Mechanisms of Change in Urban Green Infrastructure—Evidence from Romania and Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Indicate a significant influence of urban sprawl on fragmentation [3];
- The literature kicks off sometime during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when it tries to establish an academically respectable position. Early papers touch upon the urban growth process, thereby linking to an older research strand, with an already established tradition. Once integrated, the research strand on GI substantiates its role within the urban growth tradition via the ecosystem services (ES) approach. The ecosystem approach GI research seems to gain initial momentum within the late 2000s, with a substantial increase in written output over the past few years [8].
- We can therefore infer that GI is a rewarding research topic, especially in recent times. We are therefore entitled to conduct an appraisal of the agreed body of knowledge. The rationale behind such an assessment is simple: planners need actionable information within their planning practices.
- Unfortunately, after nearly two decades of a relatively intensive research effort, the agreed body of knowledge looks surprisingly thin. One is bound to ask why the situation presents itself bleakly. The answers seem to be manifold, and we shall turn to them throughout this article.
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Quantitative Analysis
3.2. Qualitative Analysis
3.2.1. Romania
3.2.2. Poland
4. Discussion
4.1. Quantitative Analysis
4.2. Qualitative Analysis
4.2.1. Romania
4.2.2. Poland
4.3. Lessons Learned from the Study
- The methodology needs more fine tuning to improve statistical significance. This is, however, easier said than done. To illustrate this point, please consider the following data-related issue: the frequency of land cover and land use data are low. Hence, while the Urban Atlas demonstrated its suitability for performing comparative analyses of changes, its temporal span does not allow for highlighting the intrinsic mechanisms of these changes.
- To complicate things even further, there are some additional limitations that affect the methodological exercise proper. They are the following:
- Mathematical constraints apply to modeling complex processes describing the dynamics of the GI. Hence, it is difficult to achieve both intuitive clarity and statistical power.
- The ecological fallacy characterizing ecological studies could cast a doubt on the validity of results. More precisely, even if local influence of the driving forces could be determined if available data were available, there will be always a doubt that aggregated data reflect appropriately each particular case of fragmenting, losing, or changing of the GI.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
- Consistent formation of the urban GI system, which would ensure the maximum area and compactness (compact shape) of its elements, their spatial continuity, and connection with suburban green areas. The process is possible in Romania, where guidelines for drafting plans exist, but they are outdated; updating them is the easiest solution. However, Poland lacks such tools; the study revealed their need, and they can be developed accounting for the GI from the beginning.
- Preserving the system’s continuity by integrating remnants of natural environment in the urban structure, usually including the water system, and preserving adjacent natural and semi-natural areas. This can also be achieved via the guidelines for developing plans described above.
- Protecting the remnants of natural and semi-natural urban green areas (meadows, wetlands, etc.). Again, spatial plans are a solution, but this measure needs the cooperation of environmentally aware local communities, and their stronger participation in the process of drafting the plans.
- Developing properly landscaped green areas of the estates and accompanying greenery which should reduce the pressure on compact alignments of GI. Similarly, this recommendation depends on the cooperation of environmentally aware local communities.
- Appropriate local and regional spatial policies, considering public participation. Against this background, we would like to highlight the lack of a Polish national document defining directions for spatial planning. Without such a document, spatial policies are bound to remain patchy.
- Adopting spatial development plans that are not only growth-oriented, but also have a protection component, maintaining the spatial continuity of GI. Again, we face a procedural issue in Poland, as there is no legal obligation to adopt urban plans. Hence, without such obligations, relevant spatial policies are rendered moot. What is left to tend to for Polish GI are development decisions of the public administrations, which usually foster bypassing. An incremental improvement in these decisions seems possible, but it rests on public pressure.
- Eliminating the instruments (i.e., building conditions) leading to the fragmentation of GI. This requires an in-depth analysis of both zoning and building regulations in both countries. Depending on the results, some legal provisions might need updating.
- Building developments allowed only in areas already equipped with a technical infrastructure. Unfortunately, enforcement requires a separate discussion, via “derogatory planning”, but can be addressed while revising planning provisions in both countries.
- Educational and awareness activities focused on the importance of GI for a city and its residents. Several other points stressed the need for cooperation of environmentally aware local communities. However, public involvement needs to be responsible, efficient, and positive. For that, both countries need to expand environmental education, even by informative means, enabling it to reach not only city managers and planners, but also local actors.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Artmann, M.; Chen, X.; Ioja, I.C.; Hof, A.; Onose, D.-A.; Ponizy, L.; Zavodnik Lamovšek, A.; Breuste, J.H. The role of urban green spaces in care facilities for elderly people across European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 27, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrișor, A.-I.; Mierzejewska, L.; Mitrea, A.; Drachal, K.; Tache, A.V. Dynamics of Open Green Areas in Polish and Romanian Cities During 2006–2018: Insights for Spatial Planners. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badiu, D.-L.; Ioja, I.C.; Patroescu, M.; Breuste, J.H.; Artmann, M.; Nita, M.R.; Grădinaru, S.R.; Hossu, C.A.; Onose, D.-A. Is urban green space per capita a valuable target to achieve cities’ sustainability goals? Romania as a case study. Ecol. Ind. 2016, 70, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artmann, M.; Kohler, M.; Meinel, G.; Gan, J.; Ioja, I.C. How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other—A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecol. Ind. 2017, 96, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nita, M.R.; Năstase, I.-I.; Badiu, D.-L.; Onose, D.-A.; Gavrilidis, A.-A. Evaluating urban forests connectivity in relation to urban functions in Romanian cities. Carpathian J. Earth Env. Sci. 2018, 13, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turkelboom, F.; Leone, M.; Jacobs, S.; Kelemen, E.; García-Llorente, M.; Baró, F.; Termansen, M.; Barton, D.N.; Berry, P.; Stange, E.; et al. When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 566–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pătru-Stupariu, I.; Nita, A. Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Landsc. Ecol. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrisor, A.-I.; Andronache, I.C.; Petrisor, L.E.; Ciobotaru, A.-M.; Peptenatu, D. Assessing the fragmentation of the green infrastructure in Romanian cities using fractal models and numerical taxonomy. Procedia Env. Sci. 2016, 32, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Puşcaşu, V. Some considerations about urban planning and urban landscape relationship in Romania. Public Admin Reg. Stud. 2011, 4, 50–60. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz-Palacios-Sisternes, S.; Ayuga, F.; García, A.I. A method for detecting and describing land use transformations: An examination of Madrid’s southern urban-rural gradient between 1990 and 2006. Cities 2014, 40, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grădinaru, S.R.; Iojă, C.I.; Onose, D.A.; Gavrilidis, A.A.; Pătru-Stupariu, I.; Kienast, F.; Hersperger, A.M. Land abandonment as a precursor of built-up development at the sprawling periphery of former socialist cities. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ianoş, I.; Sîrodoev, I.; Pascariu, G.; Henebry, G. Divergent patterns of built-up urban space growth following post-socialist changes. Urban Stud. 2016, 53, 3172–3188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupková, L.; Bičík, I.; Najman, J. Land Cover Changes along the Iron Curtain 1990–2006. Geografie 2013, 118, 95–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iaţu, C.; Eva, M. Spatial profile of the evolution of urban sprawl pressure on the surroundings of Romanian cities (2000–2013). Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2016, 11, 79–88. [Google Scholar]
- Petrişor, A.-I.; Petrişor, L.E. Transitional dynamics based trend analysis of land cover and use changes in Romania during 1990–2012. Present Environ. Sust. Dev. 2018, 12, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tascu-Stavre, M.; Banica, C. Old and New in Vama Veche and 2 Mai. Urban Arhit Constr. 2014, 5, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
- Hamma, W.; Petrişor, A.-I. Urbanization and risks: Case of Bejaia city in Algeria. Human Geogr. 2018, 12, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoica, I.V.; Vîrghileanu, M.; Zamfir, D.; Mihai, B.A.; Săvulescu, I. Comparative Assessment of the Built-Up Area Expansion Based on Corine Land Cover and Landsat Datasets: A Case Study of a Post-Socialist City. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoica, I.V.; Zamfir, D.; Vîrghileanu, M. Evaluating the Territorial Impact of Built-Up Area Expansion in the Surroundings of Bucharest (Romania) through a Multilevel Approach Based on Landsat Satellite Imagery. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mierzejewska, L. Tereny Zielone w Strukturze Przestrzennej Poznania (Green Areas in the Spatial Structure of Poznań); Wyd. PTPN: Poznań, Poland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Mierzejewska, L. Green areas as a determinant of living conditions in the city (on the example of Poznań). In Diversification of the Living Conditions of the Population in the City; Jażdżewska, I., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Łódź, Poland, 2004; pp. 321–332. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Morgenstern, H. Ecologic studies in epidemiology: Concepts, principles, and methods. Annu. Rev. Public Health 1995, 16, 61–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petrişor, A.-I.; Ianoş, I.; Tălângă, C. Land cover and use changes focused on the urbanization processes in Romania. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2010, 9, 765–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrişor, A.-I.; Sîrodoev, I.; Ianoş, I. Trends in the national and regional transitional dynamics of land cover and use changes in Romania. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loney, T.; Nagelkerke, N.J. The individualistic fallacy, ecological studies and instrumental variables: A causal interpretation. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 2014, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Petrişor, A.-I. Assessment of the Green Infrastructure of Bucharest using CORINE and Urban Atlas data. Urban Archit. Constr. 2015, 6, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
- Petrişor, A.-I.; Petrişor, L.E. Assessing microscale environmental changes: CORINE vs. the Urban Atlas. Present Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 9, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hagenauer, J.; Helbich, M. Mining urban land-use patterns from volunteered geographic information by means of genetic algorithms and artificial neural networks. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2012, 26, 963–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prastacos, P.; Chrysoulakis, N.; Kochilakis, G. Spatial metrics for Greek cities using land cover information from the Urban Atlas. In Multidisciplinary Research on Geographical Information in Europe and Beyond, Proceedings of the AGILE’2012 International Conference on Geographic Information Science “Bridging the Geographic Information Science”, Avignon, France, 24–27 April 2012; Gensel, J., Josselin, D., Vandenbroucke, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 261–266. [Google Scholar]
- Local Development Agency of Oradea. Regulamentul de Funcţionare a Parcului Industrial Eurobusiness II (Regulation on the Functioning of the Industrial Park Eurobusiness II). Available online: http://www.adlo.ro/download/REGULAMENT-PARC%202.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Oradea în Direct. Suprafața de Spațiu Verde al Municipiului Oradea a Crescut în Ultimii Ani. Comunicat (Communicate: The Green Space Area of Oradea Increased in the Recent Years). Available online: https://oradeaindirect.ro/suprafata-de-spatiu-verde-al-municipiului-oradea-a-crescut-in-ultimii-ani-comunicat/ (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Oradea Press. Primăvara Vine în Oradea cu Amenajări de Spaţii Verzi (Spring Comes to Oradea with the Landscaping of Green Spaces). Available online: https://oradeapress.ro/2011/03/15/primavara-vine-in-oradea-cu-amenajari-de-spatii-verzi/ (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- F.A. Oradea: 8 ha noi de Spaţii Verzi (8 New Hectares of Green Spaces). Available online: https://www.arenaconstruct.ro/oradea-8-ha-noi-de-spatii-verzi/?cn-reloaded=1 (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Finantare.ro. Zece Hectare de Terenuri Degradate, Transformate de Primaria Oradea in Spatii Verzi, cu Fonduri europene (Ten Hectare of Degraded Land, Transformed by the City Hall of Oradea in Green Spaces, with European Funding). Available online: https://www.finantare.ro/zece-hectare-de-terenuri-degradate-transformate-de-primaria-oradea-in-spatii-verzi-cu-fonduri-europene.html (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Administratie.ro. Spatii Verzi din Fondul de Mediu in Municipiul Giurgiu (Green Speces (Financed) from Environmental Funds in Giurgiu). Available online: https://www.administratie.ro/spatii-verzi-din-fondul-de-mediu-in-municipiul-giurgiu/ (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Vârlan, C. Giurgiu. De ce nu se Trăieşte Bine în Giurgiu. Cu ce Probleme se Confruntă Locuitorii Acestui Judeţ (Giurgiu. Why One Does Not Live Well in Giurgiu. What Problems Are Faced by the Dwellers of this County). Available online: https://www.gandul.ro/financiar/giurgiu-de-ce-nu-se-traieste-bine-in-giurgiu-cu-ce-probleme-se-confrunta-locuitorii-acestui-judet-10675450 (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Vătămanu, V. Arhitectura Spatiilor Verzi din Romania Dupa 1989 (Architecture of Green Spaces in Romania after 1989). Available online: https://www.agrimedia.ro/articole/arhitectura-spatiilor-verzi-din-romania-dupa-1989 (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Culescu, D.; Răducu-Lefter, A. Studiu de Caz: Bucureşti, România (Case Study: Bucharest, Romania). Available online: http://asop.org.ro/lan-net/studii-de-caz/rezumat-studiu-de-caz-bucuresti.