EDITED BY Christine Fürst: Keywords

ABSTRACT
The paper summarises the multiple benefits of urban green spaces for city
dwellers and provides an overview of proximity approaches and common key
parameters for green-space quantification in cities. We propose indicators for the
assessment of the ecosystem service ‘recreation in the city’ on a national scale.
The calculation procedure, which takes into account the best available data sets
in Germany, is explained. The determination of threshold values regarding green-
space standards comprising type, size and distance is crucial to such studies.
The results, the degree of provision with public green spaces in all German cities
with more than 50,000 inhabitants (n = 182) and their accessibility, are
presented. In total, green spaces are accessible for daily recreation for 74.3% of
the inhabitants in German cities, which means that underprovision affects 8.1
million city dwellers. Some indicator details are shown for the examples of
Wiesbaden and Stuttgart. Finally, we discuss the approach and values of the
proposed and quantified indicators in a German and European context.
EDITED BY Christine Fürst

KEYWORDS: City dwellers, green-space provision, minimum area sizes, recreational spaces, urban
greening
1. Introduction
In Target 2, Action 5, the EU Biodiversity Strategy stipulates that the member

states will map and assess the state of the ecosystems and their services and
promote the integration of these values into the accounting and reporting
systems at the EU and national level by 2020. This also includes urban
ecosystems with their range of services, as a large number of consumers, users
or beneficiaries of ecosystem services (ESs) are concentrated here (Maes et
al. 2014Maes, J., A. Teller, M. Erhard, et al. 2014. Mapping and assessment of
ecosystems and their services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under
Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2nd Report – Final, February
2014. European Commission, Publications Office, Technical Report 2014 –
080. Retrieved 15 October, 2015,
fromhttps://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assess
ment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf. [Google Scholar]).
The possibilities of capturing the ESs in Germany and examining them with
respect to their relevance and representability at the federal level are currently
being studied in the framework of research projects (Albert et
al. 2015Albert C, Burkhard B, Daube S, Dietrich K, Engels B, Frommer J, Götzl
M, Grêt-Regamey A, Job-Hoben B, Keller R, et al. 2015. Development of
National Indicators for Ecosystem Services Recommendations for Germany.
Discussion Paper, BfN-Skripten 411, Bonn. Retrieved 15 October, 2015,
fromhttps://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/service/Dokumente/skripten/skript411.pdf. [
Google Scholar]; Grunewald et
al. 2016Grunewald K, Herold H, Marzelli S, Meinel G, Richter B, Syrbe RU, Walz
U. 2016. Assessment of ecosystem services at the national level in Germany –
illustration of the concept and the development of indicators by way of the
example wood provision. Ecol Indic. 70:181–195.[Crossref], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]). Indicators for capturing and assessing ES are required as
an essential instrument of operationalisation and for measuring success. They
are intended to provide information on existing ES (including supply and
demand) and on development trends as selected, readily comprehensible
parameters. Monitoring with indicators involves representing temporal
developments. However, this requires the databases to be reliably available in
comparable quality on a national scale. This significantly restricts the selection of
computable indicators.
Urban ecosystems, whether they are closer to nature or more artificial, contribute
to essential aspects of the quality of life in cities. They fulfil urban ecological
functions, provide urban ES and allow city dwellers to be in touch with urban
nature (Barbosa 2007Barbosa O. 2007. Who benefits from access to green
space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc Urban Plan. 83:187–
195.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kabisch &
Haase 2013Kabisch N, Haase D. 2013. Green spaces of European cities
revisited for 1990–2006. Landsc Urban Plan. 110:113–122.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Elmqvist et
al. 2015Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, Van Der
Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Gómez-
Baggethun E, Nowak DJ, Kronenberg J, De Groot R. 2015. Benefits of restoring
ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 14:101–
108.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kabisch et
al. 2015Kabisch N, Qureshi S, Haase D. 2015. Human–environment interactions
in urban green spaces - a systematic review of contemporary issues and
prospects for future research. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:25–
34.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Lee et
al. 2015Lee AC, Jordan HC, Horsley J. 2015. Value of urban green spaces in
promoting healthy living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. Risk Manag
Health Policy. 8:131–137.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]).
The term ‘urban green’ is often used to focus on urban green spaces used by
human beings. Following the German Greenbook ‘Green in the City’, urban
green includes all forms of green urban open spaces and vegetated buildings as
parks, cemeteries, allotments, brownfields, areas for sports and playing, street
vegetation and street trees, vegetation around public buildings, areas of nature
protection, woodlands and forests, private gardens, urban agricultural areas,
green roofs and green walls as well as other open spaces
(BMUB 2015BMUB. 2015. Grün in der Stadt – Für eine lebenswerte Zukunft.
Grünbuch Stadtgrün [Green Book ”Green in the City“. Berlin: German
Environment and Building Ministry]. Retrieved 27 June, 2015,
fromhttps://www.bmub.bund.de/service/publikationen/downloads/details/artikel/gru
en-in-der-stadt-fuer-eine-lebenswerte-zukunft/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=289 [Google
Scholar]). Following this, ‘urban green spaces’ are normally understood as
spaces, which are directly used for active or passive recreation, or indirectly used
by virtue of their positive influence on the urban environment, accessible to
citizens, serving the diverse needs of citizens and thus enhancing the quality of
life in cities (URGE-Team 2004URGE-Team. 2004. Making greener cities – a
practical guide. Leipzig: UFZ-Bericht Nr. 8 (Stadtökologische Forschungen Nr.
37), UFZ Leipzig-Halle GmbH. [Google Scholar]; GreenKeys
Team 2008GreenKeys Team. 2008. GreenKeys @ Your City – A Guide for
Urban Green Quality. Dresden: IOER Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional
Development. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
fromhttps://www.ioer.de/greenkeys/Greenkeys_Tools/index.html [Google
Scholar]). Urban green spaces are essential providers of ESs and can be
regarded as service-providing units for urban residents (Wurster &
Artmann 2014Wurster D, Artmann M. 2014. Non-monetary assessment of urban
ecosystem services on site level – development of a methodology for a
standardized selection, mapping and assessment of representative sites.
AMBIO. 43:454–465.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]). Waterbodies and their nearshore environment (sometimes called blue
infrastructure) such as streams, lakes, ponds, artificial swales and storm water
retention ponds are part of the green infrastructure (European
Commission 2011European Commission. 2011. EU Biodiversity Strategy to
2020. European Commission, December 2011. Retrieved 31 August, 2015,
from (https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2018862%202011
%20INIT. [Google Scholar]) and are included in our ‘green spaces’ concept as
well.
The shape, habitat and vegetation structure of green spaces, their species
composition and their utilisation can differ widely. Generally, the term refers to
public spaces, i.e. public properties or spaces in the responsibility of public
authorities. By contrast, private gardens and the greenery of apartment blocks
are not included, nor are small business premises such as landfills or mines,
though they may be covered with vegetation. In Germany, e.g. the use of
allotments and schoolyards is semipublic or restricted to selected population
groups; thus, these areas have not been considered as green spaces in this
study.
With ongoing urbanisation, the paradigm of the compact city, as an immediate
antidote to the sprawling city, still cannot be fully substantiated
(Uhel 2008Uhel R 2008. Urbanisation in Europe: limits to spatial
growth, Retrieved 12 December, 2016
fromhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/media/speeches/urbanisation-in-europe-limits-to-
spatial-growth/#parent-fieldname-title. [Google Scholar]). The effectiveness of
compaction, as well as centralisation and concentration, have been thoroughly
examined, including the various ways in which compaction can be achieved
including intensification, new high-density development, traditional
neighbourhood development, etc. In core cities, open spaces are a scarce
good. Section 1 (6) of the German Federal Nature Conservation Act (BNatSchG)
requires open spaces, including their components and individual biotopes, to be
preserved also in settled areas and to be created or re-established where they do
not exist to a sufficient extent. Many municipalities and initiatives aim to increase
the provision of green spaces in the cities. Germany’s National Urban
Development Policy also stresses this strategy (BMUB 2015BMUB. 2015. Grün
in der Stadt – Für eine lebenswerte Zukunft. Grünbuch Stadtgrün [Green Book
”Green in the City“. Berlin: German Environment and Building
Ministry]. Retrieved 27 June, 2015,
Scholar]). Quantifications at the city and federal level are necessary in order to
derive and pinpoint urban planning and nature conservation requirements in this
context. Developing indicator values through a monitoring process can serve as
a basis for the competition of the German cities for an urban development that is
‘green’, i.e. ecologically sustainable and oriented towards the well-being of all
citizens.
Against this background, it is the aim of this paper to propose and discuss
indicators regarding the provision and accessibility of green spaces for assessing
the ES ‘recreation in the city’ on a national scale for Germany. In general, we are
following the method proposed for the federal ES indicators in the framework of
the project ‘Implementation of Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy.
Development and implementation of a methodology for capturing and assessing
ecosystem services at the federal level in the context of the implementation of
Target 2 and Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020’ (2014–2016,
IOER Dresden/ifuplan München, Grunewald et
®] , [Google Scholar]).
First, we summarise the multiple benefits of urban green spaces for city dwellers
and give an overview of proximity approaches and common key parameters for
the quantification of green spaces in cities. Second, we propose indicators for the
assessment of the ES ‘recreation in the city’ on a national scale based on the first
results. The calculation procedure, which takes into account the best available
data sets in Germany, is explained. The determination of threshold values
regarding green-space standards comprising size and distance is crucial to this
study. The results, the degree of provision with public green spaces in all
German cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants (n = 182) and their accessibility,
will be presented. Finally, we discuss the approach and values of the proposed
and quantified indicators in a German and European context.
2. Description of the ES ‘recreation in the city’
Urban ecosystems, such as forests, parks, bodies of water and adjacent

embankments, deliver services for the residents regarding the experience of
nature, recreational activities and aesthetics
(Barbosa 2007Barbosa O. 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A
case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc Urban Plan. 83:187–195.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kabisch &
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Elmqvist et
al. 2015Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, Van Der
108.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Lee et
al. 2015Lee AC, Jordan HC, Horsley J. 2015. Value of urban green spaces in
promoting healthy living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. Risk Manag
Health Policy. 8:131–137.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]). In the following, we will refer to these as the ES ‘recreation in the city’.
In a narrower sense, it mainly comprises ‘daily or leisure-time recreation’ and
‘recreation in the residential environment’.
According to the EU’s Common International Classification of Ecosystem

Services classification (Haines-Young & Potschin 2013Haines-
Young R, Potschin M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August-December 2012. EEA
Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Retrieved 15 January, 2015,
fromwww.cices.eu(and a full spread sheet showing the classification). [Google
Scholar]), the ES ‘recreation in the city’ belongs mainly to the classes
‘Experiential use of animals, plants and land-/seascapes in different
environmental settings’ and ‘Physical use of land-/seascapes in different
environmental settings’ in the group ‘Physical and experiential interactions’. It is
part of the division ‘Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems
and land-/seascapes in different environmental settings’ and the section of
cultural services. However, other classes of cultural ES are concerned as well
(e.g. aesthetic). Furthermore, green spaces are important for many other ESs,
such as habitat services, air purification, water regulation and provision or
microclimate regulation (e.g. Bastian et
al. 2012Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K. 2012. Ecosystem properties,
potentials and services - the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban
application example. Ecol Indic. 21:7–16.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]; Elmqvist et al. 2015Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, Van Der
108.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). They are multifunctional
and provide multiple benefits. For instance, biodiversity can improve the
appreciation of the time in green spaces (Carrus et
al. 2015Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F,
Agrimi M, Portoghesi L, Semenzato P, Sanesi G. 2015. Go greener, feel better?
The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban
and peri-urban green areas. Landsc Urban Plan. 134:221–228.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). However, in our study, we focus on access
possibilities to outdoor recreation in cities.
Proximity of green spaces results in better physical and psychological health of

city dwellers in a long-term perspective and makes the city more beautiful (Maas
et
al. 2006Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P. 2006.
Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol
Community Health. 60:587–592.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]; Van Den Berg et al. 2010Van Den
Berg AE, Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen. PP. 2010. Green space as a buffer
between stressful life events and health. Soc Sci Med. 70:1203–
1210.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). People can
strengthen their immune system and maintain their performance. The health
system is less strained; labour productivity is maintained or enhanced. The
beneficial health effects of experiential interaction with nature have been
demonstrated in various studies (Hartig et
al. 2003Hartig T, Cooper C, Marcus C. 2003. Healing gardens – places for nature
in health care. Lancet. 368:36–37.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]; Health Council of the Netherlands and Dutch advisory council for
research on spatial planning, nature and environment 2004Health Council of the
Netherlands and Dutch advisory council for research on spatial planning, nature
and environment. 2004. Nature and health. The influence of nature on social,
psychological and physical well-being. The Hague: Health Council of the
Netherlands and RMNO, publication no. 2004 /09E. [Google Scholar];
BMU 2010BMU. 2010. Indicator report 2010 to the National Strategy on
Biological Diversity. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Berlin. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
fromhttps://www.biologischevielfalt.de/fileadmin/NBS/indikatoren/Indicator_Report
_2010_NBS_Web.pdf. [Google Scholar]; Irvine et
al. 2013Irvine KN, Warber SL, Devine-Wright P, Gaston KJ. 2013. Understanding
urban green space as a health resource: a qualitative comparison of visit
motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 10:417–442.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]; White et
al. 2013White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. 2013. Would you be
happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data.
Psychol Sci. 24:920–928.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]; Lee et al. 2015Lee AC, Jordan HC, Horsley J. 2015. Value of urban
green spaces in promoting healthy living and wellbeing: prospects for planning.
Risk Manag Health Policy. 8:131–137.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]; Shanahan et
al. 2015Shanahan DF, Fuller RA, Bush R, Lin BB, Gaston KJ. 2015. The health
benefits of urban nature: how much do we need? Bioscience. 65:476–
485.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; etc.). Low share of green
space is positively correlated with higher mortality (Gascon et
al. 2016Gascon M, Triguero-Mas M, Martínez D, Dadvand P, Rojas-
Rueda D, Plasència A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 2016. Residential green spaces and
mortality: a systematic review. Environ Int. 86:60–67.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web
of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).
In considering the provision of the population with recreational areas, their

reachability (pedestrian distance) and public accessibility are important factors, in
addition to their percentage of the area (referred to the entire city area or to the
inhabitants) and quality (Comber et
al. 2008Comber 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.[Crossref], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]; Kabisch & Haase 2014Kabisch N, Haase D. 2014. Green
justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany.
Landsc Urban Plan. 122:129–139.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]; Wolch et al. 2014Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. 2014. Urban green
space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities
‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban Plan. 125:234–244.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Haaland & Van Den Bosch 2015Haaland C, van
den Bosch CK. 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning
in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban Forestry Urban Greening.
14:760–771.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).
In Europe, recently 73% of its population is living in urban areas and it is

expected to be over 80% by 2050 (EU 2016EU. 2016. Urban Europe. Statistics
on cities, towns and suburbans. Eurostat. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
fromec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7596823/KS-01-16-691-EN-
N.pdf. [Google Scholar]). Close to two-thirds of Europe’s urban dwellers live in
small urban places today (UN – United Nations 2014UN - United
Nations. 2014. Department of economic and social affairs, population division.
World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision, highlights
(ST/ESA/SER.A/352). New York: UN DESA.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). In
Germany, three quarters of the population reside in urban areas, of which one-
third lives in big cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants
(BMUB 2015BMUB. 2015. Grün in der Stadt – Für eine lebenswerte Zukunft.
Scholar]). The proximity of green spaces is a key criterion for choosing a place of
residence (Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE 2016Naturkapital Deutschland
– TEEB DE. 2016. In: Kowarik I, Bartz R, Brenck M, eds. Ökosystemleistungen in
der Stadt – Gesundheit schützen und Lebensqualität erhöhen [Ecosystem
Services in the City – Protecting Health and Enhancing Quality of Life]. Berlin,
Leipzig: Technische Universität Berlin; Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung
– UFZ. [Google Scholar]). Recreational opportunities in public settlement areas
are the key to improving the quality of life for people without a motor vehicle of
their own and especially for population groups of lesser mobility such as the
elderly, the disabled and children. The accessibility of recreational spaces for all
population groups is in particular also relevant for social justice (Panduro &
Veie 2013Panduro TE, Veie KL. 2013. Classification and valuation of urban
green spaces – a hedonic house price valuation. Landsc Urban Plan. 120:119–
128.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kabisch &
Haase 2014Kabisch N, Haase D. 2014. Green justice or just green? Provision of
urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc Urban Plan. 122:129–
139.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wüstemann et
al. 2016Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J. 2016. Towards a national indicator for
urban green space provision and environmental inequalities in Germany:
methods and findings. SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2016-022,
TU Berlin. Retrieved on 1 August 2016 fromhttps://sfb649.wiwi.hu-
berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2016-022.pdf. [Google Scholar]).
We therefore postulate as a goal for the ES ‘recreation in the city’ that publicly
accessible green spaces should be reachable in the neighbourhood for every
resident. Availability of green space can be understood as the amount of green
area at a certain defined distance from where urban residents live (Kabisch et
al. 2016Kabisch N, Strohbach M, Hasse D, Kronenberg J. 2016. Urban green
space availability in European cities. Ecol Indic. 70:586–596.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).
Important measurable parameters that describe the ES ‘recreation in the city’ are
as follows:
 Share of green spaces in the settlement area with the potential to provide
recreation (supply in the sense of ‘provision by nature’), degree of provision
and quality of green spaces (e.g. condition/maintenance, safety, cleanness
and equipment with benches);
 Settlement areas with residential use, inhabitant data, distances between

residential areas and proximate green spaces (for estimation of demand
aspects).
A systematic selection of key measurable indicators for the evaluation of urban

green spaces is shown in Table 1. Many cities use such parameters to assess
the amount of green space quantitatively. In Germany, 39% of the cities currently
use benchmarks to assess green spaces qualitatively (Kühnau et
al. 2016Kühnau C, Böhme C, Bunzel A, Böhm J, Reinke M. 2016. Von der
Theorie zur Umsetzung: Stadtnatur und doppelte Innenentwicklung [From theory
into practice: Urban green space and dual inner development]. Natur und
Landschaft. 7:329–335. [Google Scholar]). These are based mainly on the
‘Guideline Values of the Standing Conference of Municipal Gardens and Park
Heads’ in Germany (Gartenamtsleiterkonferenz – GALK 1973 quoted in Ermer et
al. 1996Ermer K, Hoff R, Mohrmann R. 1996. Landschaftsplanung in der Stadt
[Landscape planning in the city]. Stuttgart: Ulmer Verlag. [Google Scholar]),
which define for the provision of German cities with public green areas at least
20 m2/inh. including at least 7 m2/inh. district parks with area of not less than
10 ha and 6 m2/inh. small parks. The value of the characteristic quantities can
vary widely depending on the database used (source and selection of land use
types, census) and the thresholds set (e.g. distances, areal requirements).
Table 1. Indicators for description and assessment of urban green space

(according to Dosch & Neubauer 2016, slightly changed).
CSVDisplay Table
3. Proposal of indicators regarding green-space provision

and accessibility and calculation steps
A quantitative approach to the topic provision of green spaces and the availability
of public green space can be taken in different ways. Traditionally, the indication
of an absolute size, e.g. green spaces per inhabitant in square metres at the city
level (Table 1), serves as a value for rough orientation or comparisons (Haase et
al. 2012Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F, Seppelt R. 2012. Synergies,
trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated
multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany. Ecol Soc.
17:102–123.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Dobbs et
al. 2014Dobbs C, Kendal D, Nitschke CR. 2014. Multiple ecosystem services and
disservices of the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape
structure and sociodemographics. Ecol Indic. 43:44–55.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). However, this indicator does not contain much
information on the distribution and accessibility of green spaces for recreational
purposes. The link between the size of individual green spaces and a path
distance which the user can be expected to cover in order to visit this green
space is comparable to accessibility indicators, e.g. from traffic planning
(Schwarze 2005Schwarze B 2005. Erreichbarkeitsindikatoren in der
Nahverkehrsplanung [Accessibility indicators in local transport planning]. working
paper 184, Dortmund. [cited 2016 Aug 23]. Available
from:https://www.raumplanung.tu-
dortmund.de/irpud/fileadmin/irpud/content/documents/publications/ap184.p. [Goo
gle Scholar]). A distance which is not far beyond the living environment and is
manageable for all population groups will be classified in various planning
disciplines as ‘within walking distance’ (BMVBS – Bundesministerium für
Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung 2013BMVBS - Bundesministerium für
Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung. 2013. Nahversorgung in ländlichen Räumen.
[Local supply in rural areas] BMVBS-Online-Publikation 02/2013. Retrieved
on 7 January 2016
fromhttps://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/BMVBS/Online/201
3/DL_ON022013.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. [Google Scholar];
Neumeier 2013Neumeier S 2013. Modellierung der Erreichbarkeit öffentlicher
Apotheken – Untersuchung zum regionalen Versorgungsgrad mit
Dienstleistungen der Grundversorgung [Modelling of accessibility of public
pharmacies – investigation of regional supply with a basic level of provision
services]. Thünen Working Paper 14, Braunschweig. [Google Scholar]).
Specifications from the immediate neighbourhood to the entire city level are
common (Van Herzele & Wiedemann 2003Van
Herzele A, Wiedemann T. 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible
and attractive urban green spaces. Lands Urban Plan. 63:109–
126.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Haaland & Van Den
Bosch 2015Haaland C, van den Bosch CK. 2015. Challenges and strategies for
urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban
Forestry Urban Greening. 14:760–771.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]).
In response to this and based on previous work in Europe and Germany (e.g.
Kabisch & Haase 2013Kabisch N, Haase D. 2013. Green spaces of European
cities revisited for 1990–2006. Landsc Urban Plan. 110:113–122.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Maes et al. 2014Maes, J., A. Teller, M. Erhard,
et al. 2014. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services.
Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy to 2020. 2nd Report – Final, February 2014. European Commission,
Publications Office, Technical Report 2014 – 080. Retrieved 15 October, 2015,
fromhttps://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assess
ment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf. [Google Scholar]; Simoens et
al. 2014Simoens I, Thoonen M, Meiresonne L, Van Daele T. 2014. Hoofdstuk 26
– ecosysteemdienst groene ruimte voor buitenactiviteiten.
(INBO.R.2014.1987887). In Stevens, M., et al. eds. Natuurrapport - Toestand en
trend van ecosystemen en ecosysteemdiensten in vlaanderen. Technisch
rapport. Mededelingen van het instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek.
INBO.M.2014.1988582. Brussel. Available
from:https://data.inbo.be/purews/files/4339527/Simoens_etal_2014_Hoofdstuk26
EcosysteemdienstGroeneRuimteBuitenactiviteiten.pdf [Google Scholar]; Albert et
al. 2015Albert C, Burkhard B, Daube S, Dietrich K, Engels B, Frommer J, Götzl
M, Grêt-Regamey A, Job-Hoben B, Keller R, et al. 2015. Development of
National Indicators for Ecosystem Services Recommendations for Germany.
Discussion Paper, BfN-Skripten 411, Bonn. Retrieved 15 October, 2015,
fromhttps://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/service/Dokumente/skripten/skript411.pdf. [
Google Scholar]) and in consultation with national experts and authorities, we
propose for the evaluation of urban recreation as a sociocultural ES on the
federal level in Germany the development and implementation of the following
indicators:
 Accessibility of green spaces (main indicator – M)
 Green-space provision per inhabitant related to green spaces within walking

distance to residential areas (supplementary indicator – S1)
 Green-space provision per inhabitant related to total amount of green space

(supplementary indicator – S2)
Indicator M contains compressed information on the provision of the population
with green spaces in cities in close proximity to the residence on the basis of
census data. Indicators S1 and S2 provide additional information on the
proportion of green spaces for a city and verify changes of the indicator M in the
case of strong increase or decrease in green-space provision or changes through
shifts in population density. Both supplementary indicators are less complex
approaches that can be applied without high-resolution data on the population
distribution.
In particular, the indicators have the function of displaying a target achievement

and its changes over time. For the results, the frameworks are crucial, which we
discuss in the following section.
3.1. Determination of the relevant recreational areas (in terms of

green spaces)
(a) Database: AKTIS Basic-DLM
The ATKIS Basic-DLM is the first choice in Germany for a map base on land use
with a high thematic and spatial resolution and quality (Krüger et
al. 2013Krüger T, Meinel G, Schumacher S. 2013. Land-use monitoring by
topographic data analysis. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
from 40. 220–228. doi:10.1080/15230406.2013.809232[Taylor & Francis
Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Schorcht et
al. 2016Schorcht M, Krüger T, Meinel G. 2016. Measuring land take: usability of
national topographic databases as input for land use change analysis: a case
study from Germany. Int J Geo-Information. 5:134.[Crossref], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]). The research project mentioned earlier agreed on using it
as a database (Grunewald et
®] , [Google Scholar]). For the land use types, the lower limit of data acquisition
is 1 ha, but some of them are acquired completely (e.g. sports and leisure
facilities, game parks). The update is carried out cyclically for all areas after at
most 3–5 years, using aerial photography and a multitude of thematic details.
Individual ATKIS object types, e.g. from the traffic domain, are even subject to a
priority update of less than 1 year.
In the Basic-DLM, there is no distinction between settlement areas with a high or

low degree of greening, i.e. green spaces between row developments or within a
block-edge development are not represented due to modelling rules (block-
building rule). For this reason, it is impossible to examine private green spaces or
spacing green in the context of the residential accessibility of areas relevant for
recreation. A database for including private green areas in a nationwide
monitoring is currently not available because comprehensive and cyclically
updated data are lacking.
The land use data of the European Urban Atlas (EUA) represent an alternative to
the Basic-DLM (www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/urban-atlas). They are
particularly suitable for European comparisons (e.g. Kabisch &
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The data are published by the European
Environment Agency (EEA) for more than 300 European urban regions and are
publicly available. The EUA includes categories relevant to the indicators to be
calculated (‘Forest’, ‘Water’), but also some highly aggregated categories such
as ‘Green urban areas’ or ‘Agricultural’. For example, the ‘Green urban areas’
include the zoo facilities with limited public access, and the category ‘Agricultural’
comprises grassland relevant for recreation as well as less relevant arable land.
A number of big cities in Germany such as Münster, Mannheim or Chemnitz
(data set 2006) or Dresden, Magdeburg (data set 2012) are not represented in
the EUA. For these reasons, but also because the Basic-DLM has a higher
thematic and temporal resolution, the ATKIS Basic-DLM is preferred for the
development of indicators in Germany (Grunewald et
®] , [Google Scholar]; Schorcht et
®] , [Google Scholar]).
(b) Selection and justification of the relevant categories (land use

