacts. Rese Man Environ 408505 006.
  • 75. Achuthan K, Titheridge H, Mackett RL (2007) Measuring pedestrian accessibility. In: Winstanley, Proceedings of the Geographical Information Science Research, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, UK, vol. 11-13, 264-269.
  • 76. Bhatti M, Church A (2004) Home the culture of nature and meanings of gardens in late modernity. Housing Studies 19: 37-51.    
  • 77. Coolen H, Meesters J (2012) Private and public green spaces: meaningful but different settings. J Hous Built Environ 27:49-67.    
  • 78. Boumeester HJFM, Dol K., Meesters J (2009) Stedelijk wonen: een brug tussen wens en werkelijkheid. Een onderzoek naar woonwensen en woonproducten bij binnenstedelijk bouwen (Urban living: bridging preferences and reality. Housing preference and housing products for urban development). Voorburg: NVB.
  • 79. Bernardini C, Irvine KN (2007) The 'nature' of urban sustainability: private or public green spaces. In: A. Kungolas, C. A. Brebbia, & E. Beriatos, (Eds.), Sustainable development and planning III, volume 2, WIT Press: 661-674.
  • 80. Russo A, Cirella G (2018) Modern Compact Cities: How Much Greenery Do We Need? Int J Environ Res Public Health 15: 2180.    
  • 81. Oliver LN, Schuurman N, Hall AW (2007) Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands. Int J Health Geograph 6: 41.    
  • 82. Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, et al. (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. J Environ Sci 5 (3): 161-172.


Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved