سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات161
تعداد شماره‌ها6,572
تعداد مقالات71,020
تعداد مشاهده مقاله125,495,702
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله98,757,531
نوری, محبوبه, رضایی, محمدرضا, عسگری, ابراهیم. (1402). ارزیابی نقش شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان شهری سبز-آبی در ارتقاء سطح خدمات اکوسیستم شهر شیراز. , 11(4), 133-153. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.369561.1892
محبوبه نوری; محمدرضا رضایی; ابراهیم عسگری. "ارزیابی نقش شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان شهری سبز-آبی در ارتقاء سطح خدمات اکوسیستم شهر شیراز". , 11, 4, 1402, 133-153. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.369561.1892
نوری, محبوبه, رضایی, محمدرضا, عسگری, ابراهیم. (1402). 'ارزیابی نقش شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان شهری سبز-آبی در ارتقاء سطح خدمات اکوسیستم شهر شیراز', , 11(4), pp. 133-153. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.369561.1892
نوری, محبوبه, رضایی, محمدرضا, عسگری, ابراهیم. ارزیابی نقش شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان شهری سبز-آبی در ارتقاء سطح خدمات اکوسیستم شهر شیراز. , 1402; 11(4): 133-153. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.369561.1892

ارزیابی نقش شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان شهری سبز-آبی در ارتقاء سطح خدمات اکوسیستم شهر شیراز

پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری
مقاله 7، دوره 11، شماره 4، بهمن 1402، صفحه 133-153    اصل مقاله (1.59 M)
نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - کاربردی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.369561.1892
نویسندگان
محبوبه نوری1؛ محمدرضا رضایی* 1؛ ابراهیم عسگری2
1گروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران.
2گروه علوم و مهندسی آبخیز، یزد، ایران
چکیده
امروزه با توسعه شهرنشینی، فضای سبز-آبی در مناطق شهری موردتوجه گسترده قرارگرفته و به نماد مهم سلامت اکوسیستم شهری تبدیل‌شده است. در این زمینه توجه به خدمات اکوسیستم در برنامه‌ریزی شهر اسفنجی که توسط زیرساخت‌های سبز-آبی ارائه می‌شود اهمیت زیادی دارد. در این راستا پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارزیابی نقش شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان شهری سبز-آبی در ارتقاء سطح خدمات اکوسیستم شهر شیراز انجام شد. پژوهش حاضر از حیث هدف کاربردی و از نظر ماهیت توصیفی-تحلیلی است که با روش آمیخته (کمی و کیفی) انجام‌شده است. به‌منظور تحلیل داده‌ها از روش تحلیل مضمون و در قالب نرم‌افزار MAXQDA انجام شد و جهت رتبه‌بندی خدمات از آزمون آماری فریدمن استفاده شد. نتایج تحلیل محتوا نشان داد که از 35 مؤلفه شناسایی‌شده مربوط به چهار مقوله مهم‌ترین خدمات اکوسیستم زیرساخت‌های سبز-آبی شهر اسفنجی توسط تیم خبرگان، پس از رتبه‌بندی مشخص شد که مؤلفه تأمین آب پایدار (A1) از زیرمجموعه خدمات تولیدی، مؤلفه کنترل مؤثر رواناب شهری و کاهش آب‌گرفتگی معابر (D15) و مدیریت ریسک و خطر سیلاب (D3) از زیرمجموعه خدمات تنظیمی به ترتیب با نمره اکتسابی 25/26، 55/25 و 78/24 در رتبه اول تا سوم قرار گرفت. هم‌چنین در زمینه خدمات حمایتی زیرساخت‌های سبز-آبی شهر اسفنجی، مؤلفه‌های حفظ، احیاء و تقویت پوشش گیاهی (B4) و بازیابی اکوسیستم‌های طبیعی (B3) به ترتیب با نمره 77/19 و 63/19 در رتبه ده و یازده قرار گرفت و در بعد خدمات فرهنگی-اجتماعی نیز مؤلفه ارتباط و دسترسی بهتر به طبیعت (C4) با نمره 22/19 در رتبه سیزده قرار گرفت
کلیدواژه‌ها
زیرساخت شهری؛ چالش‌های آبی و زیست‌محیطی؛ خدمات اکوسیستم؛ شهر اسفنجی؛ شهر شیراز
مراجع
  1. حکیمیان، پانته‌آ و لک، آزاده. (1396). زیرساخت سبز: مفهومی مشترک در آموزش دو رشته طراحی شهری و معماری منظر. صفه، 27(3)، 60-45.  http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.1683870.1396.27.3.3.7 
  2. رستمی‌زاد قباد.، خان‌بابایی زهرا و طهمورث، محمد. (1401). ارزیابی صحت الگوریتم‌های طبقه‌بندی نظارت‌شده برای استخراج نقشه کاربری اراضی (مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبخیز تهم). پژوهش‌های فرسایش محیطی، 12(4)، 141-157. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22517812.1401.12.4.7.8
  3. مسعودی، مرجان. (1394). زیرساخت سبز و آبی. سومین کنگره بین‌المللی عمران، معماری و توسعه شهری، تهران، 8 دی‌ماه 1394، 9-1.
