CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Systematic Comparison of Cultural and Ecological Landscape Corridors in Europe

Xu, Haiyun, Plieninger, Tobias, Primdahl, Jørgen·2019·Land
DOI 10.3390/land8030041
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Landscape corridors are narrow strips of land that differ from the matrix on either side. In addition to providing connectivity between fragmented landscapes, these corridors serve scenic, cultural, social, ecological, and recreational purposes. We systematically reviewed reports and studies related to 92 cultural and ecological landscape corridors in Europe, focusing, in particular, on their planning and management, problems addressed, approaches and tools used, stakeholders involved and spatial scales. Biodiversity conservation was found to be the most frequently stated aim (67% of the cases), followed by recreation and tourism (62%). The planning processes for cultural and ecological landscape corridors were dominated by similar, quite narrow, stakeholder groups, but via a wide variety of approaches and tools. Ecological corridors existed at larger and more variable scales relative to cultural landscape corridors. Significant differences were found in many aspects of the two types of corridors, although a complete separation of the two categories was difficult since most of the cases reviewed were designed to serve multiple aims. We close the paper by making a few recommendations for decision makers concerning future corridor planning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/land8030041

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Location and number of landscape corridors covered in this review, by country. Figure 2. Location and number of landscape corridors covered in this review, by country.
Figure 2 Location and number of landscape corridors covered in this review, by country. Figure 2. Location and number of landscape corridors covered in this review, by country.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 3 Aims of landscape corridor cases. Figure 3. Aims of landscape corridor cases.
Figure 3 Aims of landscape corridor cases. Figure 3. Aims of landscape corridor cases.CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 5 Problems and issues addressed by landscape corridors (n = 92). Figure 5. Problems and issues addressed by landscape corridors (n = 92).
Figure 5 Problems and issues addressed by landscape corridors (n = 92). Figure 5. Problems and issues addressed by landscape corridors (n = 92).CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 6 Variation in approaches used in cultural and ecological landscape corridor analysis. The asterisks indicate the significance level: ** means p ≤ 0.01. MCDA, multi -criteria decision analysis; GIS, Geographical Information System. Figure 6. Variation in approaches used in cultural and ecological landscape corridor analysis. The asterisks indicate the significance level: ** means p ≤ 0.01. MCDA, multi-criteria decision analysis; GIS, Geographical Information System.
Figure 6 Variation in approaches used in cultural and ecological landscape corridor analysis. The asterisks indicate the significance level: ** means p ≤ 0.01. MCDA, multi -criteria decision analysis; GIS, Geographical Information System. Figure 6. Variation in approaches used in cultural and ecological landscape corridor analysis. The asterisks indicate the significance level: ** means p ≤ 0.01. MCDA, multi-criteria decision analysis; GIS, Geographical Information System.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 7 Stakeholder involvement in landscape corridor planning and management, by stakeholder Figure 7. Stakeholder involvement in landscape corridor planning and management, by stakeholder type.
Figure 7 Stakeholder involvement in landscape corridor planning and management, by stakeholder Figure 7. Stakeholder involvement in landscape corridor planning and management, by stakeholder type.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 8 Boxplot of the lengths of cultural and ecological corridors (in kilometers).
Figure 8 Boxplot of the lengths of cultural and ecological corridors (in kilometers).CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 109

  1. Forman, R.T.T., and Godron, M. (1986). Landscape Ecology, Wiley.
  2. Rosenberg, 1997, Biological corridors: Form, function, and efficacy, BioScience, 47, 677, 10.2307/1313208 · DOI
  3. Hilty, J., Lidicker, W., and Merenlender, A. (2006). Corridor ecology: The Science and Practice of Connectivity for Biodiversity Conservation, Island Press.
