IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i13p10217-d1181057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urgency, Feasibility, Synergy, and Typology: A Framework for Identifying Priority of Urban Green Infrastructure Intervention in Sustainable Urban Renewal

Author

Listed:
  • Dingran Wang

    (College of Architecture, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China)

  • Rengqi Dai

    (College of Architecture, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China)

  • Zihan Luo

    (Xi’an Urban Planning and Design Institute, Xi’an 710082, China)

  • Yuhui Wang

    (College of Architecture, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China)

Abstract

Urban built-up areas confront significant environmental challenges and growing demand for enhanced residents’ well-being. Prioritizing urban green infrastructure (UGI) interventions is crucial for sustainable urban renewal. We propose a six-step framework that integrates urgency, synergy, feasibility, and typology to identify UGI intervention priorities. The framework targets detailed planning units (DPUs) and was applied to Xi’an, China. First, we assess the risks of supply–demand mismatches related to four key urban ecosystem services (UESs), namely air purification, temperature regulation, runoff regulation, and recreation. K-means clustering analysis is utilized to classify the risk typology. Next, we use the dynamic weighting method to diagnose the urgency of comprehensive risk, then evaluate the potential for synergy optimization between DPUs using local univariate and bivariate spatial autocorrelation analysis. The proportion of urban renewal land area in DPUs is employed as an indicator to evaluate the feasibility of the method. Lastly, we adopt the TOPSIS method to identify the priority ranking. Our research reveals that 51.7% of DPUs in Xi’an are at high risk of multiple supply–demand mismatches for UESs and that seven risk types need targeted optimization strategies. The DPUs ranked in the top 30 can be selected as priority UGI intervention units based on urgency, synergy, and feasibility. This study provides a scientific basis for decision making on UGI interventions in sustainable urban renewal.

Suggested Citation

  • Dingran Wang & Rengqi Dai & Zihan Luo & Yuhui Wang, 2023. "Urgency, Feasibility, Synergy, and Typology: A Framework for Identifying Priority of Urban Green Infrastructure Intervention in Sustainable Urban Renewal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-28, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:13:p:10217-:d:1181057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10217/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/13/10217/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Goodspeed & Ruoshui Liu & Dimitrios Gounaridis & Camilla Lizundia & Joshua Newell, 2022. "A regional spatial planning model for multifunctional green infrastructure," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 815-833, March.
    2. Conghui Zhou & Yun Wu, 2020. "A Planning Support Tool for Layout Integral Optimization of Urban Blue–Green Infrastructure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Larondelle, Neele & Lauf, Steffen, 2016. "Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem services on different spatial scales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 18-31.
    4. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    6. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    7. Liu, Yansui & Zhou, Yang, 2021. "Territory spatial planning and national governance system in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    8. Kremer, Peleg & Hamstead, Zoé A. & McPhearson, Timon, 2016. "The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 57-68.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrycia Brzoska & Aiga Spāģe, 2020. "From City- to Site-Dimension: Assessing the Urban Ecosystem Services of Different Types of Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    2. 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).
    3. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    4. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    5. Francesca Vignoli & Claudia de Luca & Simona Tondelli, 2021. "A Spatial Ecosystem Services Assessment to Support Decision and Policy Making: The Case of the City of Bologna," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    7. 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).
    8. Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Zhehao Xiong & Yuncai Wang, 2022. "Cross-Scaling Approach for Water-Flow-Regulating Ecosystem Services: A Trial in Bochum, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    11. Dongwoo Lee & Kyushik Oh & Jungeun Suh, 2022. "Diagnosis and Prioritization of Vulnerable Areas of Urban Ecosystem Regulation Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, October.
    12. Catalina B. Muñoz-Pacheco & Nélida R. Villaseñor, 2022. "Urban Ecosystem Services in South America: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-17, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 298-312.
    15. Bryan, Brett A. & Ye, Yanqiong & Zhang, Jia'en & Connor, Jeffery D., 2018. "Land-use change impacts on ecosystem services value: Incorporating the scarcity effects of supply and demand dynamics," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 144-157.
    16. Liu, Tian & Hu, Weiyan & Song, Yan & Zhang, Anlu, 2020. "Exploring spillover effects of ecological lands: A spatial multilevel hedonic price model of the housing market in Wuhan, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    17. Peng, Jian & Wang, Xiaoyu & Liu, Yanxu & Zhao, Yan & Xu, Zihan & Zhao, Mingyue & Qiu, Sijing & Wu, Jiansheng, 2020. "Urbanization impact on the supply-demand budget of ecosystem services: Decoupling analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    18. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Denise Boehnke & Alice Krehl & Kai Mörmann & Rebekka Volk & Thomas Lützkendorf & Elias Naber & Ronja Becker & Stefan Norra, 2022. "Mapping Urban Green and Its Ecosystem Services at Microscale—A Methodological Approach for Climate Adaptation and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    20. 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.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:13:p:10217-:d:1181057. 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.