  4. نوری، محبوبه و رضایی، محمدرضا. (1402). تبیین عملکرد شهر اسفنجی به‌عنوان رویکردی طبیعت‌محور در مدیریت پایدار منابع آب شهری (نمونه موردی: شهر شیراز). فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، (انتشار آنلاین). https://doi.org/10.30495/jupm.2023.32001.4357.
  5. نوری، محبوبه.، رضایی، محمدرضا.، حسینی، سیدموسی و منصوریان، حسین. (1402). تبیین ضرورت کاربست روش‌های نوین در مدیریت رواناب‌های شهری با رویکرد افزایش تاب‌آوری در برابر سیلاب (نمونه موردی: شهر شیراز). پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 11(1)، 27-49. https://doi.org/22059/jurbangeo.2023.354605.1788
  6. نوری، محبوبه.، رضایی، محمدرضا. (1402). کاربرد فناوری‌های زیست‌محیطی در ایجاد روسازی بوم‌شهر اسفنجی (نمونه موردی: شهر شیراز). برنامه‌ریزی فضایی، 13 (4)، 114-97. https://doi.org/ 10.22108/SPPL.2024.139409.1752
  7. Abbas, Z., & Jaber, H. S. (2020). Accuracy assessment of supervised classification methods for extraction land use maps using remote sensing and GIS techniques. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 745(1), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/745/1/012166.
  8. Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services inadaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning 125, 254-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020.
  9. Artmann, M., Bastian, O., & Grunewald, K. (2017). Using the concepts of green infrastructure and ecosystem services to specify Leitbilder for compact and green cities - The Example of the Landscape Plan of Dresden (Germany). Sustainability, 9(2), 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020198.
  10. Asgari, E., Talebi, A., Kiani-Harchegani, M., & Amanian, N. (2024). The effect of Vetiver plant on runoff reduction and soil loss in parallel-convex and concave hillslopes in laboratory conditions. Iranian Journal of Watershed Management Science and Engineering, 17(63), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.22034/17.63.12. [In Persian].
  11. Bacchin, T., Ashley, R., Blecken, G. T., Viklander, M., & Gersonius, B. (2021). Green-blue infrastructure for sustainable cities: innovative socio-technical solutions bringing multifunctional value. International Low Impact Development Conference, 1-4. B2n.ir/f79332.
  12. Banzhaf, S., & Boyd, J. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 616-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
  13. Bierwagen, B. G. 2007. Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: The importance of habitat configuration, urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosystem, 10, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-0011-6.
  14. Brzoska, P., & Spage, A. (2020). From city- to site-dimension: Assessing the urban ecosystem services of different types of green infrastructure. Land, 9(5), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050150.
  15. Calderon-Contreras, R., & Quiroz-Rosas, L.E. (2017). Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: A case from Mexico City. Ecosystem Services, 23, 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.004.