  4. Hoppert, 2018, The saale-Unstrut cultural landscape corridor, Environ. Earth Sci., 77, 58, 10.1007/s12665-017-7222-4 · DOI
  5. Blicharska, 2013, Integrating ecological, social and cultural dimensions in the implementation of the Landscape Convention, Landsc. Res., 38, 384, 10.1080/01426397.2011.650629 · DOI
  6. Shishmanova, 2015, Cultural tourism in cultural corridors, itineraries, areas and cores networked, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 188, 246, 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.382 · DOI
  7. Lafortezza, 2013, Green infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions, iForest-Biogeosci. For., 6, 102, 10.3832/ifor0723-006 · DOI
  8. Madureira, 2014, Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: Promises and challenges, Urban Des. Int., 19, 38, 10.1057/udi.2013.11 · DOI
  9. Tzoulas, 2007, Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review, Landsc. Urban Plan., 81, 167, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 · DOI
  10. Kattwinkel, 2011, Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity, Biol. Conserv., 144, 2335, 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.012 · DOI
  11. Klaus, 2013, Urban grassland restoration: A neglected opportunity for biodiversity conservation, Restor. Ecol., 21, 665, 10.1111/rec.12051 · DOI
  12. Gratani, 2013, Carbon sequestration and noise attenuation provided by hedges in Rome: The contribution of hedge traits in decreasing pollution levels, Atmos. Pollut. Res., 4, 315, 10.5094/APR.2013.035 · DOI
  13. Pataki, 2011, Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions, Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 27, 10.1890/090220 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cettner, 2014, Sustainable development and urban stormwater practice, Urban Water J., 11, 185, 10.1080/1573062X.2013.768683 · DOI
  15. Nickel, 2014, German experience in managing stormwater with green infrastructure, J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 57, 403, 10.1080/09640568.2012.748652 · DOI
  16. Nowak, 2006, Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States, Urban For. Urban Greening, 4, 115, 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007 · DOI
  17. Barthel, 2013, Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities, Ecol. Econ., 86, 224, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.018 · DOI
  18. Chiesura, 2004, The role of urban parks for the sustainable city, Landsc. Urban Plan., 68, 129, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Cohen, 2007, Contribution of public parks to physical activity, Am. J. Public Health, 97, 509, 10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447 · DOI
  20. Lee, 2014, Planning landscape corridors in ecological infrastructure using least-cost path methods based on the value of ecosystem services, Sustainability, 6, 7564, 10.3390/su6117564 · DOI
  21. Vollmer, 2015, Understanding the value of urban riparian corridors: Considerations in planning for cultural services along an Indonesian river, Landsc. Urban Plan., 138, 144, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.011 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Mossman, 2015, Modelling biodiversity distribution in agricultural landscapes to support ecological network planning, Landsc. Urban Plan., 141, 59, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.04.010 · DOI
  23. Perkl, 2016, Geodesigning landscape linkages: Coupling GIS with wildlife corridor design in conservation planning, Landsc. Urban Plan., 156, 44, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.016 · DOI
  24. Lowenthal, 2005, Natural and cultural heritage, Int. J. Herit. Stud., 11, 81, 10.1080/13527250500037088 · DOI
  25. Harrison, 2015, Beyond “natural” and “cultural” heritage: Toward an ontological politics of heritage in the age of Anthropocene, Herit. Soc., 8, 24, 10.1179/2159032X15Z.00000000036 · DOI
  26. Anderson, 2010, Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to implementation, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 2, 59, 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005 · DOI
  27. 2014, Impacts of the european landscape convention on national planning systems: A comparative investigation of six case studies, Landsc. Urban Plan., 124, 53, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.005 · DOI
  28. Richards, 2011, Tourism development trajectories: From culture to creativity?, Tourism Manag. Stud., 6, 9
  29. Zabbini, 2012, Cultural routes and intangible heritage, Almatourism J. Tour. Cult. Territ. Dev., 3, 58
  30. Ryan, 2004, International greenway planning: An introduction, Landsc. Urban Plan., 2, 143
  31. Fabos, 1995, Introduction and overview: The greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways, Landsc. Urban Plan., 33, 1, 10.1016/0169-2046(95)02035-R · DOI
  32. Theobald, 2013, A general model to quantify ecological integrity for landscape assessments and US application, Landsc. Ecol., 28, 1859, 10.1007/s10980-013-9941-6 · DOI
  33. Vogt, 2009, Mapping functional connectivity, Ecol. Indic., 9, 64, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.01.011 · DOI
  34. Vuilleumier, 2002, Map of ecological networks for landscape planning, Landsc. Urban Plan., 58, 157, 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00218-3 · DOI
  35. Marulli, 2005, A GIS methodology for assessing ecological connectivity: Application to the Barcelona metropolitan area, Landsc. Urban Plan., 71, 243, 10.1016/S0169-2046(04)00079-9 · DOI
  36. UMass Amherst Campus Center (2018, October 08). 6th Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning. Available online: https://www.umass.edu/larp/news-events/6th-f%C3%A1bos-conference-landscape-and-greenway-planning.
  37. Millennium Assessment (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press.
  38. Sarukhan, J., Whyte, A., Hassan, R., Scholes, R., Ash, N., Carpenter, S., Pingali, P., Bennett, E., Zurek, M., and Chopra, K. (2005). Millenium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Island Press.