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Ivanov, C. Odiseea Noului Plan Urbanistic General: De ce în Bucureşti se Construieşte După Planurile de Acum 20 de Ani (The Odyssey of the New Master Plan: Why is Bucharest Building by 20 Years Old Plans). Available online: https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-administratie_locala-23699451-odiseea-noului-plan-urbanistic-general-bucuresti-construieste-dupa-planurile-acum-20-ani.htm (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Petrescu, A. Bucureşti, Capitala cu Cele mai Puţine Spaţii Verzi. Suntem cu Mult sub Limita Minimă Impusă de OMS (Bucharest, the Capital with the Least Geen Spaces. We are Far away below the Minimum Limit Imposed by WHO). Available online: https://observatornews.ro/eveniment/bucuresti-capitala-cu-cele-mai-putine-spatii-verzi-suntem-cu-mult-sub-limita-minima-impusa-de-oms-428211.html (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Petrescu, R. Dezastrul din Bucureşti: Capitala Este Oraşul European cu Cea mai Mică Suprafaţă de Spaţii Verzi pe Cap de Locuitor. Bulgarii şi Ungurii au de Două ori mai Mult Verde, iar Suedezii de 6 ori (The Disaster of Bucharest: The Capital is the European City with the Least Geen Space Area Per Capita. Bulgarians and Hungarians have Twice More, and Swedish 6 Times More). Available online: https://www.zf.ro/companii/dezastrul-din-bucuresti-capitala-este-orasul-european-cu-cea-mai-20179614 (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Preda, B. Municipiul Cluj-Napoca, Din Punct de Vedere Statistic, stă Destul de Bine în Ceea ce Privește Spațiul Verde Alocat Fiecărui Locuitor, Fiind Foarte Aproape de Limita Uniunii Europene (Statistically Speaking, Cluj Napoca is Well Positioned with Respect to the Green Space Per Capita, Close to the European Union Limit). Available online: https://www.monitorulcj.ro/actualitate/65824-cat-de-bine-sta-clujul-la-capitolul-spatii-verzi (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Reştea, K. Clujul şi Criza de Spaţii Verzi (Cluj and the Green Space Crisis). Available online: https://actualdecluj.ro/clujul-si-criza-de-spatii-verzi/ (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Boancă, P.I.; Bors-Oprişa, S. Studiu de Caz: Cluj-Napoca, România (Case Study: Cluj-Napoca, Romania). Available online: http://asop.org.ro/lan-net/studii-de-caz/rezumat-studiu-de-caz-cluj-napoca.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Anunţul telefonic. Media si Evolutia Preturilor Imobiliare (Average and Evolution of Real Estate Prices). Available online: https://www.anuntul.ro/statistici-imobiliare/bucuresti/bucuresti/vanzari/apartamente-3-camere/evolutie-lunara/#top (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Romania-Insider.com. 96% of Romanians Own the Homes They Live in—Highest Share in Europe. Available online: https://www.romania-insider.com/romania-high-share-homeowners (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Delmendo, L.C. Romanian Housing Market Growing Strongly. Available online: https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Romania (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Sfetcu, N. Ghid Turistic București: Ediția de Buzunar. Ghid Bilingv Engleză/Română (Bucharest Tourist Guide: Pocket Edition. Bilingual English/Romanian Guide); Rakuten Kobo: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Łachowski, W.; Łęczek, A. Tereny zielone w dużych miastach Polski. Analiza z wykorzystaniem Sentinel 2. Urban Dev Issues 2020, 68, 77–90. [Google Scholar]
- Strategia Rozwoju Lublina na Lata 2013–2020 (Lublin’s Development Strategy for 2013–2020). Available online: http://www.flop.lublin.pl/media/newsy/strategia_rozwoju_lublina_2020_konsultacje.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Miasto dla Ludzi—Lubelski Ruch Miejski (A City for People—Lublin City Movement). Available online: https://lubelskiruchmiejski.wordpress.com/ (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Raport na Temat Wielkich Polskich Miast (Report on Major Polish Cities). Available online: https://www.pwc.pl/pl/pdf/miasta/raport_lublin_2011.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Dunajska, A. Co Ważniejsze w Mieście: Inwestycje czy Drzewa? Raport NIK (What Is More Important in the City: Investments or Trees? NIK Report). Available online: https://lublin.naszemiasto.pl/co-wazniejsze-w-miescie-inwestycje-czy-drzewa-raport-nik/ar/c1-3311387 (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- PAK Kopalnia Węgla Brunatnego Konin. Tu Była Odkrywka (There Was an Outcrop Here). Available online: http://www.kwbkonin.pl/index.php/krajobraz-po-odkrywce/ (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Urząd Statystyczny w Poznaniu. Konin 2013: Podstawowe Dane Statystyczne (Konin 2013: Basic Statistical Data). Available online: https://bip.konin.eu/tmpl/sesje_rady/sesja_132_26_02_1390401082.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2020).
