**2. Materials and methods**

Initially, land use data monitored by Land Cover Corine (CLC) were obtained (https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover) [22] on a scale of 1:100,000, with a minimum mapping unit (MCU) of 25 Ha and using polygonal graphics features that evoke land uses in Europe. Some of the used CLC nomenclature/codes used are shown in **Table 1**.

In addition, the urban boundaries of the cities analyzed were obtained from ESRI-free data, using a layer called Europe Shapefiles. In this case, polygon features were also used.

In this regard, the authors have analyzed these two layers of information – which represent two variables in the same georeferenced position. For this reason, the two layers were transformed into the same reference system, using ETRS1989 Lambert azimuthal equal area, because this projection preserves the areas and is better suited to the different cities to be analyzed.

From the two polygonal cartographic layers, an intersection was made between the two. Thus, polygons corresponding to land uses that are completely included in the boundaries of cities become part of the resulting layer. Also, the parts of the polygons corresponding to the land uses that are partially included and clipped by the boundaries of the cities are also part of this resulting layer. Thus, it was possible to obtain a layer with the land-use polygons within each city.

Once this layer was obtained, we proceed to measure the surface of each of these polygons obtained evocative of the land uses, but in the projection used. In order to do this the ArcGIS 10.3 software was used. Subsequently, using Microsoft Access 2016, selection queries were made. Thus, only polygons whose use was 1.4.1 corresponding to Green urban areas were chosen, that is to say, areas with vegetation urban fabric which includes parks and cemeteries with vegetation. Later, a query was carried out so that the total area dedicated to green urban areas was obtained.

Therefore, seven case studies of European major cities were selected (**Figure 1**). After the case study selection, an analysis for the years 1990, 2000, 2006, 2012,


**113**

*Assessing Ecosystem Services Delivered by Public Green Spaces in Major European Cities*

and 2018 was carried out. Nevertheless, for the cities of London and Stockholm for

*Selected case studies. (A) Lisbon, (B) Madrid, (C) Paris, (D) London, (E) Rome, (F) Berlin, (G) Stockholm.*

Finally, thematic maps representative of land uses were obtained for each of the

From the 11 classes of the CLC, the study only analyzes Level 3 (land use code 141)—regarding green urban areas (**Table 1**). Those results were presented in acres and were assessed for each year of the studied period (1990, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2018) (**Table 2**). Contextually, the results presented in **Table 2** enabled to create a graph (**Figure 2**). This graph shows the cities being grouped into three levels. In the first level, we have London with the largest surface of green areas over the studied years—around 12,000 acres. On a second level, we have Stockholm, Madrid, and Paris that slightly have a surface of green urban areas superior to 4000 acres; however, any of those reach the 8000 acres. In this regard, it should be highlighted that in the first studied year (1990), Madrid was one of the cities with lowest values regarding green urban areas surfaces, and in the last studied year (2018) the Spanish capital reaches the third position—as one of the studied cities with the highest value of CLC 141. And in a third level, we have the studied cities with the lowest values of green urban areas, which are Berlin, Lisbon, and Roma, with less than 4000 acres of the land use 141—in fact, with a CLC 141

Moreover, through the creation of individual graphics for each of the selected cities, it was possible to analyze in detail how the green urban area surfaces evolved over the 5 years studied (**Figure 3**). Through this analysis, it is possible to verify that two cities (Rome and Stockholm) are losing green

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91415*

1990, there was no data.

**Figure 1.**

**3. Results and discussion**

surface lower than 2000 acres.

years and cities, highlighting the green urban areas.

### **Table 1.**

*CLC nomenclature [22].*

*Assessing Ecosystem Services Delivered by Public Green Spaces in Major European Cities DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91415*

**Figure 1.** *Selected case studies. (A) Lisbon, (B) Madrid, (C) Paris, (D) London, (E) Rome, (F) Berlin, (G) Stockholm.*

and 2018 was carried out. Nevertheless, for the cities of London and Stockholm for 1990, there was no data.

Finally, thematic maps representative of land uses were obtained for each of the years and cities, highlighting the green urban areas.

### **3. Results and discussion**

*Landscape Architecture - Processes and Practices Towards Sustainable Development*

Initially, land use data monitored by Land Cover Corine (CLC) were obtained (https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover) [22] on a scale of 1:100,000, with a minimum mapping unit (MCU) of 25 Ha and using polygonal graphics features that evoke land uses in Europe. Some of the used CLC nomencla-

In addition, the urban boundaries of the cities analyzed were obtained from ESRI-free data, using a layer called Europe Shapefiles. In this case, polygon features

From the two polygonal cartographic layers, an intersection was made between the two. Thus, polygons corresponding to land uses that are completely included in the boundaries of cities become part of the resulting layer. Also, the parts of the polygons corresponding to the land uses that are partially included and clipped by the boundaries of the cities are also part of this resulting layer. Thus, it was possible to obtain a layer with the land-use polygons within

Once this layer was obtained, we proceed to measure the surface of each of these polygons obtained evocative of the land uses, but in the projection used. In order to do this the ArcGIS 10.3 software was used. Subsequently, using Microsoft Access 2016, selection queries were made. Thus, only polygons whose use was 1.4.1 corresponding to Green urban areas were chosen, that is to say, areas with vegetation urban fabric which includes parks and cemeteries with vegetation. Later, a query was carried out so that the total area dedicated to green urban areas was

Therefore, seven case studies of European major cities were selected (**Figure 1**). After the case study selection, an analysis for the years 1990, 2000, 2006, 2012,

11 Urban fabric 111 Continuous urban fabric

13 Mine, dump, and construction sites 131 Mineral extraction sites

112 Discontinuous urban fabric

associated land 123 Port areas 124 Airports

132 Dump sites 133 Construction sites

141 Green urban areas 142 Sport and leisure facilities

121 Industrial or commercial units 122 Road and rail networks and

**Level 1 Level 2 Level 3**

units

areas

12 Industrial, commercial, and transport

14 Artificial, nonagricultural vegetated

In this regard, the authors have analyzed these two layers of information – which represent two variables in the same georeferenced position. For this reason, the two layers were transformed into the same reference system, using ETRS1989 Lambert azimuthal equal area, because this projection preserves the areas and is better suited

**2. Materials and methods**

were also used.

each city.

obtained.

1 Artificial surfaces

ture/codes used are shown in **Table 1**.

to the different cities to be analyzed.

**112**

**Table 1.**

*CLC nomenclature [22].*

From the 11 classes of the CLC, the study only analyzes Level 3 (land use code 141)—regarding green urban areas (**Table 1**). Those results were presented in acres and were assessed for each year of the studied period (1990, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2018) (**Table 2**). Contextually, the results presented in **Table 2** enabled to create a graph (**Figure 2**). This graph shows the cities being grouped into three levels. In the first level, we have London with the largest surface of green areas over the studied years—around 12,000 acres. On a second level, we have Stockholm, Madrid, and Paris that slightly have a surface of green urban areas superior to 4000 acres; however, any of those reach the 8000 acres. In this regard, it should be highlighted that in the first studied year (1990), Madrid was one of the cities with lowest values regarding green urban areas surfaces, and in the last studied year (2018) the Spanish capital reaches the third position—as one of the studied cities with the highest value of CLC 141. And in a third level, we have the studied cities with the lowest values of green urban areas, which are Berlin, Lisbon, and Roma, with less than 4000 acres of the land use 141—in fact, with a CLC 141 surface lower than 2000 acres.

Moreover, through the creation of individual graphics for each of the selected cities, it was possible to analyze in detail how the green urban area surfaces evolved over the 5 years studied (**Figure 3**). Through this analysis, it is possible to verify that two cities (Rome and Stockholm) are losing green


### **Table 2.**

*Outcomes of the analyzed parameters of the green urban areas in European major cities (source: Authors). n.d., no data available; dif., difference between first and last year; %, percentage.*

### **Figure 2.**

*Evolution of the urban green spaces through the years in the studied European major cities (authors).*

urban areas in comparison with the first year analyzed (1990). On the other hand, all the other cities are gaining more green urban areas along the years. From all those cities that show an increase in the land use 141 over the years, it should be highlighted that Madrid and Lisbon show constant growth. In fact, this tendency was also identified in Berlin; however, it only starts in the year 2012 onwards—once the German capital presented a period of growth stagnation (of the land use 141) in the previous years. Besides, in Paris and London, we have been identified the opposite scenario. In Stockholm, the city was lost Green Urban Areas surface when compared to the 1990 reality; however, it was also started a similar growth process (regarding the land uses 141) in the year of 2012 – which is verified in the year of 2018; in an opposite tendency, we have the city of London. The city of London, even it has been passed through an increase of Green urban Areas in the first year studied (1990), is now facing a tendency of decrease in these green surfaces—which started in the year 2006.

Regarding the results in percentage (**Table 2**), Roma and Stockholm have lost 12.03 and less than 1,22% of their green urban area surfaces, respectively. In contrast, the cities that gained more green urban areas have been Madrid, with 174,99%, and followed by Lisbon, Berlin, and Paris (between 60,29, 15,19, and 13,65%). Furthermore, London increases its land use 141 in less than 5%, nevertheless, with a negative tendency (**Table 3**).

