prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 9-10/2018 str. 45     <-- 45 -->        PDF

The results showed that, according to the average UGS surface per capita, Zadar achieved above-average results. This is partly due to the specific form of its administrative boundary, and the low urban development of the area. Each resident in the settlement of Zadar has around 114 m² of green space. Although according to the measure of UGS per capita Zadar achieved remarkable results, their distribution and access are unequal. Several variables confirm that. Certain statistical circles have on average just a few m² of UGS per capita, while some recorded values greater than 6,000 m² per capita. Thus, about 27% of the total population lives in statistical circles which have less than 15 m² of green space per capita. Furthermore, according to the ANG standard only 17,846 (24.97%) of residents within a non-linear distance of 300 m have accessible UGS greater than 2 hectares.
The results of this study highlight the fact that UGS importance should not be identified according to size or proportion in the total area of the settlement. UGS importance is best expressed through an evaluation of accessibility to the population. The city of Zadar is a good example where the lack of public transport support and effective connectivity between the UGS and transport networks can easily lead to certain green areas becoming “isolated islands” within the administrative boundaries of the settlement, and as such, people perceive them as inaccessible. Despite the fact that the ratio of built-up and green spaces in the settlement of Zadar is 1:2.3 and that each resident has around 114 m² of green surface, the generated accessibility indicator and residents’ subjective measure of satisfaction with UGS accessibility point to discrepancies. According to the UGS accessibility indicator, the mean value for Zadar is 3.1 (moderate) while according to the subjective measure of satisfaction or perception of the population, it is slightly higher, at 3.4 (moderate). The results of this research are in alignment with the claims of Chen and Chang (2015), who pointed out that large areas of green surfaces within a city do not necessarily generate proportionally similar satisfaction with their accessibility.
From the analysis, it can be concluded that UGS accessibility, according to different UGS functional levels through statistical circles in Zadar, has heterogeneous values. The most significant differences were recorded in the statistical circles of the immediate city core (old town) and periphery. Further research should focus on a comparison of these results with other cities in Croatia and quantify differences in terms of UGS accessibility.
Barbosa O., Tratalos J. A., Armsworth P. R., Davies R. G., Fuller R. A., Johnson, P., K. J. Gaston, 2007: Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK, Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2):187-195.
Chen J., Z. Chang, 2015: Rethinking urban green space accessibility: Evaluating and optimizing public transportation system through social network analysis in megacities, Landscape and Urban Planning 143:150-159.
Chiesura, A., 2004: The role of urban parks for the sustainable city, Landscape and urban planning, 68 (1):129-138.
Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., E. Green, 2008: Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups, Landscape and Urban Planning 86 (1):103-114.
DGU, 2017: Digitalna ortofoto karta – listovi naselja Zadar, Državna geodetska uprava, Zagreb. Accessed 30 March 2017.
Diener, E., E. Suh 1997: Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators, Social indicators research 40 (1): 189-216.
Diener, E., M. E. P. Seligman, 2004: Beyond Money: Toward and Economy of Well-being, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5 (1):1-31.
Ekins, P., M. Max-Neef, 1992: Real Life Economics, Routledge, London.
English Nature, 2003: Providing accessible natural greenspaces in towns and cities: a practical guide to assessing the resources and implementing local standards for provision, UK, file:///C:/Users/Ivan/Downloads/r526_part_2[1].pdf, Accessed 25 March 2017.
Germann-Chiari, C., K. Seeland, 2004: Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research, Forest Policy and Economics 6 (1): 3-13.
Grahn, P., U. K. Stigsdotter, 2010: The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration, Landscape and urban planning 94 (3): 264-275.
Gunnarsson, B., Knez, I., Hedblom, M., Å. O. Sang, 2017: Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space, Urban Ecosystems 20 (1): 37-49.
Gupta, K., Roy, A., Luthra, K., S. Maithani, 2016: GIS based analysis for assessing the accessibility at hierarchical levels of urban green spaces, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 18: 198-211.
Irvine, K. N., Warber, S. L., Devine-Wright, P., K. J. Gaston, 2013: Understanding urban green space as a health resource: A qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK, International journal of environmental research and public health 10 (1): 417-442.
Jennings, V., Larson, L., J. Yun, 2016: Advancing Sustainability through Urban Green Space: Cultural Ecosystem Services, Equity and Social Determinants of Health, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13 (2): 196.
Jesdale, B. M., Morello-Frosch, R., L. Cushing, 2013: The racial/ethnic distribution of heat risk-related land cover in