- Kowarik, I. Cities and Wilderness. A New Perspective. Int. J. Wilderness 2013, 19, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
- Panagopoulos, T.; Jankovska, I.; Boştenaru Dan, M. Urban green infrastructure: The role of urban agriculture in city resilience. Urban Arhit Constr. 2018, 9, 55–70. [Google Scholar]
- Vice News. Protestul din Parcul Tineretului a Fost ca o Plimbare Romantică Prin Ploaie (The Protest in Tineretului Park Was Like a Romantic Walk in the Rain). Available online: https://www.vice.com/ro/read/protestul-din-parcul-tineretului-a-fost-ca-o-plimbare-romantica-prin-ploaie (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- Ştirile PRO TV. Protest in Lasi ca Teii din Centrul Orasului sa nu fie Taiati (Protest Is Lasi agaisnt Cutting off the Lime Trees). Available online: https://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/actualitate/protest-in-iasi-pentru-ca-teiul-lui-eminescu-sa-nu-fie-taiat-autoritatile-vor-aduce-salcami-japonezi.html (accessed on 28 April 2020).
- Petitieonline.com. Stop Taierii Copacilor de pe Sos. Pantelimon (Stop Cutting off the Trees on Pantelimon St.). Available online: https://www.petitieonline.com/stop_taierii_copacilor_de_pe_sos_pantelimon (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- DIGI 24 HD. Nicușor Dan Anunță că a Câștigat al 166-Lea Proces. Tribunalul Suspendă Construirea în „Grădinile Versailles ale Bucureștiului” (Nicușor Dan Announces that He Won the 166th Lawsuit. Bucharest City Hall Suspends the Constructions in the “Versailles Gardens of Bucharest”). Available online: https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/nicusor-dan-anunta-ca-a-castigat-al-166-lea-proces-tribunalul-suspenda-construirea-in-gradinile-versailles-ale-bucurestiului-1240241 (accessed on 29 April 2020).
- Mierzejewska, L. Urban planning in Poland in the context of European standards. Quaest. Geogr. 2009, 28, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
- Kolipiński, B. Planowanie przestrzenne w Polsce w minionym 25-leciu (Spatial planning in Poland in the last 25 years). Maz. Studia Reg. 2014, 15, 109–118. [Google Scholar]
- Śleszyński, P.; Nowak, M.; Brelik, A.; Mickiewicz, B.; Oleszczyk, N. Planning and Settlement Conditions for the Development of Renewable Energy Sources in Poland: Conclusions for Local and Regional Policy. Energies 2021, 14, 1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronenberg, J.; Łaszkiewicz, E.; Sziło, J. Voting with one’s chainsaw: What happens when people are given the opportunity to freely remove urban trees? Landsc Urban Plan. 2021, 209, 104041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, M.L.; Śleszyński, P.; Legutko-Kobus, P. Spatial Planning in Poland. Law, Property Market and Planning Practice; SpringerBriefs in Geography; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Independent Variables | Dependent Variable | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Green Urban Areas | Sports and Leisure | Agricultural Areas | Natural and (Semi-)Natural Areas | |
1. Overall | ||||
Country | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0164 |