  39. Acosta, J.A., Faz, Á., Zornoza, R., Martínez-Martínez, S., Kabas, S., and Bech, J. (2015, January 12–17). In Multifunctional greenway approach for landscape planning and reclamation of a post-mining district: Cartagena-La Unión, SE Spain. Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference, Vienna, Austria.
  40. Pourjafar, 2015, Explaining design dimensions of ecological greenways, Open J. Ecol., 5, 66, 10.4236/oje.2015.53007 · DOI
  41. Levey, 2005, Effects of landscape corridors on seed dispersal by birds, Science, 309, 146, 10.1126/science.1111479 · DOI
  42. Fumagalli, 2012, Relationship between greenways and ecological network: A case study in Italy, Int. J. Environ. Res., 6, 903
  43. 2007, Pan-European ecological networks, J. Nat. Conserv., 15, 262, 10.1016/j.jnc.2007.10.001 · DOI
  44. Stahlschmidt, P., Swaffield, S., Primdahl, J., and Nellemann, V. (2017). Landscape Analysis: Investigating the Potentials of Space and Place, Routledge. · DOI
  45. Hall, P., and Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2010). Urban and Regional Planning, Routledge. · DOI
  46. Eiter, 2015, Public participation in landscape planning: Effective methods for implementing the European landscape convention in Norway, Land Use Policy, 44, 44, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.012 · DOI
  47. Healey, 2009, In search of the “strategic” in spatial strategy making, Plan. Theory Pract., 10, 439, 10.1080/14649350903417191 · DOI
  48. Primdahl, 2016, Landscape strategy making and landscape characterisation—Experiences from Danish experimental planning processes, Landsc. Res., 41, 227, 10.1080/01426397.2015.1135322 · DOI
  49. Ahern, 1995, Greenways as a planning strategy, Landsc. Urban Plan., 33, 131, 10.1016/0169-2046(95)02039-V · DOI
  50. Jongman, 2004, European ecological networks and greenways, Landsc. Urban Plan., 68, 305, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00163-4 · DOI
  51. 2012, Czech approach to implementation of ecological network, J. Landsc. Ecol., 5, 14
  52. 2000, A multi-level ecological network in the Czech Republic: Implementating the territorial system of ecological stability, GeoJournal, 51, 211, 10.1023/A:1017518529210 · DOI
  53. Brandt, 1995, Ecological networks in Danish planning, Landschap, 12, 63
  54. Hasen, R., Olafsson, S.A., Van der Jagt, A., Rall, E.L., and Pauleit, S. (July, January 30). Planning muntifunctional green infrastructure in urban areas—Advanced approaches based on case studies from Denmark, Germany and the UK. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  55. Raet, 2010, Distribution of the green network of Estonia, For. Stud., 53, 66
  56. Sevastiyanov, 2014, Management of tourism and recreation possibilities for the sustainable development of the north-western border region in Russia, Nordia Geogr. Publ., 43, 27
  57. Cormier, L.G., Grésillon, É., Glatron, S., Blanc, N., and Sun, S. (2013, January 12–13). Perceptions and Implementations of Urban Green Infrastructures in France. Proceedings of the 4th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Amherst, MA, USA.
  58. Cormier, L., and Madureira, H. (2013, January 12–13). Which local approaches for European green infrastructures concept? Case analysis of the Angers and Porto cites. Proceedings of the 4th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Amherst, MA, USA.
  59. Gurrutxaga, 2011, Key connectors in protected forest area networks and the impact of highways: A transnational case study from the Cantabrian Range to the Western Alps (SW Europe), Landsc. Urban Plan., 101, 310, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.036 · DOI
  60. Contreras, R. (2013, January 12–13). Scientific Approaches for Designing Ecological Networks: A Case Study for the Faunal Species of Inland Wetlands of Lower Saxony, Germany. Proceedings of the 4th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Amherst, MA, USA.
  61. Reich, 2006, The German way to greenways and habitat networks, Landsc. Urban Plan., 76, 7, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.041 · DOI
  62. Bennett, G., and Wit, P. (2018, October 08). The Development and Application of Ecological Networks: A Review of Proposals, Plans and Programmes. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2001–042.pdf.
  63. Kantartzis, A., Schwartz, M., Pollalis, S., and Chase, N. (2013, January 12–13). Edessa Greenways: A land use planning tool promoting sustainable development in Northern Greece. Proceedings of the 4th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Amherst, MA, USA.