**115**

**Figure 3.**

*Evolution of the urban green spaces in European major cities (authors).*

*Assessing Ecosystem Services Delivered by Public Green Spaces in Major European Cities*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91415*

*Assessing Ecosystem Services Delivered by Public Green Spaces in Major European Cities DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91415*

### **Figure 3.**

*Landscape Architecture - Processes and Practices Towards Sustainable Development*

**City 1990 2000 2006 2012 2018 Dif. %** Berlin 2896.32 2868,46 2873,66 3102,04 3336,18 439,87 15,19 Lisbon 1204,02 1465,01 1827,66 1783,96 1929,92 725,91 60,29 London n.d. 11,429,73 12,380,38 12,195,22 12,224,16 794,43 6,95 Madrid 2337,87 3246,07 5798,95 6457,62 6428,88 4091,01 174,99 Paris 4564,59 5183,53 5212,09 5239,16 5187,85 623,26 13,65 Rome 1654,96 1532,34 1456,55 1456,55 1455,86 −199,09 −12,03 Stockholm n.d. 6954,17 6907,24 6901,44 6869,19 −84,98 −1,22

*Outcomes of the analyzed parameters of the green urban areas in European major cities (source: Authors). n.d.,* 

*no data available; dif., difference between first and last year; %, percentage.*

urban areas in comparison with the first year analyzed (1990). On the other hand, all the other cities are gaining more green urban areas along the years. From all those cities that show an increase in the land use 141 over the years, it should be highlighted that Madrid and Lisbon show constant growth. In fact, this tendency was also identified in Berlin; however, it only starts in the year 2012 onwards—once the German capital presented a period of growth stagnation (of the land use 141) in the previous years. Besides, in Paris and London, we have been identified the opposite scenario. In Stockholm, the city was lost Green Urban Areas surface when compared to the 1990 reality; however, it was also started a similar growth process (regarding the land uses 141) in the year of 2012 – which is verified in the year of 2018; in an opposite tendency, we have the city of London. The city of London, even it has been passed through an increase of Green urban Areas in the first year studied (1990), is now facing a tendency

*Evolution of the urban green spaces through the years in the studied European major cities (authors).*

of decrease in these green surfaces—which started in the year 2006.

less, with a negative tendency (**Table 3**).

Regarding the results in percentage (**Table 2**), Roma and Stockholm have lost 12.03 and less than 1,22% of their green urban area surfaces, respectively. In contrast, the cities that gained more green urban areas have been Madrid, with 174,99%, and followed by Lisbon, Berlin, and Paris (between 60,29, 15,19, and 13,65%). Furthermore, London increases its land use 141 in less than 5%, neverthe-

**114**

**Figure 2.**

**Table 2.**

*Evolution of the urban green spaces in European major cities (authors).*

### *Landscape Architecture - Processes and Practices Towards Sustainable Development*


**Table 3.**

*Demographic dynamics of the studied cities [23].*

### **4. Final remarks**

Through the present study, it is possible to understand how the green urban areas have evolved within the studied European major cities. Besides, throughout the analysis of patterns of the land use change (CLC 141) along with empirical knowledge of those cities' territories, it was allowed us to assess the value of those Green Urban Areas within the cities. Therefore, it is possible to say that those green urban areas are not growing in the same pace as the demographic values as well as other land uses in development within these cities [24].

In this regard, and considering the relevance of the ES performed in the urban environments, we believe that in all the analyzed cities, the existing green urban areas are not able to provide the environmental needs for their inhabitants. In fact, even if those environmental needs could differ among the studied cities – once, some presents a higher number of Green Urban Areas than others as well as different demographic growth rates; all the analyzed European Major Cities shows a need for more Green Urban Areas.

Additionally, the performed study enabled us to put forward some noteworthy ideas, related to the relevance of green space infrastructure in urban areas, regardless of their urban nature and of their major land use, which corroborate with the conclusions of previous studies that crossed the relevance of urban green spaces to urban sustainability and development [4, 9–10, 25–32].

In this regard, the creation of more green urban areas in these cities as well as in their metropolitan influential territories is seen as pivotal. Furthermore, guidelines should be provided for the main actors and decision-makers of the planning process to where the efforts toward a sustainable development and growth should be placed—for example to address green strategies and land use reconversion and redevelopment of urban areas.

**117**

*Assessing Ecosystem Services Delivered by Public Green Spaces in Major European Cities*

Rui Alexandre Castanho1,2,3,4,5\*, José Cabezas2,4, José Manuel Naranjo Gómez3,4,6,

1 Faculty of Applied Sciences, WSB University, Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland

2 Environmental Resources Analysis Research Group (ARAM), University of

3 CITUR - Madeira - Centre for Tourism Research, Development and Innovation,

4 VALORIZA - Research Centre for Endogenous Resource Valorization, Polytechnic

5 School of Business and Economics and CEEAplA, University of Azores, Ponta

7 Functional Studies of Mediterranean Ecosystems, University of Extremadura,

8 Department of Marketing and Advertising, Kocaeli University, Turkey

9 Faculty of Exact Sciences and Engineering (FCEE), Department of Civil Engineering and Geology (DECG), University of Madeira (UMa), Funchal,

10 Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs),

\*Address all correspondence to: alexdiazbrown@gmail.com; acastanho@wsb.edu.pl

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

6 Agricultural School, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain

, Luis Fernández-Pozo2,4, Sema Yilmaz Genç8

,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91415*

**Author details**

José Martín Gallardo7

Sérgio Lousada3,4,9 and Luís Loures4,10

Institute of Portalegre (IPP), Portalegre, Portugal

University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal

provided the original work is properly cited.

Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain

Funchal, Madeira, Portugal

Delgada, Portugal

Badajoz, Spain

Portugal
