IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p2166-d221842.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping Methodology of Public Urban Green Spaces Using GIS: An Example of Nagpur City, India

Author

Listed:
  • Shruti Lahoti

    (United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, 5–53–70 Jingumae, Shibuya, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan)

  • Mohamed Kefi

    (Water Researches and Technologies Center of Borj-Cedria (CERTE)-Laboratory of Natural Water Treatment (LabTEN), University of Carthage, Soliman 8020, Tunisia)

  • Ashish Lahoti

    (Independent Researcher, Tokyo 100 0000, Japan)

  • Osamu Saito

    (United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, 5–53–70 Jingumae, Shibuya, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan)

Abstract

Faced with a lack of fine grain data availability, in rapidly emerging urban centers of developing nations, the study explored a mapping methodology to create thematic map of public urban green space (UGS). Using GIS, a thematic map of Nagpur city, India was prepared. The objective was to prepare spatial data that are relevant for planners and policy makers, with detailed UGS typologies and to update the status of overall availability and distribution of hierarchical recreational green spaces in the city. The spatial and non-spatial data with added attributes gathered through fieldwork resulted in a holistic dataset, with high accuracy of thematic map (0.93 kappa coefficient). The recorded status of different typologies as well as the distribution of recreational UGS shows disparity in the distribution of UGS. The eastern part of the city grossly lacks UGS provisions, which is compensated by the western part with larger availability of natural green spaces. The mapping methodology is novel and effective for recording qualitative status, analyzing their spatial distribution and prioritizing the provisions of UGS. Future research integrating these spatial data with more qualitative research can provide a holistic view on benefits of UGS provisions and thus facilitate effective UGS governance aiming towards better green infrastructure and hence broader urban sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Shruti Lahoti & Mohamed Kefi & Ashish Lahoti & Osamu Saito, 2019. "Mapping Methodology of Public Urban Green Spaces Using GIS: An Example of Nagpur City, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2166-:d:221842
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2166/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2166/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Troy, Austin & Wilson, Matthew A., 2006. "Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 435-449, December.
    2. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    3. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shruti Lahoti & Ashish Lahoti & Rajendra Kumar Joshi & Osamu Saito, 2020. "Vegetation Structure, Species Composition, and Carbon Sink Potential of Urban Green Spaces in Nagpur City, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Shruti Ashish Lahoti & Ashish Lahoti & Shalini Dhyani & Osamu Saito, 2023. "Preferences and Perception Influencing Usage of Neighborhood Public Urban Green Spaces in Fast Urbanizing Indian City," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Emilio Ramírez-Juidías & José-Lázaro Amaro-Mellado & Jorge Luis Leiva-Piedra, 2022. "Influence of the Urban Green Spaces of Seville (Spain) on Housing Prices through the Hedonic Assessment Methodology and Geospatial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Pritam Ahirrao & Smita Khan, 2021. "Assessing Public Open Spaces: A Case of City Nagpur, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    5. Edyta Łaszkiewicz & Piotr Czembrowski & Jakub Kronenberg, 2020. "Creating a Map of the Social Functions of Urban Green Spaces in a City with Poor Availability of Spatial Data: A Sociotope for Lodz," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-25, June.
    6. Das, Arijit & Das, Manob, 2023. "Exploring the relationship between quality of living and green spaces in cities: Evidence from an Indian megacity region of global south," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    2. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Remme, Roy P. & Edens, Bram & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 116-128.
    5. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    6. Pulighe, Giuseppe & Fava, Francesco & Lupia, Flavio, 2016. "Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 1-10.
    7. Jung A Lee & Jinhyung Chon & Changwoo Ahn, 2014. "Planning Landscape Corridors in Ecological Infrastructure Using Least-Cost Path Methods Based on the Value of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza & María F. Schmitz & Miren Onaindia & Alejandro J. Rescia, 2019. "Linking Biophysical and Economic Assessments of Ecosystem Services for a Social–Ecological Approach to Conservation Planning: Application in a Biosphere Reserve (Biscay, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-23, May.
    9. Inês Girão & Eduardo Gomes & Paulo Pereira & Jorge Rocha, 2023. "Trends in High Nature Value Farmland and Ecosystem Services Valuation: A Bibliometric Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-28, October.
    10. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    11. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    12. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    13. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    14. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    16. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    17. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    18. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Sanja Gašparović & Ana Sopina & Anton Zeneral, 2022. "Impacts of Zagreb’s Urban Development on Dynamic Changes in Stream Landscapes from Mid-Twentieth Century," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-25, May.
    20. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2166-:d:221842. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

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

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

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