| Literature DB >> 36231145 |
Muhammad Rayan1, Dietwald Gruehn1, Umer Khayyam2.
Abstract
Rising vulnerability of the urban green infrastructure (UGI) is grabbing global attention, for which inclusive urban landscape and greening policies (ULGP) and frameworks are crucial to support green growth. As such, this research intends to explore the local community's perspective to assemble sustainable UGI indicators for vital taxonomy of the urban green space (UGS) elements, aiming to develop a multi-functional and sustainable UGI-indicator-based framework that is eco-friendly and supports green-resilient cities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, Pakistan. An in-depth household survey was executed in three KP districts: Charsadda, Peshawar, and Mardan, placing self-administered 192 questionnaires while covering themes around climate change adaptation, urban resilience, and UGI. Relative importance index (RII) and the interquartile range (IQR) methods were set up for data analysis that revealed excellent reliability (α > 0.88) and internal consistency. The results confirmed community-based UGI indicators with a focus on promoting green-energy-saving strategies as e-imp (level 9, RII = 0.915), while other (ten) UGI indicators as important (RII = 0.811-0.894) and (eleven) as moderately important (RII = 0.738-0.792). These UGI indicators were found to be enhanced by UGS elements (RII ≥ 0.70). These findings provide a foundation for urban policy change and the development of a sustainable UGI framework to build an eco-regional paradigm for greener growth.Entities:
Keywords: KP, Pakistan; adaptation; climate change; community participation; urban green infrastructure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231145 PMCID: PMC9565737 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Flood-affected districts of KP province. Map Source: [24].
Figure A1Relationship among the anthropogenic activities and UGI for resilient cities. Source: [48].
Figure A2Conceptual base model: climate resilience strategies, ecosystem functions, human well-being, and GI elements. Source: [48].
List of concepts evolved from the semi-structured meetings with native experts.
| Mitigation of climate change | Adaptation to climate change | Water management |
| Green space networks | Ecosystem functions and services | Wildlife and biodiversity |
| Urban resilience | Organic food production | Energy-efficient building |
| Social cohesion/unity | A green economy |
Source: [34].
Population census of three districts of KP province.
| District | Tehsil | Town | Population | Geographic Data | Climate | Precipitation (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mardan | Mardan Tehsil | 1,403,394 | 34.2883° N, 72.1890° E | Humid subtropical | 400.3 | |
| Katlang Tehsil | 343,144 | 34.3521° N, 72.0764° E | ||||
| Takht Bhai Tehsil | 626,523 | 34.3314° N, 71.9046° E | ||||
| Charsadda | Charsadda Tehsil | 804,194 | 34.2165° N, 71.7148° E | |||
| Shabqadar Tehsil | 383,765 | 34.2186° N, 71.5546° E | ||||
| Tangi Tehsil | 428,239 | 34.3040° N, 71.6555° E | ||||
| Peshawar | Peshawar Tehsil ([ | Town 1 | 759,595 | 33.9437° N, 71.6199° E | 546.075 | |
| Town 2 | 547,807 | |||||
| Town 3 | 821,059 | |||||
| Town 4 | 435,940 | |||||
| Peshawar cant. | 70,741 |
Source: Authors’ compilation from the KP Bureau of Statistics (2018) [66], KP Local Government [71] and Pakistan Metrological department (2019) [72].
Figure 2District, tehsil, and union council map of Mardan, Charsadda, and Peshawar. Source: Authors’ compilation from [24,66].
Sampling size for the community survey.
| District | Tehsil | Tehsil Population | Union Council Population | Total No | Average | No of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mardan | Mardan | 1,403,394 | 411,148 | 399.6 | 6.2 | 64 |
| Charsadda | Charsadda | 804,194 | 350,483 | 399.5 | 7 | 57 |
| Peshawar | Town3 | 821,059 | 575,409 | 399.7 | 5.6 | 71 |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration, compilation the [66].
Figure 3Community HH survey strategy. Source: [34].
Socio-demographic analysis.
| Socio-Demographics | Total | Ratio |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 126 | 65.6 |
| Female | 43 | 22.4 |
| Diverse (the government of Pakistan recognizes the identification of “trans” as a third gender [ | 0 | 0 |
| Prefer not to say | 23 | 12 |
|
| ||
| Charsadda | 56 | 29.1 |
| Mardan | 46 | 24 |
| Peshawar | 67 | 34.9 |
| Not mention | 23 | 12 |
|
| ||
| No education to elementary | 0 | 0 |
| Secondary education (SSC) | 14 | 7.3 |
| Intermediate | 37 | 19.3 |
| Higher education | 141 | 73.4 |
| Other (informal) | 5 | 2.6 |
|
| ||
| 15–20 years | 0 | 0 |
| 20–30 years | 66 | 34.4 |
| 30–40 years | 84 | 43.8 |
| 40–50 years | 42 | 21.9 |
| 50–60 years | 14 | 7.3 |
Source: Authors’ calculation, using field data.
Figure 4Cronbach’s alpha reliability. Source: Authors’ calculation using field data.
Criterion of 9-point scale.
| 1 | Extremely unimportant | (e-unimp) | (0 ≤ RI < 0.2) |
| 2 | Moderately unimportant | (m-unimp) | (0.2 ≤ RI < 0.3) |
| 3 | Slightly unimportant | (s-unimp) | (0.3 ≤ RI < 0.4) |
| 4 | Unimportant | (unimp) | (0.4 ≤ RI < 0.5) |
| 5 | Low | (l) | (0.5 ≤ RI < 0.6) |
| 6 | Slightly important | (s-imp) | (0.6 ≤ RI < 0.7) |
| 7 | Moderately important | (m-imp) | (0.7 ≤ RI < 0.8) |
| 8 | Important | (imp) | (0.8 ≤ RI < 0.9) |
| 9 | Extremely important | (e-imp) | (0.9 ≤ RI ≤1) |
Source: [34].
Equation (1) A sample estimating the RII value of increasing pervious surfaces to optimize the stormwater management indicator.
| RII = ΣW/(N × A) … (1) |
| W = Likert scale weights: assigned by participants to each indicator (1 to 9). |
| N = Total number of samples |
| A = The highest value on a Likert scale. |
| RII = (9 × 93) + (8 × 42) + (7 × 21) + (6 × 18) + (5 × 8) + (−4 × 3) + (−3 × 3) + (−2 × 2) + (−1 × 2)/(192 × 9) = 0.834 |
| (as rated by a community member) |
Source: Authors’ calculation using field survey data.
RII value of sustainable UGI indicators.
| Categories | Urban Green Infrastructure Indicators | Particpants | Overall | Relative | Cut-Off Point. | Approved UGI | Rank | Level of Signifance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Interquartile Range | ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||
| i. “Increasing pervious surfaces” | 192 | 1441 | 0.834 | 0.80 | yes | 9 | 8 | |
| ii. “Minimize, retain and organically purified rainwater runoff”. | 192 | 1364 | 0.789 | 0.80 | no | 14 | 7 | |
|
| ||||||||
| iii. “Enhanced the quantity of the green spaces”. | 192 | 1517 | 0.878 | 0.80 | yes | 3 | 8 | |
| iv. “Use of evaporative materials on the roofs, walls and floors”. | 192 | 1287 | 0.745 | 0.80 | no | 19 | 7 | |
|
| ||||||||
| v. “Growing more green trees and installing a green barrier in a roadway”. | 192 | 1339 | 0.775 | 0.80 | no | 16 | 7 | |
|
| ||||||||
| vi. “Use a green sonic wall to reduce the minimum and maximum noise pollution. (i.e., thick hedges could be provided with a small meadow for minimum noise and for maximum noise reduction wide layers of bamboo and deciduous trees could be provided)”. | 192 | 1347 | 0.780 | 0.80 | no | 15 | 7 | |
|
| ||||||||
| vii. “Grow greater density of trees as shading and evaporating fabric for the paved surfaces”. | 192 | 1513 | 0.876 | 0.80 | yes | 4 | 8 | |
|
| ||||||||
| viii. “Promote green energy-saving strategies”. | 192 | 1581 | 0.915 | 0.80 | yes | 1 | 9 | |
|
| ||||||||
| ix. “Increase previous areas and plant trees to enhance soil stabilization”. | 192 | 1473 | 0.852 | 0.80 | yes | 6 | 8 | |
|
| ||||||||
| x. “Improve and strengthen the urban green network connectivity”. | 190 | 1430 | 0.836 | 0.80 | yes | 8 | 8 | |
|
|
| 192 | 1411 | 0.817 | 0.80 | yes | 10 | 8 |
|
| ||||||||
| ii. “Optimizing the recreation, and socialization activities”. | 192 | 1402 | 0.811 | 0.80 | yes | 11 | 8 | |
| iii. “Improved city’s appeal (through various green elements)”. | 192 | 1275 | 0.738 | 0.80 | no | 21 | 7 | |
|
| 192 | 1509 | 0.873 | 0.80 | yes | 5 | 8 | |
|
| 192 | 1304 | 0.755 | 0.80 | no | 18 | 7 | |
|
| 192 | 1287 | 0.745 | 0.80 | no | 19 | 7 | |
|
|
| 192 | 1244 | 0.720 | 0.80 | no | 22 | 7 |
|
| 192 | 1369 | 0.792 | 0.80 | no | 13 | 7 | |
|
| 192 | 1448 | 0.838 | 0.80 | yes | 7 | 8 | |
|
| 192 | 1544 | 0.894 | 0.80 | yes | 2 | 8 | |
|
| 192 | 1377 | 0.797 | 0.80 | no | 12 | 7 | |
|
| 192 | 1331 | 0.770 | 0.80 | no | 17 | 7 | |
Source: Authors’ calculation using field survey data. Significance level keys: 1—extremely unimportant; 2—moderately unimportant; 3—slightly unimportant; 4—unimportant; 5—low; 6—slightly important; 7—moderately important; 8—important; 9—extremely important.
Figure 5Defining climate change (CC). Source: Authors’ calculation using field data.
Figure 6Defining climate change adaptation. Source: Authors’ calculation using field data.
Figure 7Defining urban resilience. Source: Authors’ calculation using field data.
Figure 8Elucidating urban green infrastructure (UGI). Source: Authors’ calculation using field data.
RII values for each urban green space (UGS) element.
| Categories | Urban Green Infrastructure Indicators | Relative Index (RII) of UGS Elements | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community Garden | Botanical Garden | Urban Park | Forest | Green Streets | Rain Garden & | Green & Permeable Parking Area | Wetland | Green Roof & Green Wall | Horticultural | ||
|
|
| ||||||||||
| i. “Increasing pervious surfaces”. | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.76 | 0.6 | 0.81 | 0.56 | 0.59 | |
| ii. “Minimize, retain and organically-purified rainwater runoff”. | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.82 | 0.81 | 0.91 | 0.71 | 0.92 | 0.7 | 0.65 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| iii. “Enhanced the quantity of the green spaces”. | 0.7 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.9 | 0.67 | 0.48 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.65 | 0.58 | |
| iv. “Use of evaporative materials on the roofs, walls and floors”. | 0.65 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.86 | 0.63 | 0.91 | 0.82 | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.53 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| v. “Growing more green trees and installing a green barrier in a roadway”. | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.63 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| vi. “Use a green sonic wall to reduce the minimum and maximum noise pollution. (i.e., thick hedges could be provided with a small meadow for minimum noise and for maximum noise reduction wide layers of bamboo and deciduous trees could be provided)”. | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.74 | 0.91 | 0.69 | 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.6 | 0.64 | 0.61 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| vii. “Grow greater density of trees as shading and evaporating fabric for the paved surfaces”. | 0.73 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.65 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| viii. “Promote green energy-saving strategies”. | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.87 | 0.55 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| ix. ”Increase previous areas and plant trees to enhance soil stabilization”. | 0.73 | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.89 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.70 | |
|
| |||||||||||
| x. “Improve and strengthen the urban green network connectivity”. | 0.71 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.93 | 0.65 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.70 | |
|
|
| 0.87 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.76 | 0.53 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.45 | 0.61 | 0.82 |
|
| |||||||||||
| ii. “Optimizing the recreation, and socialization activities”. | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.41 | 0.30 | 0.68 | 0.71 | 0.69 | |
| iii. “Improved city’s appeal (through various green elements)”. | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.79 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.77 | 0.75 | 0.74 | |
|
| 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.81 | 0.89 | 0.75 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.61 | |
|
| 0.72 | 0.79 | 0.68 | 0.85 | 0.67 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.76 | |
|
| 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.55 | 0.58 | |
|
|
| 0.74 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.63 | 0.74 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.82 | 0.70 |
|
| 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.73 | 0.42 | 0.34 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.68 | |
|
| 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.45 | 0.33 | 0.55 | 0.90 | 0.61 | |
|
| 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.95 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.86 | 0.61 | 0.60 | |
|
| 0.66 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.79 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.71 | 0.53 | 0.53 | |
|
| 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.75 | 0.43 | 0.45 | 0.64 | 0.76 | 0.69 | |
Source: Authors’ calculation using field survey data.
Key Urban Green Space (UGS) elements.
| Categories | Urban Green Infrastructure Indicators | Interquartile Range (IQR) Methdology | Cut-Off Point. | Approved Number of UGS Elements | Approved Urban Green Space | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q3 | IQR = (Q3-Q1) | Mean | |||||
| i. “Increasing pervious surfaces”. | 0.61 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; RG; WL | |
| ii. “Minimize, retain and organically-purified rainwater runoff”. | 0.67 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | FO; GS; RG; GPA; WL; GRW. | |
| iii. “Enhanced the quantity of the green spaces”. | 0.59 | 0.72 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 4 | CG; BG; UP; FO. | |
| iv. “Use of evaporative materials on the roofs, walls and floors”. | 0.66 | 0.85 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | UP;FO;RG:GPA;WL; GRW | |
| v. “Growing more green trees and installing a green barrier in a roadway”. | 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS; GRW. | |
| vi. “Use a green sonic wall to reduce the minimum and maximum noise pollution. (i.e., thick hedges could be provided with a small meadow for minimum noise and for maximum noise reduction wide layers of bamboo and deciduous trees could be provided)”. | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 2 | FO; UP. | |
| vii. “Grow greater density of trees as shading and evaporating fabric for the paved surfaces”. | 0.64 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 5 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS. | |
| viii. “Promote green energy-saving strategies”. | 0.52 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 1 | GRW | |
| ix. “Increase previous areas and plant trees to enhance soil stabilization”. | 0.64 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; WL; HO. | |
| x. “Improve and strengthen the urban green network connectivity”. | 0.66 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; WL; HO. | |
| 0.47 | 0.74 | 0.61 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 3 | CP; FO; HO. | ||
| ii. “Optimizing the recreation, and socialization activities”. | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS; GRW | |
| iii. “Improved city’s appeal (through various green elements)”. | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 9 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS; RG; GRW; WL; HO. | |
| 0.63 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GR; WL | ||
| 0.67 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; FO; WL; GRW; HO | ||
| 0.56 | 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 5 | BG; FO; UP; GS; WL. | ||
| 0.58 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; GS; GRW; HO. | ||
| 0.67 | 0.79 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS; GRW. | ||
| 0.57 | 0.74 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 3 | FO; UP; GRWl. | ||
| 0.66 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 7 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS; RG; WL. | ||
| 0.53 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 5 | BG; FO; UP; GS; WL. | ||
| 0.65 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 6 | CG; BG; UP; FO; GS; GRW. | ||
Source: Authors’ calculation using field survey data Keys: CG: “community garden”; BG: “botanical garden”; UP: “urban park”; FO: “forest”; GS: “green streets”; RG: “rain garden and bio-swale”; GPA: “green permeable parking area”; WL: “wetland”; GRW: “green roofs and walls”.