  16. Chan, F.K.Sh., Griffiths, J.A., Higgitt, D., Xu, Sh., Zhu, F., Tang, Y.T., Xu, Y., & Thorne, C. (2018). “Sponge City” in China-A breakthrough of planning and flood risk management in the urban context. Land Use Policy, 76, 772-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.005.
  17. Chan, K.M., & Vu, T.T. (2017). A landscape ecological perspective of the impacts of urbanization on urban green spaces in the Klang Valley. Applied Geography, 85, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.002.
  18. Chang, N. B., Lu, J. W., Chui, T. F. M., & Hartshorn, N. (2018). Global policy analysis of low impact development for stormwater management in urban regions. Land Use Policy, 70, 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.024.
  19. Chen, S., Liu, X., Yang, L., & Zhu, Z. (2023). Variations in Ecosystem Service Value and Its Driving Factors in the Nanjing Metropolitan Area of China. Forests, 14, 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14010113.
  20. Chen, S., Wang, Y., Ni, Zh., Zhang, X., & Xia, B. (2020). Benefits of the ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructures: Differences between perception and measurements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 54, 126774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126774.
  21. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en.
  22. Cortinovis, C., & Geneletti, D. (2019). A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services, 38, 100946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100946.
  23. Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096.
  24. Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
  25. Cowan, R. (2007). The dictionary of urbanism. Streetwise Press, 468 p. B2n.ir/h25290.
  26. Czucz, B., Arany, I., Young, M., Bereczki, K., Kertész, M., Kiss, M., Aszalós, R., & Haines-Young, R. (2018). Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosystem Services, 29, 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.018.
  27. Danny, B., Fu, D., & Singh, R.P. (2018). Feasibility and adaptability of Sponge City concepts: A Case study of Lusaka, Zambia. National Natural Science Foundation of China, 1-11. B2n.ir/a48751.
  28. De Groot, R., Brander, L., Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., C. Rodriguez, L., ten Brink, P., & van Beukering, P. (2012). Global Estimates of the Value of Ecosystems and Their Services in Monetary Units. Ecosystem Services, 1, 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.
  29. Delibas, M., Tezer, A., & Bacchin, T.K. (2021). Towards embedding soil ecosystem services in spatial planning. Cities, 113, 103150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103150.
  30. European Commission. 2019. EU Guidance on Integrating Ecosystems and Their Services into Decision-Making. B2n.ir/j31837.
  31. Faggian, R., Romeijin, H. & Sposito, V. (2012). Soil data to support broad scale land suitability assessment in the Gippsland Region. Melbourne: Agricultural Victoria Services. Report to the Victorian Government. B2n.ir/y48603.
  32. Fallmann, J., & Emeis, S. (2020). How to bring urban and global climate studies together with urban planning and architecture?. Developments in the Built Environment, 4, 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100023.
  33. Fang, X., Li, J., & Ma, Q. (2023). Integrating green infrastructure, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions for urban sustainability: A comprehensive literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 98, 104843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104843.
  34. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014.
  35. Gascon, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M.P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. (2017). Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220(8), 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.004.
  36. Guan, X.L., Wei, H.K., Lu, S.S., Dai, Q., & Su, H.J. (2018). Assessment on the urbanization strategy in China: achievements: challenges and reflections. Habitat International, 71, 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.11.009.
  37. Hakimian, P., & Lak, A. (2017). Green infrastructure: Finding a common language in urban design and landscape architecture education. Soffeh, 27(3), 45-60. [In Persian]. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.1683870.1396.27.3.3.7.
  38. Hamidi, A., Ramavandi, B., & Sorial, G.A. (2021). Sponge City - An emerging concept in sustainable water resource management: A scientometric analysis. Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 5 (2021) 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100028.
  39. Hou, X., Guo, H., Wang, F., Li, M., Xue, X., Liu, X., & Zeng, S. (2020). Is the sponge city construction sufficiently adaptable for the future stormwater management under climate change? Journal of Hydrology, 588, S. 125055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125055.
  40. Hu, M., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Yang, H., & Tanaka, K. (2019). Flood mitigation performance of low impact development technologies under different storms for retrofitting an urbanized area. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.044.
  41. Johannessen, Å., & Wamsler, C. (2017). What does resilience mean for urban water services? Ecology and Society, 22(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08870-220101.
