Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 53, 2018
2018 3rd International Conference on Advances in Energy and Environment Research (ICAEER 2018)
Article Number 04049
Number of page(s) 6
Section Environmental Protection, Pollution and Treatment
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20185304049
Published online 14 September 2018
  1. G. C. Nelson, E. Bennett, A. a. Berhe, K. Cassman, R. DeFries, T. Dietz, A. Dobermann, A. Dobson, A. Janetos, M. Levy, D. Marco, N. Nakicenovic, B. O'Neill, R. Norgaard, G. Petschel-Held, D. Ojima, P. Pingali, R. Watson, and M. Zurek, “Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: An overview,” Ecology and Society, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 526-556, 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Landscape Institute, Green infrastructure : connected and multifunctional landscapes. London: The Landscape Institute, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  3. H. Setälä, V. Viippola, A. L. Rantalainen, A. Pennanen, and V. Yli-Pelkonen, “Does urban vegetation mitigate air pollution in northern conditions?,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 183, pp. 104-112, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. G. S. Cumming, “Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability,” Landscape Ecology, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 899-909, 2011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. A. Kaczorowska, “Ecosystem Services and Urban Resilience-Case of Stockholm.,” in 2014 ISOCARP International Planning Congress, 23-26 September 2014, Gdynia, Poland, 2014, pp. 1-9. [Google Scholar]
  6. C. Y. Jim and W. Y. Chen, “Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 75, no. 1-2, pp. 81-96, 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. C. Y. Jim and X. Shan, “Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China,” Cities, vol. 31, pp. 123-131, 2013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Millennium EA, Ecosystems and human well-being, vol. 5. Island Press Washington, DC, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. M. Potschin and R. Haines-Young, “Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services,” Landscape Ecology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1053-1065, 2013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. J. Wu, “Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes,” Landscape Ecology, vol. 28, pp. 999-1023, 2013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. F. Baró, D. Haase, E. Gómez-Baggethun, and N. Frantzeskaki, “Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 55, pp. 146-158, 2015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J. H. Kain, D. Haase, F. Baró, and A. Kaczorowska, “Urban self-sufficiency through optimised ecosystem service demand. A utopian perspective from European cities,” Futures, vol. 70, pp. 13-23, 2015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. S. Wolff, C. J. E. Schulp, and P. H. Verburg, “Mapping ecosystem services demand : A review of current research and future perspectives,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 55, pp. 159-171, 2015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. C. Y. Jim and W. Y. Chen, “Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China,” Cities, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 187-194, 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. B. Fan and Z. Li, “Construction of Urban Forest and Inhabited Entironment in History of China (in Chinese),” Journal of Chinese Urban Dorestry, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57-61, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Wu, Wei-Ning Xiang, and J. Zhao, “Urban ecology in China: Historical developments and future directions,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 125, pp. 222-233, 2014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. J. Yang, J. McBride, J. Zhou, and Z. Sun, “The urban forest in Beijing and its role in air pollution reduction,” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 65-78, 2004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. X. Li, W. Zhou, Z. Ouyang, W. Xu, and H. Zheng, “Spatial pattern of greenspace affects land surface temperature: Evidence from the heavily urbanized Beijing metropolitan area, China,” Landscape Ecology, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 887-898, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. J. Xu, Z. Liu, L. Song, and Y. Hu, “Evaluation on ecological services of urban green space in Guangzhou City of South China based on remote sensing (in Chinese),” Chinese Journal of Ecology, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 440-445, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. State Council of the P.R.China, On the adjustment criteria for the classification of city size (in Chinese). P.R.China: Paper Reports of State Council of P.R.China. [Google Scholar]
  21. F. Kong, H. Yin, N. Nakagoshi, and Y. Zong, “Urban green space network development for biodiversity conservation: Identification based on graph theory and gravity modeling,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 95, no. 1-2, pp. 16-27, 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Y. Hou, S. Zhou, B. Burkhard, and F. Müller, “Science of the Total Environment Socioeconomic in fl uences on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being : A quantitative application of the DPSIR model in Jiangsu, China,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 490, pp. 1012-1028, 2014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. W. Li, Z. Ouyang, X. Meng, and X. Wang, “Plant species composition in relation to green cover configuration and function of urban parks in Beijing, China,” Ecological Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 221-237, 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. C. Y. Jim and W. Y. Chen, “Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China),” Environmental Management, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 338-349, 2006. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. B. Chen and S. Lu, “Valuing ecological services of green space of West Lake scenic area in Hangzhou (in Chinese).,” Journal of Zhejiang University (Agriculture and Life Sciences), vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 686-690, 2009. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.