types) from the ATKIS Basic-DLM
The object types that represent the stock of green spaces were chosen with
regard to the recreation on offer and public accessibility in general (Table 2). The
categories ‘park’, ‘green area’, forest’ and ‘wood’ are relatively indisputable. They
make a huge contribution to recreation of city dwellers. Opportunities for
recreation are sportive activities (walking, cycling, jogging), pick-nicking, enjoying
the aesthetics and clean, fresh air to recover from daily stress by strengthen
mental and physical health (Tyrväinen et al. 2005Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S, Seeland
K, De Vries S. 2005. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In:
Konijnendijk C, Nilsson K, Randrup T, Schipperijn J, editors. Urban forests and
trees. Berlin: Springer; p. 81–114. [Google Scholar]; Brown et
al. 2014Brown G, Schebella MF, Weber D. 2014. Using participatory GIS to
measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc Urban Plan. 121:34–
44.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).
Table 2. Proposed consideration of land use types for the assessment of

the ecosystem service ‘recreation in the city’ (under use of National
Topographic Database ATKIS).
CSVDisplay Table
‘Waterbodies’ are included because they can serve for a variety of recreational
activities at, on and in the water (e.g. bathing, boating, fishing, ice skating),
sometimes include green embankment areas and are usually also accessible to
the public. Water as a landscape element has a positive effect on the visual
quality of landscape (Polat & Akay 2015Polat AT, Akay A. 2015. Relationships
between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various
landscape design elements. Urban Forestry Urban Greening. 14:573–
582.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and recreation (Ulrich et
al. 1991Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. 1991. S
tress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ
Psychol. 11:201–230.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar];
Laumann et al. 2003Laumann K, Gärling T, Stormark KM. 2003. Selective
attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. J Environ
Psychol. 23:125–134.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).
Accessibility and usability for recreational purposes are also the decisive criteria
for the selection of open spaces so that ‘grassland’ and ‘orchard meadow’ are
included, but not arable land (cf. Table 2). Grassland (meadows or grazing land
with natural elements) is attributed inter alia with a restoration effect (Hartig et
al. 2003Hartig T, Cooper C, Marcus C. 2003. Healing gardens – places for nature
in health care. Lancet. 368:36–37.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google
Scholar]; Laumann et
al. 2003Laumann K, Gärling T, Stormark KM. 2003. Selective attention and heart
rate responses to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 23:125–
134.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Orchard meadows are
comparable to open, managed green spaces and areas with a low density of
wood and can mostly be walked on.
On the basis of controversial discussions with experts in Germany, ‘cemeteries’
were explicitly included in our study as part of the publicly accessible system of
the green infrastructure, as they exhibit important recreational functions (in this
case particularly regarding recreation oriented towards silence) and are often
used for walks (e.g. Korda 2005Korda M, Eds. 2005. Städtebau [Urban
construction]. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]). But we know that
in a lot of cases cemeteries have a time for the accesses and are limited by
fences.
Further object types with a high percentage of greenery (e.g. zoo, game park,
sports facilities and allotments) modelled in the Basic-DLM were not included, as
public access to them is limited by entrance fees or fences commonly.
(c) Central reference quantities of the ES demand
Inhabitants are taken into account as potential consumers of the ES ‘recreation in

the city’, drawing on census data or the municipal directory information system.
In addition, geometries are required as reference points for the calculation of
indicators in the geographic information system (GIS):
 Administrative city boundaries (municipal boundaries): administrative

boundary geometry VG25, source: Federal Agency for Cartography and
Geodesy (Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie, BKG)
 Polygon features of basic raster geometries (INSPIRE grid 100 m), source:
IOER, own calculations
 Population raster of the 2011 census, size of raster cells 100 m, source:
Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt, DESTATIS)
 The municipal directory information system (Gemeindeverzeichnis-

Informationssystem), source: Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches
Bundesamt, DESTATIS)
3.2. Definition of threshold values for distance from the

residential environment and minimum area sizes
The determination of threshold values is based on literature that considers green

spaces in the context of everyday and local recreation (European
Commission 2001European Commission. 2001. Towards a local sustainability
profile - European common indicators. Report, Belgium. [Google Scholar];
EEA 2002EEA. 2002. European common indicators A.4: availability of local
public open areas and services. Retrieved 2 February, 2016,
fromhttps://www.eea.europa.eu. [Google Scholar]; English Nature 2003English
Nature. 2003. Providing accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities,
practical guide to assessing the resource and implementing local standards for
provision. Research Report, United Kingdom. Retrieved 14 May, 2015,
from publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/78003. [Google Scholar];
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt 2013Senatsverwaltung für
Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2013. Versorgung mit öffentlichen,
wohnungsnahen Grünanlagen [Supply with public, residental-near green
spaces]. Umweltatlas Berlin. Retrieved 14 May, 2015,
fromhttps://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/e_text/ka605.pdf. [
Google Scholar]; Richter et
al. 2016Richter B, Grunewald K, Meinel G. 2016. Analyse von Wegedistanzen in
Städten zur Verifizierung des Ökosystemleistungsindikators “Erreichbarkeit
öffentlicher Grünflächen” [Analysis of path distances in cities for verification of the
ecosystem service indicator ‘accessibility of urban green spaces’]. AGIT - Journal
Für Angewandte Geoinformatik. 2:472–781. [Google Scholar]; Van Den Bosch et
al. 2016Van Den
Bosch M, Mudu P, Uscila V, Barrdahl M, Kulinkina A, Staatsen B, Swart W, Kruiz
e H, Zurlyte I, Egorov AI. 2016. Development of an urban green space indicator
and the public health rationale. Scand J Public Health. 44:159–
167.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). For instance,
the study in Flanders uses 400/800 m linear distances (Simoens et
EcosysteemdienstGroeneRuimteBuitenactiviteiten.pdf [Google Scholar]), while in
the UK, urban dwellers should have access to 2 ha of green spaces within a
300 m straight-line distance from the place of residence (Handley et
al. 2003Handley J, Slinn P, Barber A, Baker M, Jones C, Lindley S. 2003.
Accessible natural green space standards in towns and cities: a review and
toolkit for their implementation. Peterborough: English Nature. [Google Scholar]).
An overview with reference values from German cities for different types of
open/green spaces can be found in DRL (2006DRL. 2006. Freiraumqualitäten in
der zukünftigen Stadtentwicklung [Qualities of open spaces in the future city
development]. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates für Landespflege, Heft
fromhttps://www.landespflege.de/schriften/DRL_SR78.pdf. [Google Scholar]). In
coordination with the German environmental authorities, the following
determinations have been agreed:
(a) Accessibility of nearby green spaces
The minimum size of nearby green spaces is determined as 1 ha by the lower

limit of acquisition in the AKTIS Basic-DLM. All the aforementioned sources
assume a value of 300–500 m distance to green spaces for everyday recreation.
Therefore, we count a recreational area as reachable or near-residential if it is at
a path distance of at most 500 m, or 10–15 min by foot, from the residential area.
With routing (e.g. streets, railways) and barrier effects taken into account, this
amounts to approximately 300 m straight-line distance, which we calculate from
the area boundary of the selected ATKIS object types/values (Table 2).
The representation of a pedestrian distance of 500 m to a green space by a

straight-line distance of 300 m is confirmed on average by Richter et al.
(2016Richter B, Grunewald K, Meinel G. 2016. Analyse von Wegedistanzen in
Für Angewandte Geoinformatik. 2:472–781. [Google Scholar]) using a network
analysis with path data. In the indicator calculation carried out there, comparable
results for the investigated cities are obtained on the basis of straight-line
distances and existing paths.
(b) Accessibility of larger green spaces at a medium distance
According to the DRL (2006DRL. 2006. Freiraumqualitäten in der zukünftigen

Stadtentwicklung [Qualities of open spaces in the future city development].
Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates für Landespflege, Heft
fromhttps://www.landespflege.de/schriften/DRL_SR78.pdf. [Google Scholar])
evaluation, near-settlement areas relevant for local recreation include areas with
a minimum size of 10 ha and a maximum path distance of 1000 m or 20 min
walking distance. Here, too, the specified path distance does not correspond to
the straight-line distance. For the implementation of accessibility of larger green
spaces in the main indicator, we thus assume a straight-line distance of
approximately 700 m, taking barrier effects into account.
After evaluating the national and international literature, we have defined areas
bigger than 1 ha to be at walking distance (300 m straight-line distance, approx.
500 m path distance, around 10–15 min by foot) for recreation in the nearby
residential environment, and areas bigger than 10 ha to be at medium walking
distance (700 m straight-line distance, approx. 1000 m path distance, around
20 min by foot) for recreation in the wider residential environment. The
representation of a pedestrian distance of 500 m to green spaces by a straight-
line distance of 300 m is confirmed on average by Richter et al.
(2016Richter B, Grunewald K, Meinel G. 2016. Analyse von Wegedistanzen in
Für Angewandte Geoinformatik. 2:472–781. [Google Scholar]) using a network
analysis with path data. In the indicator calculation carried out there, comparable
results for the investigated cities are obtained on the basis of straight-line
distances and existing paths.
3.3. Short description of calculation and analysis steps
The indicators to be developed are particularly relevant in larger settlement units