Year | 0.6389 | 0.7335 | 0.5020 | 0.5959 |
Area | 0.0301 | 0.0493 | 0.0813 | 0.1875 |
Population | 0.1617 | 0.3566 | 0.4706 | 0.4542 |
Density | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.2877 | 0.7733 |
2. Poland | ||||
Year | 0.9049 | 0.7772 | 0.6193 | 0.7028 |
Area | 0.0306 | 0.0564 | 0.0008 | 0.0039 |
Population | 0.7377 | 0.1531 | 0.0169 | 0.0298 |
Density | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0475 | 0.3868 |
3. Romania | ||||
Year | 0.1316 | 0.8289 | 0.7811 | 0.8095 |
Area | 0.4695 | 0.1739 | 0.0005 | 0.0007 |
Population | 0.0055 | 0.3646 | 0.0027 | 0.0059 |
Density | <0.0001 | 0.0141 | 0.0196 | 0.0018 |
Green Urban Areas | Sports and Leisure | Agricultural Areas | Natural and (Semi-)Natural Areas | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Poland | ||||
Białystok | 9.84 | 10.46 | 40.55 | 39.15 |
Bydgoszcz | 3.64 | 5.50 | 34.78 | 56.09 |
Częstochowa | 4.05 | 3.83 | 79.08 | 13.05 |
Gdańsk | 5.84 | 7.62 | 51.61 | 34.92 |
Gorzów Wielkopolski | 7.03 | 7.58 | 69.00 | 16.39 |
Jastrzębie-Zdrój | 4.58 | 2.66 | 77.23 | 15.53 |
Jelenia Góra | 1.65 | 3.54 | 46.24 | 48.57 |
Kalisz | 2.96 | 3.48 | 85.89 | 7.67 |
Katowice | 5.81 | 3.69 | 15.11 | 75.39 |
Kielce | 3.81 | 5.80 | 51.38 | 39.01 |
Konin | 3.28 | 4.22 | 79.02 | 13.48 |
Koszalin | 3.74 | 4.52 | 42.16 | 49.58 |
Kraków | 9.65 | 4.63 | 73.42 | 12.30 |
Łódź | 7.19 | 6.53 | 62.56 | 23.72 |
Lublin | 8.36 | 7.24 | 62.11 | 22.29 |
Nowy Sącz | 1.74 | 3.87 | 62.92 | 31.47 |
Olsztyn | 7.62 | 6.02 | 35.67 | 50.69 |
Opole | 2.58 | 2.80 | 77.39 | 17.22 |
Ostrów Wielkopolski | 3.44 | 8.93 | 63.92 | 23.71 |
Pabianice | 4.77 | 4.49 | 73.46 | 17.28 |
Płock | 4.30 | 6.25 | 64.59 | 24.86 |
Poznań | 12.46 | 7.74 | 49.28 | 30.52 |
Radom | 4.00 | 4.38 | 76.76 | 14.87 |
Rybnik | 1.22 | 1.93 | 37.97 | 58.88 |
Rzeszów | 3.51 | 4.88 | 80.74 | 10.87 |
Stargard | 3.14 | 9.04 | 71.03 | 16.79 |
Suwałki | 1.21 | 2.74 | 75.01 | 21.04 |
Szczecin | 6.74 | 10.91 | 37.20 | 45.15 |
Toruń | 8.03 | 7.32 | 30.45 | 54.20 |
Warszawa | 12.50 | 9.11 | 38.51 | 39.88 |
Wrocław | 7.08 | 12.28 | 63.98 | 16.66 |
Zielona Góra | 0.86 | 2.17 | 28.20 | 68.78 |
All cities (average) | 5.21 | 5.82 | 57.41 | 31.56 |
Romania | ||||
Alba Iulia | 0.78 | 0.24 | 69.33 | 29.65 |
Arad | 1.19 | 0.34 | 91.98 | 6.49 |
Bacău | 6.92 | 3.35 | 74.76 | 14.96 |
Brăila | 9.36 | 2.34 | 78.14 | 10.16 |
Bucureşti | 19.82 | 5.62 | 63.66 | 10.90 |
Călăraşi | 0.48 | 0.22 | 89.85 | 9.45 |
Cluj Napoca | 1.43 | 0.61 | 74.71 | 23.24 |
Craiova | 6.45 | 2.33 | 80.44 | 10.79 |
Giurgiu | 1.62 | 0.46 | 76.96 | 20.95 |
Oradea | 2.53 | 0.62 | 91.89 | 4.96 |
Piatra Neamţ | 0.43 | 0.63 | 34.99 | 63.95 |
Sibiu | 1.41 | 0.97 | 68.47 | 29.15 |
Târgu Mureş | 2.49 | 5.57 | 50.19 | 41.76 |
Timişoara | 3.30 | 1.96 | 86.45 | 8.29 |
All cities (average) | 4.16 | 1.80 | 73.70 | 20.34 |
All cities and countries (average) | 4.89 | 4.60 | 62.37 | 28.15 |
1. Overall | Dependent Variable | ||||||||||
Independent Variables | Green Urban Areas | Sports and Leisure | Agricultural Areas | Natural and (Semi-) Natural Areas | Transformation | Total Gain | Total Loss | ||||
Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | ||||
Country | 0.8414 | 0.6825 | 0.0628 | 0.2250 | 0.4820 | 0.0254 | 0.3140 | 0.7181 | 0.0941 | 0.6837 | 0.1687 |
Year | 0.6532 | 0.0011 | 0.2102 | 0.8518 | 0.4377 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.4206 | 0.1441 | <0.0001 | 0.5066 |
Area | 0.9995 | 0.8110 | 0.5498 | 0.9647 | 0.9741 | 0.3471 | 0.7064 | 0.4986 | 0.2371 | 0.0543 | <0.0001 |
Population | 0.7500 | 0.2653 | 0.2379 | 0.6296 | 0.4571 | 0.2506 | 0.4186 | 0.4788 | 0.9103 | 0.6661 | 0.9756 |
Density | 0.4096 | 0.2726 | 0.1575 | 0.3812 | 0.8754 | 0.0532 | 0.3519 | 0.4828 | 0.4384 | 0.5339 | 0.4182 |
Initial total area | – | 0.0004 | – | 0.0001 | – | 0.0015 | – | 0.0350 | – | – | – |
2. Poland | Dependent Variable | ||||||||||
Independent Variables | Green urban Areas | Sports And Leisure | Agricultural Areas | Natural And (Semi-) Natural Areas | Transformation | Total Gain | Total Loss | ||||
Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | ||||
Year | 0.5330 | 0.0005 | 0.3687 | 0.8864 | 0.4829 | <0.0001 | 0.0003 | 0.5784 | 0.1637 | 0.0005 | 0.9834 |
Area | 0.6921 | 0.8668 | 0.8849 | 0.7543 | 0.6828 | 0.3874 | 0.9952 | 0.3337 | 0.0301 | 0.0934 | 0.0008 |
Population | 0.7451 | 0.5526 | 0.8068 | 0.5360 | 0.4936 | 0.2347 | 0.7810 | 0.3865 | 0.1490 | 0.7630 | 0.4698 |
Density | 0.7001 | 0.6654 | 0.9734 | 0.3235 | 0.9975 | 0.2695 | 0.5118 | 0.7713 | 0.6297 | 0.3974 | 0.0537 |
Initial total area | – | 0.0044 | – | 0.0009 | – | 0.0050 | – | 0.0187 | – | – | – |
3. Romania | Dependent Variable | ||||||||||
Independent Variables | Green Urban Areas | Sports And Leisure | Agricultural Areas | Natural And (Semi-) Natural Areas | Transformation | Total Gain | Total Loss | ||||
Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | Gain | Loss | ||||
Year | 0.9662 | 0.7782 | 0.3254 | 0.4380 | 0.7763 | <0.0001 | 0.0397 | 0.0606 | 0.6268 | 0.0138 | 0.2157 |
Area | 0.8202 | 0.9313 | 0.8749 | 0.8025 | 0.4396 | 0.2342 | 0.8730 | 0.3735 | 0.6867 | 0.1531 | 0.0367 |
Population | 0.6677 | 0.3218 | 0.2686 | 0.2093 | 0.9208 | 0.0912 | 0.5502 | 0.5248 | 0.0176 | 0.8931 | 0.8408 |
Density | 0.4138 | 0.5720 | 0.1279 | 0.7637 | 0.7300 | 0.0303 | 0.5380 | 0.6001 | 0.5778 | 0.5764 | 0.9159 |
Initial total area | – | 0.1917 | – | 0.8992 | – | 0.7659 | – | 0.5430 | – | – | – |
Period | Category | Poland | Romania | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|
2006–2012 | Green urban areas | 3.9474 | 1.5187 | 3.2083 |
Sports and leisure | 1.1086 | 0.1366 | 0.8128 | |
Agricultural areas | 88.9037 | 97.4752 | 91.5124 | |
Natural and (semi-) natural areas | 6.0402 | 0.8695 | 4.4665 | |
2012–2018 | Green urban areas | 1.0691 | 1.6006 | 1.2308 |
Sports and leisure | 1.3190 | 0.2404 | 0.9908 | |
Agricultural areas | 6.2796 | 19.4738 | 10.2952 | |
Natural and (semi-) natural areas | 5.1993 | 9.8599 | 6.6177 | |
2006–2018 | Green urban areas | 2.5082 | 1.5597 | 2.2196 |
Sports and leisure | 1.2138 | 0.1885 | 0.9018 | |
Agricultural areas | 47.5917 | 58.4745 | 50.9038 | |
Natural and (semi-) natural areas | 5.6197 | 5.3647 | 5.5421 |
City | Konin | Lublin | Bucureşti | Cluj Napoca | Giurgiu | Oradea |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | Poland | Poland | Romania | Romania | Romania | Romania |
Area (km2) in 2006 | 82 | 147 | 162 | 88 | 22 | 77 |
Area (km2) in 2012 | 82 | 147 | 238 | 93 | 30 | 79 |
Area (km2) in 2018 | 82 | 293 | 240 | 105 | 30 | 82 |
Population in 2006 | 80,471 | 353,483 | 1,931,236 | 305,620 | 69,479 | 205,956 |
Population in 2012 | 77,847 | 347,678 | 1,883,425 | 324,576 | 61,353 | 196,367 |
Population in 2018 | 74,151 | 342,039 | 2,121,794 | 324,267 | 67,402 | 221,398 |
Density (per km2) in 2006 | 981 | 2405 | 11,958 | 3467 | 3226 | 2668 |
Density (per km2) in 2012 | 949 | 2365 | 7918 | 3483 | 2022 | 2483 |
Density (per km2) in 2018 | 904 | 2339 | 8840 | 3091 | 2221 | 2706 |
Share of GI (%) in 2006 | 57 | 60 | 29 | 75 | 57 | 62 |
Share of GI (%) in 2012 | 56 | 54 | 27 | 73 | 56 | 58 |
Share of GI (%) in 2018 | 55 | 52 | 27 | 70 | 56 | 56 |
Fragmentation of GI during 2006–2012 | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Fragmentation of GI during 2012–2018 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Gain of GI during 2006–2012 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Gain of GI during 2012–2018 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Loss of GI during 2006–2012 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Loss of GI during 2012–2018 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Balance (gain/loss) of GI during 2006–2012 | Loss | Loss | Loss | Loss | Loss | Loss |
Balance (gain/loss) of GI during 2012–2018 | Loss | Loss | Loss | Loss | Loss | Loss |
Transformation of GI during 2006–2012 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Transformation of GI during 2012–2018 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Average share of green urban areas (%) | 3 | 8 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Average share of sports and leisure (%) | 4 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Average share of agricultural areas (%) | 79 | 62 | 64 | 75 | 77 | 92 |
Average share of natural and (semi-) natural areas (%) | 13 | 22 | 11 | 23 | 21 | 5 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Petrișor, A.-I.; Mierzejewska, L.; Mitrea, A. Mechanisms of Change in Urban Green Infrastructure—Evidence from Romania and Poland. Land 2022, 11, 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050592
Petrișor A-I, Mierzejewska L, Mitrea A. Mechanisms of Change in Urban Green Infrastructure—Evidence from Romania and Poland. Land. 2022; 11(5):592. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050592
Chicago/Turabian StylePetrișor, Alexandru-Ionuț, Lidia Mierzejewska, and Andrei Mitrea. 2022. "Mechanisms of Change in Urban Green Infrastructure—Evidence from Romania and Poland" Land 11, no. 5: 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050592
APA StylePetrișor, A.-I., Mierzejewska, L., & Mitrea, A. (2022). Mechanisms of Change in Urban Green Infrastructure—Evidence from Romania and Poland. Land, 11(5), 592. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050592