  64. Kantartzis, A.V., Varras, G., Kakouri, P., Koutsikou, M., and Papadopoulou, A. (2006, January 20–22). The role of Greenway Planning in the Integration of Urban and Rural Mediterranean landscapes. The case of Agrinio, Greece. Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International Conference on Environment, Ecosystems and Development, Venice, Italy.
  65. Zakota, Z.Z. (July, January 30). On the Possibility of Extending the European Green Belt to the Hungarian-Romanian Border Region. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  66. Szabo, 2014, The Baranya greenway as thematic tourism product and regional brand in cross-border cooperation, Geogr. Timisiensis, 23, 27
  67. Manton, 2012, Identification and classification of factors affecting route selection of cycling routes in Ireland, Cycl. Res. Int., 3, 136
  68. Govindan, 2016, Greenways for rural sustainable development: An integration between geographic information systems and group analytic hierarchy process, Land Use Policy, 50, 429, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.016 · DOI
  69. Palmisano, 2016, Using Analytic Network Process and Dominance-based Rough Set Approach for sustainable requalification of traditional farm buildings in Southern Italy, Land Use Policy, 59, 95, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.016 · DOI
  70. Meini, 2014, Landscape conservation and valorization by satellite imagery and historic maps. The case of Italian transhumance routes, Eur. J. Remote Sens., 47, 375, 10.5721/EuJRS20144722 · DOI
  71. Cassatella, 2013, The ‘Corona Verde’ Strategic Plan: An integrated vision for protecting and enhancing the natural and cultural heritage, Urban Res. Pract., 6, 219, 10.1080/17535069.2013.810933 · DOI
  72. Toccolini, 2006, Greenways planning in Italy: The Lambro River Valley greenways system, Landsc. Urban Plan., 76, 98, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.038 · DOI
  73. Scudo, 2006, The Greenways of Pavia: Innovations in Italian landscape planning, Landsc. Urban Plan., 76, 112, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.030 · DOI
  74. Ottolino, 2012, Greenway in Italy: Examples of projects and implementation, J. Agric. Eng., 42, 29, 10.4081/jae.2011.39 · DOI
  75. Fossa, G., and Fossati, A. (2003, January 11–13). Un greenway lungo il naviglio grande. Proceedings of the X Conferenza Internazionale: Vivere e Camminare in Città. Mobilità non Motorizzata e Risorse Territoriali, Brescia, Italy.
  76. Oppido, 2014, Abandoned Railways, Renewed Pathways: Opportunities for Accessing Landscapes, Adv. Eng. Forum, 11, 424, 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.11.424 · DOI
  77. Quattrone, 2018, Analysis and evaluation of abandoned railways aimed at greenway conversion: A methodological application in the Sicilian landscape using Multi-criteria analysis and GIS, J. Agric. Eng., 49, 744, 10.4081/jae.2018.744 · DOI
  78. Caschili, 2016, Urban–rural ecological networks for landscape planning, Land Use Policy, 50, 312, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.004 · DOI
  79. Scolozzi, 2012, A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the impact of urbanization on natural habitats and their connectivity, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 36, 9, 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.03.001 · DOI
  80. Fichera, 2015, Application, validation and comparison in different geographical contexts of an integrated model for the design of ecological networks, J. Agric. Eng., 46, 52, 10.4081/jae.2015.459 · DOI
  81. Braioni, 2017, Some operational advice for reducing hydraulic risk and for protecting biodiversity and the landscape in riparian areas–river corridor, Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol., 17, 4, 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2016.12.003 · DOI
  82. Mierauskas, 2012, Ecological network in Lithuania: Its development and implementation within the nature frame, Sustain. Dev. Strategy Pract., 1, 58
  83. Swart, 2008, Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: The case of the Green River in the Netherlands, J. Appl. Ecol., 45, 124, 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01404.x · DOI
  84. Gawryluk, D., and Kłopotowski, M. (July, January 30). Bialystok (Poland)—Green city. Historical greenways in a contemporary city. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  85. Środulska-Wielgus, J., Wielgus, K., and Maj, O. (July, January 30). Cultural tourism trails as part of sustainable tourism- the tool of shaping the greenways and protection of ecosystems in Gorce. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  86. Romanowski, 2007, Vistula River Valley as the ecological corridor for mammals, Pol. J. Ecol., 55, 805
  87. Manuela, R., Duarte, M., and Ana, M. (2013, January 12–13). Soft Mobility towards Ecological Sustainability in Lisbon Metropolitan Area–Case study of Almada Municipality. Proceedings of the 4th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Amherst, MA, USA.
  88. Ribeiro, 2006, Greenways for recreation and maintenance of landscape quality: Five case studies in Portugal, Landsc. Urban Plan., 76, 79, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.042 · DOI
  89. Andresen, 2004, The Alto Douro wine region greenway, Landsc. Urban Plan., 68, 289, 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00156-7 · DOI
  90. Oliveira, R. (July, January 30). Planning the Green Infrastructure of the Tagus River Estuary in Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Proceedings of the 5th Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  91. Shchekotova, 2015, Using GIS to create an ecological network in the Moscow region, InterCarto. InterGIS, 21, 599, 10.24057/2414-9179-2015-1-21-599-604 · DOI
  92. Marijanušić, K., Orlović, S., Kurjakov, A., Maja, L., and Pavlović, L. (July, January 30). Greenways in landscape planning—Case study: Municipality of Subotica. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  93. Tóth, A. (July, January 30). Greenways as Linear Components of Green Infrastructure in Rural Agricultural Landscapes of South-Western Slovakia. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  94. Miklós, L. (1995). The concept of the territorial system of ecological stability in Slovakia. Ecological and Landscape Consequences of Land Use Change in Europe. Proceedings of the ECNC Seminar on Land Use Change and Its Ecological Consequences, FAO.
  95. Chasco, F.R., and Meneses, A.S. (2009, January 8–10). Project for a greenway on the vasco-navarro railway. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Project Engineering, Badajoz, Spain.
  96. Gurrutxaga, 2010, GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning, J. Nat. Conserv., 18, 318, 10.1016/j.jnc.2010.01.005 · DOI
  97. Saura, 2008, Integrating landscape connectivity in broad-scale forest planning through a new graph-based habitat availability methodology: Application to capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Catalonia (NE Spain), Eur. J. Forest Res., 127, 23, 10.1007/s10342-006-0165-z · DOI
  98. Melero, 2018, Natura 2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors: The connectivity backbone of forest green infrastructure, Land Use Policy, 75, 429, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.002 · DOI
  99. Xiu, N., Ignatieva, M., and van den Bosch, C.K. (July, January 30). Planning and Design of Urban Green networks in Stockholm. Proceedings of the 5th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  100. Peterson, A., Gyllin, M., Haaland, C., and Larsson, A. (2010, January 30). Recreation in Swedish agricultural areas-public attitudes to multifunctional greenway design. Proceedings of the 3th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Budapest, Hungary.
  101. Shakouri, N., and Emin BARIS, M. (2013, January 12–13). The Importance of Urban Corridors in Improving the Green Infrastructure in Cities: Case Study Gaziantep-Turkey. Proceedings of the 4th Fabos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning, Amherst, MA, USA.
  102. Kurdoglu, 2016, Greenway planning process in the example of Toklu Valley, J. Environ. Prot. Ecol., 17, 611
  103. Yigiter, 2011, Greenway planning context in Istanbul-Haliç: A compulsory intervention into the historical green corridor of golden horn, Landsc. Res., 36, 341, 10.1080/01426397.2011.555529 · DOI
  104. Kurdoglu, 2010, Determining recreational, scenic, and historical–cultural potentials of landscape features along a segment of the ancient Silk Road using factor analyzing, Environ. Monit. Assess., 170, 99, 10.1007/s10661-009-1219-8 · DOI
  105. Baris, 2010, Greenways and the urban form: City of Ankara, Turkey, Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip., 24, 1657, 10.2478/V10133-010-0022-6 · DOI
  106. 2018, Multi-criteria decision-making for greenways: The case of Trabzon, Turkey, Plan. Prac. Res., 33, 326
  107. Turner, 2006, Greenway planning in Britain: Recent work and future plans, Landsc. Urban Plan., 76, 240, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.035 · DOI
  108. James, 2002, Frameworks, networks and the UK regional agenda: Nature planning for landscapes?, Landsc. Res., 27, 325, 10.1080/0142639022000023925 · DOI
  109. Ridel, 2007, National Ecological Network of Ukraine and the state of research on odonatofauna in protected territories, Wiadomości Entomologiczne, 26, 237

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Xu, H., Plieninger, T., & Primdahl, J.
Venue
Land
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-02-27
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
41
ISSN
2073-445X
DOI
10.3390/land8030041
Cited by
35
References
0
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review