  42. Jurczak, T., Wagner, I., Kaczkowski, Z., Szklarek, S., & Zalewski, M. (2018). Hybrid system for the purification of street stormwater runoff supplying urban recreation reservoirs. Ecological Engineering, 110, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.09.019.
  43. Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J. & Bonn, A. (2017). Naturebased solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy and practice Switzerland. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_1.
  44. Koster, S. (2021). How the Sponge City becomes a supplementary water supply infrastructure. Water-Energy Nexus, 4, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2021.02.002.
  45. Kremen, C., & Ostfeld, R. (2005). A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 540-548. https://doi.org/10.2307/3868610.
  46. Kronenberg, J. (2015). Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem. services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 218-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002.
  47. Kumar, P. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. UNEP/Earthprint. B2n.ir/t94239.
  48. Lancia, M., Zheng, Ch., He, X., Lerner, D. N., Andrews, Ch., & Tian, Y. (2020). Hydrogeological constraints and opportunities for “Sponge City” development: Shenzhen, southern China. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 28, S. 100679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100679.
  49. Lashford, C., Rubinato, M., Cai, Y., Hou, J., Abolfathi, S., Coupe, S., Charlesworth, S., & Tait, S. (2019). SuDS & Sponge Cities: a comparative analysis of the implementation of pluvial flood management in the UK and China. Sustainability, 11, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010213.
  50. Li, C., Zong, Z., Qie, H., Fang, Y., & Liu, Q. (2023). CiteSpace and bibliometric analysis of published research on forest ecosystem services for the period 2018-2022. Land, 12, 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12040845.
  51. Liu, H., Wu, J., & Liao, M. (2019). Ecosystem service trade-offs upstream and downstream of a dam: A case study of the Danjiangkou dam, China. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-4145-7.
  52. Liu, H., Zheng, L., Wu, J., & Liao, Y. (2020). Past and future ecosystem service trade-offs in Poyang Lake Basin under different land use policy scenarios. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 13, 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-5004-x.
  53. Lucas, P. L., Kok, M. T. J., Nillson, M., & Alkemade, R. (2014). Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in the post-2015 development agenda: Goal structure, target areas and means of implementation. Sustainability, 6(1), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010193.
  54. Ma, X., Zhu, J., Zhang, H., Yan, W., & Zhao, C. (2020). Trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem service values of inland lake wetlands in Central Asia under land use/cover change: A case study on Ebinur Lake, China. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, e01253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01253.
  55. Ma, Y., Jiang, Y. (2023). Mainstreaming the framework of ecosystem services to enhance China's policy implementation for sponge city development. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 2291-2306. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2506.
  56. Masoudi, M. (2015). Green and blue infrastructure. 3th International Congress on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Development. 29-31 December 2015, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran, 1-9. [In Persian]. B2n.ir/r75686.
  57. Mell, I. C. (2008). Green infrastructure: concepts and planning. FORUM Ejournal, 69-80. B2n.ir/t02843.
  58. Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development (MHURD). (2014). MHURD Announcement on Publishing Preliminary Technical Guidance for Sponge City Construction – Low Impact Development Rainwater System Construction. MHURD [2014]275. MHURD, Beijing.
  59. Nahlik, A. M., Kentula, M. E., Fennessy, M. S., & Landers, D. H., (2012). Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecological Economics, 77, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001.
  60. Newman, P. (2010). Green urbanism and its application to Singapore. Enviroment and Urbanization Asia, 1(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1177/097542531000100204.
  61. Noori, M., & Rezaei, M. (2023). Explaining the function of the sponge city as a nature-based approach in the sustainable management of urban water resources (case study: Shiraz city). (in press). https://doi.org/10.30495/jupm.2023.32001.4357. [In Persian].
  62. Noori, M., & Rezaei, M. R. (2024). Application of Environmental Technologies in the Creation of the Pavement of the Sponge Eco-City (Case Study: Shiraz City). Spatial Planning, 13(4), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.22108/sppl.2024.139409.1752. [In Persian].