such as conurbations or big cities, since in rural areas the demand for public
green spaces is largely substituted by recreation in the open countryside
(Panduro & Veie 2013Panduro TE, Veie KL. 2013. Classification and valuation of
urban green spaces – a hedonic house price valuation. Landsc Urban Plan.
120:119–128.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Kabisch et
al. 2015Kabisch N, Qureshi S, Haase D. 2015. Human–environment interactions
in urban green spaces - a systematic review of contemporary issues and
prospects for future research. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:25–
34.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). According to the typology
of municipalities and cities of the Federal Institute for Research on Building,
Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und
Raumforschung, BBSR), cities with at least 100,000 inhabitants are considered
big cities (BBSR 2013BBSR. 2013. Neuere Flächennutzungsdaten: Übersicht,
Vergleich und Nutzungsmöglichkeiten. [New land use data: overview,
comparison and possible uses] Bundesinstitut für Bau‐, Stadt‐ und
Raumforschung, BBSR‐Analysen Kompakt 02/2013,
Bonn. Retrieved 15 September, 2015,
fromhttps://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/AnalysenKompakt/2
013/AK022013.html. [Google Scholar]). The indicators presented here are
calculated for all cities above 50,000 inhabitants, as we assume that beginning
with this order of magnitude (at the distances mentioned earlier) cities may
exhibit restricted accessibility of the open landscape.
Indicator (M) captures the population that can reach both green spaces >1 ha
within walking distance (accessibility of nearby green spaces) and green spaces
>10 ha at medium distance (accessibility of larger green spaces at a medium
distance) and places them in relation to the total population (Box 1).
The method of the secondary indicator ‘green-space provision per inhabitant
related to urban green spaces nearby to residential areas’ (S1) was developed in
the IOER Monitor of Settlement and Open Space Development (www.ioer-
monitor.de/home/?L=1), a permanent scientific service of the Leibniz Institute of
Ecological Urban and Regional Development. It captures all green spaces
(without consideration of municipal borders) in the vicinity of predominantly
inhabited and contiguously built-up areas and relates them to the number of
inhabitants of the respective municipality. In view of multifunctionality, this also
takes into account areas with little sealing and predominant greening, including
green spaces adjacent to traffic and arable land. This and the calculation steps of
the second supplementary indicator ‘green-space provision per inhabitant related
to total amount of green space’ (S2) are summarized in Box 1. It should be noted
that in this study only public green areas with recreational functions are
considered. S2 measures the total amount of green space with recreational
functions within the municipal boundary and relates them to the number of
inhabitants of the respective municipality.
Box 1. Calculation steps of the indicators in the GIS.

CSVDisplay Table
4. Results and interpretation
The proportion of inhabitants who find at least small nearby green spaces in the
sense of daily or leisure-time recreation and also larger green spaces at a
medium distance for local recreation is approximately 74.3% (indicator M). This
means that 25.6 million city dwellers have access to both types of green spaces
in German cities. However, around 6.1 million inhabitants do not have one of the
two types of green spaces in their residential environment yet. The German
federal states of North Rhine–Westphalia in the west and Baden–Württemberg in
the south-east stand out due to a concentration of cities with high values (Figure
1, left).
Figure 1. Overview on the calculated indicators M and S2 on federal level in

2013.
Display full size
The average degree of accessibility of green spaces in the German cities is

relatively high (Table 3). This shows that the efforts to provide cities with green
spaces, which were formulated more than 100 years ago and became more of a
focal point due to a conference of heads of municipal park departments in the
1970s (Wiegand 1970Wiegand H. 1970. Entwicklung des Stadtgrüns in
Deutschland [Development of urban green in Germany]. Berlin, Hannover: Patzer
Verlag. [Google Scholar]), were not in vain. However, first, further efforts for
improvement are required, especially in cities below the average or far from the
100% target (means every dweller should have access to nearby urban green,
BMUB 2015BMUB. 2015. Grün in der Stadt – Für eine lebenswerte Zukunft.
Scholar]). The deviation from the objective is measurable based on the indicators
(Figure 2). Second, it must be ensured that the provision with green spaces
relevant for recreation in the residential environment does not decrease when
measures for qualitative internal densification are taken, particularly in growing
big cities.
Table 3. Results of indicator calculation for the German cities, structured

by city sizes (inh.) in 2013.
CSVDisplay Table
Figure 2. Proportion of cities/dwellers with access to urban green space near to

residence (indicator M in 2013).
Display full size
Also the average values of the additional indicators S1 (2013: 101.6 m2/inh.)
and S2 (2013: 273.7 m2/inh.) are at a relative high level. A classification of the
large German cities according to the number of their inhabitants shows that for all
three indicators the mean and the range increase with decreasing city size
(population) (Table 3). This means that larger cities have more problems to
ensure the provision and accessibility of green spaces. Nevertheless, there are
also smaller cities with comparatively low values for the provision and
accessibility of green spaces. However, there is no statistically significant
correlation between indicator values and municipal area or between indicator
values and population. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the values
of all indicators and the municipal area is not less than −0.2 or greater than 0.2.
The correlation coefficient between indicator results and population lies in the
same range.
An analysis of indicator values has been carried out for three dates; it shows a
decrease (Table 4). The changes between 2008 and 2013 have to be taken with
a grain of salt, because in this period, a change in the modelling of the database
(ATKIS Basic-DLM) has occurred. Therefore, a portion of the calculated indicator
value changes are not due to real changes in land use, but to changes in land
use allocations. Since 2013, Basic-DLM data in Germany are available in a
unified modelling scheme (Schorcht et
®] , [Google Scholar]). Therefore, the indicator value for 2015 was calculated in
order to obtain a more robust assessment of first trends. More reliable results will
be calculated after the update cycle of 5 years in 2018 when the land use data
(ATKIS Basic-DLM) have been completed for the entire country. The census data
are updated only every 10 years so that the same values were used in the three
analyses of (M).
Table 4. First trends overview for calculated indicators for all cities
≥50,000 inhabitants.
CSVDisplay Table
The indicators allow a nationwide assessment of the accessibility of green

spaces for the residential population in the cities. However, it is worthwhile
having a closer look at cities regarded as ‘green’ while exhibiting a below-
average degree of accessibility of green spaces in the residential environment
and vice versa (Section 5, Figure 3).
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of green-space provision within the examples of the

cities Wiesbaden and Stuttgart (for location, see Figure 1).
Display full size
5. Discussion
With the ES indicator development, we are pursuing the goal of carrying out a
reproducible assessment for all larger German cities. The indicators are rather
simple, robust and reproducible measures. They exhibit an average value for
Germany or on the level of the federal states, but also allow for simple
nationwide comparisons between the cities. The proposed indicator (M) is easy
to interpret, since the closer the degree of provision comes to 100%, the higher
the welfare effect of recreation activities (Krekel et
al. 2015Krekel C, Kolbe J, Wüstemann H. 2015. The greener, the happier? The
effects of urban green and abandoned areas on residential well-being. SOEP
papers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research. [Google Scholar]). This target
value is easier to justify, to compare and to communicate than the green-space
provision (area per inhabitant – S1 and S2). The number of inhabitants is more
useful as a reference quantity for examining the accessibility of green spaces
than the municipal area, since a concentration of population has a stronger
influence on the indicator, which therefore exhibits a closer relation to the people
looking for rest and recreation.
In 2013, nationwide, 74.3% of the inhabitants of the cities studied are able to
reach at least green spaces (>1 ha) at a linear distance of no more than 300 m
(≈500 m walking distance) and larger green spaces (>10 ha) at a maximum linear
distance of 700 m (≈1000 m walking distance). The distances are
stipulated/chosen by the authors and planners which may be different in other
countries or studies (see Section 3.2).
One of the lowest degrees of accessibility of green spaces for the residential
population (M = 53%) was calculated for Wiesbaden, although the city has a
relatively high value of urban green space with recreation function per inhabitant
(S2 = 302 m2/inh.). The reason for the calculated below-average degree of
accessibility lies in the low number of recreational spaces in the city centre with a
high population density (Figure 3).
On the other hand, e.g. the values of 80% for the accessibility of green spaces
for the residential population in the big city of Stuttgart stand out, although the
area of green spaces per inhabitant is relatively low (S2 = 116 m2/inh.). The
public parks in the densely populated core city and the remaining green spaces
on the adjoining slopes as well as high population densities in the centres
surrounded by forest areas outside the city centre are among the special features
in Stuttgart (Figure 3).
Comparisons with other national and international assessments show that the
results are plausible. However, it only makes sense to compare numbers if they
have been calculated with similar methodology and comparable databases. This
is particularly evident regarding the ‘simpler’ additional indicators that may vary
more widely, depending on the selection of reference parameters (selection of
type and area size of green spaces, city area, etc.). Wüstemann et al.
(2016Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J. 2016. Towards a national indicator for
urban green space provision and environmental inequalities in Germany:
methods and findings. SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2016-022,
TU Berlin. Retrieved on 1 August 2016 fromhttps://sfb649.wiwi.hu-
berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2016-022.pdf. [Google Scholar]) used the EUA
and not ATKIS as a database for assessing German cities. They estimated that
93% of the German households have access to green spaces within 500 m and
74.1% within 300 m linear distance around the location. The green-space
provision for major German cities was calculated to be 8.1 m2 per capita
(median). Kabisch et al.
(2016Kabisch N, Strohbach M, Hasse D, Kronenberg J. 2016. Urban green
space availability in European cities. Ecol Indic. 70:586–596.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) show that the share of the population in European
cities living within a 500 m linear distance from green and forest areas with a
minimum size of 2 ha ranges from 11% to 98%. For the city of Berlin, Germany,
they found that 30% of the population lives within a 300 m and 68% within a
500 m distance. Additionally, they found that on the basis of municipal data
58.7% of the population have access to urban green space within 300 m
distance. The latter value is slightly below our result for Berlin (M = 61.4%).
Possible reasons for a higher indicator value might include a broader definition of
green spaces relevant to recreation (additionally considered: water area, orchard
meadow, cemetery) as well as the inclusion of green spaces outside the
municipality under consideration.
The main indicator (M) is comparable in terms of approach, implementation and

results with the studies in Flanders (Simoens et
EcosysteemdienstGroeneRuimteBuitenactiviteiten.pdf [Google Scholar]). Thus,
the share of population near green spaces (2011) is 84.1% in Antwerp, 78.4% in
Ghent and 73.0% in Bruges. Barbosa (2007Barbosa O. 2007. Who benefits from
access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc Urban Plan.
83:187–195.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) analysed access
to green spaces in Sheffield (UK) and found that 64% of the households fail to
meet the recommendation of the regulatory agency English Nature, which states
that people should live no further than 300 m from their nearest green spaces.
Moreover, they found that distances of households to green spaces vary greatly
across Sheffield with a mean distance to public green space of 416 m. We did
not consider implementing an approach based on the mean distance to the
closest green space, as it would require reliable-free georeferenced data per
household across Germany. Moreover, an implementation based on the 100 m
population raster of the 2011 census is problematic, as the distance between
population and green space can be modelled either based on the centre or the
boundary of the raster. The differences between these two approaches could be
significant. In our approach, we were able to circumvent this problem by
modelling the proportion of a raster cell proximate to the green space and using
this to determine the population count.
In the French city of Nantes, which won the title of European Green Capital in
2013, 100% of the population lives within 300 m from green spaces (Nantes
Métropole 2012Nantes Métropole. 2012. Nantes European Green Capital 2013.
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
fromhttps://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/ENV-12-003_Nantes_EN_WebRes.pdf. [Google
Scholar]). The first Environmental Assessment for Europe showed significant
differences in green-space provision between European cities ranging from
Brussels, Copenhagen and Paris, where all citizens live within 15 min walking
distance from public green, and Venice and Kiev, where the corresponding figure
is 63% and 47% of the population, respectively (Stanners &
Bourdeau 1995Stanners D, Bourdeau P. 1995. Europe’s environment: the Dobris
assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; p. 261–296. [Google
Scholar]).
Cities should provide at least 20–30% or 9 m2 per capita green spaces as

recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO,
Kuchelmeister 1998Kuchelmeister G 1998. Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific
Region - status and prospects. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study
Working Paper Series No. 44. Rome, FAO. [Google Scholar]). According to
analyses of the BMUB (2015BMUB. 2015. Grün in der Stadt – Für eine
lebenswerte Zukunft. Grünbuch Stadtgrün [Green Book ”Green in the
City“. Berlin: German Environment and Building Ministry]. Retrieved 27 June,
2015,
Scholar]), there are 46 m2 of green spaces per inhabitant in big German cities; in
small cities, the value is nearly twice as high. As a general rule, the authors state
that the bigger the cities, the less green space is available per inhabitant.
Accordingly, cities such as Berlin or Leipzig have developed corresponding
normative goals for providing the inhabitants with green spaces (e.g. 6 m2/inh. in
Berlin, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und
Umwelt 2013Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und
Umwelt. 2013. Versorgung mit öffentlichen, wohnungsnahen Grünanlagen
[Supply with public, residental-near green spaces]. Umweltatlas
Berlin. Retrieved 14 May, 2015,
fromhttps://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/e_text/ka605.pdf. [
Google Scholar]). This approach may be suitable for a comparison within the
municipality, but it distorts the comparative picture between places, since, on
average, cities with a high population density are placed at a disadvantage, e.g.
compared to cities which have incorporated sparsely populated surrounding
areas.
Of course, green-space coverage can be calculated in a variety of ways leading

to different results or rankings (Fuller &
Gaston 2009Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in
European cities. Biol Lett. 5:352–355.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®] , [Google Scholar]). The supplementary indicator (S1) proposed by us
primarily captures green spaces in the surroundings of inhabited settlement
areas and refers them to the number of inhabitants of a municipality. For German
cities (>100,000 inhabitants), the value is approx. 81.4 m2/inh., and thus lies
significantly above the previously mentioned 46 m2 green spaces per capita.
Differences between the two approaches also lie in a broader definition of green
spaces (e.g. additionally taking into account grassland and water areas) and the
spatial relationship of green spaces to settlement areas (also beyond municipal
boundaries). The inclusion of green spaces in the surroundings of inhabited
settlement areas leads to a modified value, as it is not merely a summation of
green spaces within municipal boundaries.
The discussion shows that the indicators put forward cannot represent all
aspects of the recreation services in cities. The result of the indicator calculation
decisively depends on the databases used, the land uses (object types)
classified as relevant for recreation and the choice of threshold values. Quality
and accessibility are important for the recreational use of land (Arlt et
al. 2005Arlt G, Hennersdorf J, Lehmann I, Thinh NX. 2005. Auswirkungen
städtischer Nutzungsstrukturen auf Grünflächen und Grünvolumen [Impacts of
urban usage patterns on green areas and green volumes]. Dresden: IÖR-
Schriften, Band 47. [Google Scholar]). However, a user-specific nationwide
acquisition of the quality and accessibility of potential recreational areas is
currently unachievable. In this respect, only an approximation is possible.
Green areas, parks, cemeteries, grassland, orchard meadows, forests, woods as

well as surface waters are regarded as green spaces in our calculation (Section
3.1; Table 2). As an example, we have analysed how object types such as water
areas and cemetery spaces influence the indicator value. In the German
average, the corresponding value changes are in the lower single-digit range.
Allotments were excluded from the calculation, because they are not open for the
public. But one could them make in some cases accessible. The addition of this
category would lead to a nationwide additional supply of 1.8 million people
(5.7%) for indicator (M) and impressively demonstrates the potential of allotments
for improved green-space accessibility in the residential environment. Therefore,
allotments should be more included in green-space planning which implies that in
districts with deficits in public green spaces the accessibility to allotments for the
general public should be assured.
The assessment on the basis of population figures from a recent high-resolution

census (raster maps with 100 m raster resolution) regarding indicator (M) allows
a more differentiated analysis of the ES demand compared to the supplementary
indicators (S1, S2). However, the census raster data are only collected every
10 years, which restricts the update frequency.
6. Conclusion
Key parameters of the quality of green spaces in urban areas are important for
pointing out reference values for municipal practice. In this context, empirical
data and action goals for ‘Green in the City’ based on indicators regarding the
accessibility and provision of green spaces for assessing the ES ‘recreation in
the city’ represent a basis for the pursuit of a more sustainable urban
development, as green infrastructure has been stressed as an important factor
for health and constitutes much of the quality of life in cities. Three indicators
were proposed and applied in a large number of German cities (n = 182) and are
thus quite comprehensive. In total, green spaces are accessible for daily
recreation for 74.3% of the inhabitants in large German cities. Underprovision
affects 25.7% of the city population and thus 8.1 million inhabitants. The green
area in the surroundings of inhabited settlement areas per inhabitant in the
German cities amounts to 102 m2 on average for the year 2013. The indicator
values are updatable, but the recent trend (slight decrease) is yet uncertain.
Green-space provision has often been expressed in terms of size per inhabitant,
which is not really sufficient (large variation between different parts of the
settlement, influenced much by where the outer border is drawn). The
combination of the sizes of green spaces with distances allows for relatively
simple modelling of the accessibility of green spaces and represents an effective
methodology for a nationwide application. Deficits and trends can be pointed out,
and comparisons between cities are possible, also internationally if the
methodology is comparable. However, such nationwide calculations can only
give an overview. Therefore, it is possible for cities which have higher-resolution
data available to carry out more complex analyses in order to underpin the
determined quantitative values by respective site-specific quality requirements for
municipal planning of green spaces.
The proposed indicators have been accepted by the German environmental

authorities but are still being coordinated at the political level. On the one hand,
they contribute to the implementation of Target 2, Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity
Strategy 2020 (reporting obligations of Germany). On the other hand, the main
indicator (M) is also proposed for the German National Strategy on Biological
Diversity (Nationale Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt, NBS).
The ES indicator can underpin this NBS target as a measurement and monitor
quantities. The indicator is selected to address the aims of increasing the
percentage of green areas and structures, linking them and pursuing a qualified
brownfield development of settlements as well as reducing land use
(BMU 2010BMU. 2010. Indicator report 2010 to the National Strategy on
Biological Diversity. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Berlin. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
fromhttps://www.biologischevielfalt.de/fileadmin/NBS/indikatoren/Indicator_Report
_2010_NBS_Web.pdf. [Google Scholar]). By 2020, the greening of the near-
residential open spaces is to be increased significantly, and publicly accessible
green spaces with varying qualities and functions are to be available within
walking distance. This is not only important for human health reasons (Section 2)
but also because a good accessibility and interconnection of green spaces is
critical to their usability and enhances the attractiveness of inner cities. It helps to
stop the land-intensive migration into the surroundings and contributes to
reducing the volume of traffic.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
1. Albert C, Burkhard B, Daube S, Dietrich K, Engels B, Frommer J, Götzl M, Grêt-
Regamey A, Job-Hoben B, Keller R, et al. 2015. Development of National Indicators for
Ecosystem Services Recommendations for Germany. Discussion Paper, BfN-Skripten
411, Bonn. Retrieved 15 October, 2015,
from https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/service/Dokumente/skripten/skript411.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
2. Arlt G, Hennersdorf J, Lehmann I, Thinh NX. 2005. Auswirkungen städtischer

Nutzungsstrukturen auf Grünflächen und Grünvolumen [Impacts of urban usage
patterns on green areas and green volumes]. Dresden: IÖR-Schriften, Band 47.
[Google Scholar]
3. Barbosa O. 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from
Sheffield, UK. Landsc Urban Plan. 83:187–195.
[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
, [Google Scholar]
4. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K. 2012. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services
- the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecol Indic. 21:7–
16.
, [Google Scholar]
5. BBSR. 2013. Neuere Flächennutzungsdaten: Übersicht, Vergleich und

Nutzungsmöglichkeiten. [New land use data: overview, comparison and possible uses]
Bundesinstitut für Bau‐, Stadt‐ und Raumforschung, BBSR‐Analysen Kompakt 02/2013,
Bonn. Retrieved 15 September, 2015,
from https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/AnalysenKompakt/2013/A
K022013.html.
[Google Scholar]
6. BMU. 2010. Indicator report 2010 to the National Strategy on Biological Diversity.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU),
Berlin. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
from https://www.biologischevielfalt.de/fileadmin/NBS/indikatoren/Indicator_Report_2010
_NBS_Web.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
7. BMUB. 2015. Grün in der Stadt – Für eine lebenswerte Zukunft. Grünbuch Stadtgrün
[Green Book ”Green in the City“. Berlin: German Environment and Building
Ministry]. Retrieved 27 June, 2015,
from https://www.bmub.bund.de/service/publikationen/downloads/details/artikel/gruen-in-
der-stadt-fuer-eine-lebenswerte-zukunft/?tx_ttnews[backPid]=289
[Google Scholar]
8. BMVBS - Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und

Stadtentwicklung. 2013. Nahversorgung in ländlichen Räumen. [Local supply in rural
areas] BMVBS-Online-Publikation 02/2013. Retrieved on 7 January 2016
from https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/BMVBS/Online/2013/DL_
ON022013.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.
[Google Scholar]
9. Brown G, Schebella MF, Weber D. 2014. Using participatory GIS to measure physical
activity and urban park benefits. Landsc Urban Plan. 121:34–44.

, [Google Scholar]
10. Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, Agrimi M, Port

oghesi L, Semenzato P, Sanesi G. 2015. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of
biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas.
Landsc Urban Plan. 134:221–228.
, [Google Scholar]
11. Comber A, Brunsdon C, Green E. 2008. Using a GIS-based network analysis to

determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups.
, [Google Scholar]
12. DRL. 2006. Freiraumqualitäten in der zukünftigen Stadtentwicklung [Qualities of open

spaces in the future city development]. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates für
Landespflege, Heft 78. Retrieved 28 October, 2015,
from https://www.landespflege.de/schriften/DRL_SR78.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
13. Dobbs C, Kendal D, Nitschke CR. 2014. Multiple ecosystem services and disservices of
the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape structure and
sociodemographics. Ecol Indic. 43:44–55.
, [Google Scholar]
14. EEA. 2002. European common indicators A.4: availability of local public open areas and
services. Retrieved 2 February, 2016, from https://www.eea.europa.eu.
[Google Scholar]
15. Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Gómez-
ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 14:101–108.
, [Google Scholar]
16. English Nature. 2003. Providing accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities,
practical guide to assessing the resource and implementing local standards for
provision. Research Report, United Kingdom. Retrieved 14 May, 2015,
from publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/78003.
[Google Scholar]
17. Ermer K, Hoff R, Mohrmann R. 1996. Landschaftsplanung in der Stadt [Landscape

planning in the city]. Stuttgart: Ulmer Verlag.
[Google Scholar]
18. EU. 2016. Urban Europe. Statistics on cities, towns and suburbans.
Eurostat. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
from ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/7596823/KS-01-16-691-EN-N.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
19. European Commission. 2001. Towards a local sustainability profile - European common
indicators. Report, Belgium.
[Google Scholar]
20. European Commission. 2011. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. European Commission,

December 2011. Retrieved 31 August, 2015,
from (https://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2018862%202011%20IN
IT.
[Google Scholar]
21. Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities.
Biol Lett. 5:352–355.
[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
, [Google Scholar]
22. Gascon M, Triguero-Mas M, Martínez D, Dadvand P, Rojas-

Rueda D, Plasència A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 2016. Residential green spaces and
mortality: a systematic review. Environ Int. 86:60–67.
, [Google Scholar]
23. GreenKeys Team. 2008. GreenKeys @ Your City – A Guide for Urban Green
Quality. Dresden: IOER Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional
Development. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
from https://www.ioer.de/greenkeys/Greenkeys_Tools/index.html
[Google Scholar]
24. Grunewald K, Herold H, Marzelli S, Meinel G, Richter B, Syrbe RU, Walz U. 2016. Asse
ssment of ecosystem services at the national level in Germany – illustration of the
concept and the development of indicators by way of the example wood provision. Ecol
Indic. 70:181–195.
, [Google Scholar]
25. Haaland C, van den Bosch CK. 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space
planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban Forestry Urban Greening.
14:760–771.
, [Google Scholar]
26. Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F, Seppelt R. 2012. Synergies, trade-offs, and
losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework
applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany. Ecol Soc. 17:102–123.
, [Google Scholar]
27. Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem

Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework
Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Retrieved 15 January, 2015, from www.cices.eu (and a
full spread sheet showing the classification).
[Google Scholar]
28. Handley J, Slinn P, Barber A, Baker M, Jones C, Lindley S. 2003. Accessible natural
green space standards in towns and cities: a review and toolkit for their
implementation. Peterborough: English Nature.
[Google Scholar]
29. Hartig T, Cooper C, Marcus C. 2003. Healing gardens – places for nature in health care.
Lancet. 368:36–37.
, [Google Scholar]
30. Health Council of the Netherlands and Dutch advisory council for research on spatial
planning, nature and environment. 2004. Nature and health. The influence of nature on
social, psychological and physical well-being. The Hague: Health Council of the
Netherlands and RMNO, publication no. 2004 /09E.
[Google Scholar]
31. Irvine KN, Warber SL, Devine-Wright P, Gaston KJ. 2013. Understanding urban green
space as a health resource: a qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived
effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 10:417–
442.
, [Google Scholar]
32. Kabisch N, Haase D. 2013. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990–2006.
, [Google Scholar]
33. Kabisch N, Haase D. 2014. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green
spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc Urban Plan. 122:129–139.
, [Google Scholar]
34. Kabisch N, Qureshi S, Haase D. 2015. Human–environment interactions in urban green

spaces - a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research.
Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:25–34.
, [Google Scholar]
35. Kabisch N, Strohbach M, Hasse D, Kronenberg J. 2016. Urban green space availability
in European cities. Ecol Indic. 70:586–596.
, [Google Scholar]
36. Korda M, Eds. 2005. Städtebau [Urban construction]. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
[Google Scholar]
37. Krekel C, Kolbe J, Wüstemann H. 2015. The greener, the happier? The effects of urban
green and abandoned areas on residential well-being. SOEP papers on Multidisciplinary
Panel Data Research.
[Google Scholar]
38. Krüger T, Meinel G, Schumacher S. 2013. Land-use monitoring by topographic data

analysis. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci. Retrieved 12 December, 2016 from 40. 220–228.
doi:10.1080/15230406.2013.809232
[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
, [Google Scholar]
39. Kuchelmeister G 1998. Urban forestry in the Asia-Pacific Region - status and prospects.
Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper Series No. 44. Rome, FAO.
[Google Scholar]
40. Kühnau C, Böhme C, Bunzel A, Böhm J, Reinke M. 2016. Von der Theorie zur
Umsetzung: Stadtnatur und doppelte Innenentwicklung [From theory into practice:
Urban green space and dual inner development]. Natur und Landschaft. 7:329–335.
[Google Scholar]
41. Laumann K, Gärling T, Stormark KM. 2003. Selective attention and heart rate
responses to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 23:125–134.
, [Google Scholar]
42. Lee AC, Jordan HC, Horsley J. 2015. Value of urban green spaces in promoting healthy
living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. Risk Manag Health Policy. 8:131–137.
, [Google Scholar]
43. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P. 2006. Green space,
urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health.
60:587–592.
, [Google Scholar]
44. Maes, J., A. Teller, M. Erhard, et al. 2014. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and
their services. Indicators for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2nd Report – Final, February 2014. European
Commission, Publications Office, Technical Report 2014 – 080. Retrieved 15 October,
2015,
from https://www.ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/p
df/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
45. Nantes Métropole. 2012. Nantes European Green Capital 2013. Publications Office of
the European Union. Retrieved 12 December, 2016
from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/ENV-12-003_Nantes_EN_WebRes.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
46. Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE. 2016. In: Kowarik I, Bartz R, Brenck M, eds.
Ökosystemleistungen in der Stadt – Gesundheit schützen und Lebensqualität erhöhen
[Ecosystem Services in the City – Protecting Health and Enhancing Quality of
Life]. Berlin, Leipzig: Technische Universität Berlin; Helmholtz-Zentrum für
Umweltforschung – UFZ.
[Google Scholar]
47. Neumeier S 2013. Modellierung der Erreichbarkeit öffentlicher Apotheken –

Untersuchung zum regionalen Versorgungsgrad mit Dienstleistungen der
Grundversorgung [Modelling of accessibility of public pharmacies – investigation of
regional supply with a basic level of provision services]. Thünen Working Paper
14, Braunschweig.
[Google Scholar]
48. Panduro TE, Veie KL. 2013. Classification and valuation of urban green spaces – a
hedonic house price valuation. Landsc Urban Plan. 120:119–128.
, [Google Scholar]
49. Polat AT, Akay A. 2015. Relationships between the visual preferences of urban
recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry Urban
Greening. 14:573–582.
, [Google Scholar]
50. Richter B, Grunewald K, Meinel G. 2016. Analyse von Wegedistanzen in Städten zur
Verifizierung des Ökosystemleistungsindikators “Erreichbarkeit öffentlicher Grünflächen”
[Analysis of path distances in cities for verification of the ecosystem service indicator
‘accessibility of urban green spaces’]. AGIT - Journal Für Angewandte Geoinformatik.
2:472–781.
[Google Scholar]
51. Schorcht M, Krüger T, Meinel G. 2016. Measuring land take: usability of national
topographic databases as input for land use change analysis: a case study from
Germany. Int J Geo-Information. 5:134.
, [Google Scholar]
52. Schwarze B 2005. Erreichbarkeitsindikatoren in der Nahverkehrsplanung [Accessibility

indicators in local transport planning]. working paper 184, Dortmund. [cited 2016 Aug
23]. Available from: https://www.raumplanung.tu-
dortmund.de/irpud/fileadmin/irpud/content/documents/publications/ap184.p.
[Google Scholar]
53. Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt. 2013. Versorgung mit öffentlichen,
wohnungsnahen Grünanlagen [Supply with public, residental-near green
spaces]. Umweltatlas Berlin. Retrieved 14 May, 2015,
from https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/e_text/ka605.pdf.
[Google Scholar]
54. Shanahan DF, Fuller RA, Bush R, Lin BB, Gaston KJ. 2015. The health benefits of
urban nature: how much do we need? Bioscience. 65:476–485.
, [Google Scholar]
55. Simoens I, Thoonen M, Meiresonne L, Van Daele T. 2014. Hoofdstuk 26 –

ecosysteemdienst groene ruimte voor buitenactiviteiten. (INBO.R.2014.1987887).
In Stevens, M., et al. eds. Natuurrapport - Toestand en trend van ecosystemen en
ecosysteemdiensten in vlaanderen. Technisch rapport. Mededelingen van het instituut
voor natuur- en bosonderzoek. INBO.M.2014.1988582. Brussel. Available
from: https://data.inbo.be/purews/files/4339527/Simoens_etal_2014_Hoofdstuk26Ecosy
steemdienstGroeneRuimteBuitenactiviteiten.pdf
[Google Scholar]
56. Stanners D, Bourdeau P. 1995. Europe’s environment: the Dobris

assessment. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; p. 261–296.
[Google Scholar]
57. Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S, Seeland K, De Vries S. 2005. Benefits and uses of urban forests
and trees. In: Konijnendijk C, Nilsson K, Randrup T, Schipperijn J, editors. Urban forests
and trees. Berlin: Springer; p. 81–114.
[Google Scholar]
58. Uhel R 2008. Urbanisation in Europe: limits to spatial growth, Retrieved 12 December,
2016 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/speeches/urbanisation-in-europe-limits-to-
spatial-growth/#parent-fieldname-title.
[Google Scholar]
59. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. 1991. Stress recovery
during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 11:201–230.
, [Google Scholar]
60. UN - United Nations. 2014. Department of economic and social affairs, population
division. World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision, highlights
(ST/ESA/SER.A/352). New York: UN DESA.
[Crossref]
, [Google Scholar]
61. URGE-Team. 2004. Making greener cities – a practical guide. Leipzig: UFZ-Bericht Nr.
8 (Stadtökologische Forschungen Nr. 37), UFZ Leipzig-Halle GmbH.
[Google Scholar]
62. Van Den Berg AE, Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen. PP. 2010. Green space as a
buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc Sci Med. 70:1203–1210.
, [Google Scholar]
63. Van Den

Bosch M, Mudu P, Uscila V, Barrdahl M, Kulinkina A, Staatsen B, Swart W, Kruize H, Z
urlyte I, Egorov AI. 2016. Development of an urban green space indicator and the public
health rationale. Scand J Public Health. 44:159–167.
, [Google Scholar]
64. Van Herzele A, Wiedemann T. 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible
and attractive urban green spaces. Lands Urban Plan. 63:109–126.
, [Google Scholar]
65. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. 2013. Would you be happier living in a
greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci. 24:920–928.
, [Google Scholar]
66. Wiegand H. 1970. Entwicklung des Stadtgrüns in Deutschland [Development of urban

green in Germany]. Berlin, Hannover: Patzer Verlag.
[Google Scholar]
67. Wolch JR, Byrne J, Newell JP. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and
environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc Urban
Plan. 125:234–244.
, [Google Scholar]
68. Wurster D, Artmann M. 2014. Non-monetary assessment of urban ecosystem services

on site level – development of a methodology for a standardized selection, mapping and
assessment of representative sites. AMBIO. 43:454–465.
, [Google Scholar]
69. Wüstemann H, Kalisch D, Kolbe J. 2016. Towards a national indicator for urban green
space provision and environmental inequalities in Germany: methods and findings. SFB
649 Discussion Paper 2016-022, TU Berlin. Retrieved on 1 August 2016
from https://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2016-022.pdf.
[Google Scholar]

EDITED BY Christine Fürst: Keywords

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDITED BY Christine Fürst: Keywords

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDITED BY Christine Fürst: Keywords

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABSTRACT

EDITED BY Christine Fürst

In Target 2, Action 5, the EU Biodiversity Strategy stipulates that the member

2. Description of the ES ‘recreation in the city’

Urban ecosystems, such as forests, parks, bodies of water and adjacent

According to the EU’s Common International Classification of Ecosystem

Proximity of green spaces results in better physical and psychological health of

In considering the provision of the population with recreational areas, their

In Europe, recently 73% of its population is living in urban areas and it is

 Settlement areas with residential use, inhabitant data, distances between

A systematic selection of key measurable indicators for the evaluation of urban

Table 1. Indicators for description and assessment of urban green space

3. Proposal of indicators regarding green-space provision

 Accessibility of green spaces (main indicator – M)

 Green-space provision per inhabitant related to green spaces within walking

 Green-space provision per inhabitant related to total amount of green space

In particular, the indicators have the function of displaying a target achievement

3.1. Determination of the relevant recreational areas (in terms of

(a) Database: AKTIS Basic-DLM

In the Basic-DLM, there is no distinction between settlement areas with a high or

(b) Selection and justification of the relevant categories (land use

Table 2. Proposed consideration of land use types for the assessment of

(c) Central reference quantities of the ES demand

Inhabitants are taken into account as potential consumers of the ES ‘recreation in

 Administrative city boundaries (municipal boundaries): administrative

 The municipal directory information system (Gemeindeverzeichnis-

3.2. Definition of threshold values for distance from the

The determination of threshold values is based on literature that considers green

The minimum size of nearby green spaces is determined as 1 ha by the lower

The representation of a pedestrian distance of 500 m to a green space by a

(b) Accessibility of larger green spaces at a medium distance

According to the DRL (2006DRL. 2006. Freiraumqualitäten in der zukünftigen

3.3. Short description of calculation and analysis steps

The indicators to be developed are particularly relevant in larger settlement units

Box 1. Calculation steps of the indicators in the GIS.

4. Results and interpretation

Figure 1. Overview on the calculated indicators M and S2 on federal level in

The average degree of accessibility of green spaces in the German cities is

Table 3. Results of indicator calculation for the German cities, structured

Figure 2. Proportion of cities/dwellers with access to urban green space near to

Display full size

The indicators allow a nationwide assessment of the accessibility of green

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of green-space provision within the examples of the

The main indicator (M) is comparable in terms of approach, implementation and

Cities should provide at least 20–30% or 9 m2 per capita green spaces as

Of course, green-space coverage can be calculated in a variety of ways leading

Green areas, parks, cemeteries, grassland, orchard meadows, forests, woods as

The assessment on the basis of population figures from a recent high-resolution

The proposed indicators have been accepted by the German environmental

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

2. Arlt G, Hennersdorf J, Lehmann I, Thinh NX. 2005. Auswirkungen städtischer

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

5. BBSR. 2013. Neuere Flächennutzungsdaten: Übersicht, Vergleich und

8. BMVBS - Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

10. Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, Agrimi M, Port

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

11. Comber A, Brunsdon C, Green E. 2008. Using a GIS-based network analysis to