  63. Noori, M., Rezaei, M. R., Hosseini, S. M., & Mansourian, H. (2023). Explaining the necessity of using modern methods in the management of urban runoff with the approach of increasing resilience against floods (case study: Shiraz city). Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR), 11(1), 27-49. https://doi.org/22059/jurbangeo.2023.354605.1788. [In Persian].
  64. Oates, L., Dai, L., Sudmant, A., & Gouldson, A. (2020). Building climate resilience and water security in cities: Lessons from the Sponge City of Wuhan, China. Coalition for Urban Transitions. London, UK, and Washington, DC: https://urbantransitions.global/publications, 1-29. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/415096.
  65. Oral, H.V., Carvalho, P., Gajewska, M., Ursino, N., Masi, F., Hullebusch, E.D.V., & Zimmermann, M., (2020). A review of nature-based solutions for urban water management in European circular cities: a critical assessment based on case studies and literature. Blue-Green Systems, 2(1), 112-136. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2020.932.
  66. Pereira, P., Yin, C., & Hua, T. (2023). Nature-based solutions, ecosystem services, disservices, and impacts on well-being in urban environments. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 33, 100465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2023.100465.
  67. Rostamizad G, khanbabaei Z, & Tahmoreth M. (2022). Assessing the accuracy of supervised classification algorithms for land use map extraction (study area: Taham watershed). Environmental Erosion Research, 12(4),141-157. http://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.22517812.1401.12.4.7.8 [In Persian].
  68. Shafique, M., Kim, R., & Lee, D. (2016). The Potential of Green-Blue Roof to Manage Storm Water in Urban Areas. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 15(2), 715-718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030584.
  69. Shao, W., Zhang, H., Liu, J., Yang, G., Chen, X., Yang, Z., & Huang, H. (2016). Data integration and its application in the Sponge City construction of China. Procedia Engineering, 154, 779-786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.583.
  70. Statistical Centre of Iran. (2020a). Fars province annual report (1- land and climate), 55-145. https://www.amar.org.ir/english?portalid=1. [In Persian].
  71. Statistical Centre of Iran. (2020b). Fars province annual report (3- population), 185-239. https://www.amar.org.ir/english?portalid=1. [In Persian].
  72. Tang, Y.T., Chan, F.K.S., O'Donnell, E.C., Griffiths, J., Lau, L., Higgitt, D.L., & Thorne, C.R. (2018). Aligning ancient and modern approaches to sustainable urbanwater management in China: Ningbo as a “Blue-Green City”in the “Sponge City” campaign. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11, e12451. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12451.
  73. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. (www.TEEBweb.org). B2n.ir/j44717.
  74. Tong, P., Yin, H., Wang, Z., Trivers, I. (2022). Combining stormwater management and park services to mitigate climate change and improve human well-being: A case study of sponge city parks in Shanghai. Land, 11(9), 1589. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091589.
  75. Veerkamp, C.J., Schipper, A.M., Hedlund, K., Lazarova, T., Nordin, A., & Hanson, H.I. (2021). A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecosystem Services, 52, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101367.
  76. Wang, R., Wu, H., & Chiles, R. (2022). Ecosystem Benefits Provision of Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Chinese Sponge Cities. Environmental Management, 69, 558-575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01565-9.
  77. Xu, X., Tan, Y., Chen, S., & Yang, G. (2014). Changing patterns and determinants of natural capital in the Yangtze River Delta of China 2000-2010. Science of The Total Environment, 466-467, 326-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.043.
  78. Yang, L., Zhang, L., Li, Y., & Wu, S. (2015). Water -related ecosystem services provided by urban green space: A case study in Yixing City (China). Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 40-51.
  79. Yeung, Y.M., (2010). The further integration of the Pearl River Delta. Enviroment and Urbanization Asia, 1(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/097542530900100103.
  80. Zhou, M., Koster, S., Zuo, J., Che, W., & Wang, X. (2019). Cross-boundary evolution of urban planning and urban drainage towards the water sensitive “Sponge City”. Urban water management for future cities, technical and institutional aspects from Chinese and German perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 303-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01488-9.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 324
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 224





سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب