淺談西班牙中型城市綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施戰(zhàn)略如何為公眾健康帶來福祉：拉科魯尼亞案例分析

撰文：（西班牙）佩德羅 · 卡爾拉薩 · 馬汀尼茲 （西班牙）路易斯 · 里貝羅翻譯：鄺嘉儒

Text by:Pedro Calaza-MARTíNEZ(ES) Luis RIBEIRO(ES) Translation by:KUANG Jia-ru

1 導(dǎo)言

聯(lián)合國人口活動(dòng)基金會的最新一份數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)表明，從2010年起，世界上超50%的人口都居住在城市區(qū)域。盡管城市確實(shí)能夠?yàn)槿藗兲峁┒喾N機(jī)遇，如就業(yè)和增長知識、文化等，但它們也有消極的一面，如生活節(jié)奏快，休閑區(qū)域缺乏，社會凝聚力低下以及公眾健康狀況不良。在全球可持續(xù)發(fā)展的框架內(nèi)，有許多戰(zhàn)略都在嘗試解決上述問題并設(shè)法建設(shè)更健康的城市，其中最突出的是綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施（GI）戰(zhàn)略。眾所周知，雖然不同學(xué)者對綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的概念與內(nèi)涵看法各不相同（本尼迪克特與麥瑪宏，2006；修維斯特，2009），但綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施仍然是一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的多層次規(guī)劃戰(zhàn)略，正在全球范圍內(nèi)以迅猛之勢蓬勃發(fā)展。大量科學(xué)性與技術(shù)性研究已經(jīng)證明，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施及其各組成部分如綠色廊道、公園、花園等，都擁有多種功能性（法布士，1995；茲歐拉斯等，2007），形成一個(gè)能夠帶來包括公眾健康（PH）在內(nèi)的多利益復(fù)雜系統(tǒng)。

通過分析西班牙東北部拉科魯尼亞市（LGG）的案例（圖01），我們認(rèn)為市級與省級的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施戰(zhàn)略可能是解決中型城市現(xiàn)有問題，如人口密度高、特殊城市外觀、地理選址及人口心理障礙等的合適方法。它產(chǎn)生的公眾健康利益是雙面的：預(yù)防與經(jīng)濟(jì)節(jié)約。

2 背景與文獻(xiàn)綜述

我們知道，快速城市化已經(jīng)對公眾健康與社會福利產(chǎn)生重大的影響。為了使人口適應(yīng)多種復(fù)雜環(huán)境，人造環(huán)境已經(jīng)取代了自然環(huán)境。而這一情況在更加過度擁擠的城市中更為嚴(yán)重。這些城市幾乎沒有公共空間以供體育鍛煉，加上熱島反應(yīng)頻繁，污染更加嚴(yán)重等原因，其疾病的發(fā)生概率比其他城市更高。正是這些類似LCG的城市，由于缺乏合適的區(qū)域，無法為居民提供有利的環(huán)境，因而不能產(chǎn)生各種像保守治療與公眾健康預(yù)防系統(tǒng)那樣有價(jià)值的、協(xié)同運(yùn)作的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)利益。

越來越多科學(xué)證據(jù)表明，與各種類型的綠色空間（GS）互動(dòng)能夠明顯改善健康，或用伊里治 弗洛姆與威爾遜（1984）的原創(chuàng)詞來說，能夠“親身感受（biophilic feeling）”到健康的改善（圖02）。而馬斯等人（2006）的研究證實(shí)，人們居住環(huán)境中的綠色空間數(shù)量與人們的健康意識之間存在著正比關(guān)系。其他研究則表示，居住在設(shè)有綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施環(huán)境的居民，其人均壽命比較長，更喜歡進(jìn)行體育活動(dòng)，而且更健康。如果我們?nèi)杂浀檬澜缧l(wèi)生組織（WHO）對健康的定義：“健康不僅為疾病或羸弱之消除，而系體格、精神與社會之完全健康狀態(tài)”，那么我們能夠推斷，公眾健康與城市綠色規(guī)劃之間存在著直接的聯(lián)系，因?yàn)榻】当欢x為是一種不僅僅是身體（生物方面）與心理現(xiàn)象，更是一種社會現(xiàn)象。

我們必須意識到，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施帶來的其中一個(gè)利益是保護(hù)脆弱人群免受各種能夠引起疾病的因素的影響，即在疾病發(fā)生前所實(shí)施的公眾健康系統(tǒng)“初級預(yù)防干預(yù)（PPI）”。這在經(jīng)濟(jì)節(jié)約與防治疾病的方面上是最有效的。這一觀點(diǎn)來自于PH概念的創(chuàng)始人——魏爾嘯氏。因此，我們贊同庫普斯瓦米（2009）關(guān)于綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的想法。庫普斯瓦米認(rèn)為，人們十分有必要去評估影響人們健康的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施與能夠促進(jìn)城市規(guī)劃的跨學(xué)科研究的健康服務(wù)預(yù)算兩者的潛在經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值。

國土規(guī)劃方法旨在結(jié)合灰色與綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。眾多研究與理論認(rèn)為，在城市尺度上運(yùn)用該方法的優(yōu)勢是明顯的：它通過利用技術(shù)與科學(xué)指導(dǎo)方針，使城市更加現(xiàn)代化、環(huán)境更加優(yōu)美，正如莫森·莫斯塔法威所說——?jiǎng)?chuàng)造“生態(tài)都市主義”，或者如查爾斯·瓦爾德海姆或詹姆斯·康納所述——?jiǎng)?chuàng)造“景觀都市主義”，以期“城中有景，景中有城”的效果。同時(shí)，國土規(guī)劃方法在景觀規(guī)劃與設(shè)計(jì)條理清晰的綠道（法布士，1995）與綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施概念（本尼迪克特與麥瑪宏，2006）中的優(yōu)勢亦是如此。簡言之，這一觀點(diǎn)的結(jié)果顯然是多層次（自治區(qū)，區(qū)域，州……）以及多功能的，因?yàn)樗軒聿煌愋偷睦?，例如：?）氣候變化的影響最小化：溫度調(diào)節(jié)和二氧化碳、揮發(fā)性有機(jī)污染物（VOC）以及臭氧的固化；（2）區(qū)域重建；（3）保護(hù)生物多樣性與野生動(dòng)植物；（4）增強(qiáng)社會互動(dòng)，社會內(nèi)涵以及社會凝聚力（佛威斯特研究，2008）；（5）促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長與投資。但或許最重要的一點(diǎn)是本文研究的宗旨——公眾健康與福利。綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是改善生理與心理健康的關(guān)鍵。相關(guān)證據(jù)表明，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施能夠提高生活質(zhì)量，改善心理健康，改善社會福利，延長平均壽命等。眾多研究證實(shí)，植被能夠防治哮喘等多種疾病，并能降低溫度，使曬傷與皮膚癌的發(fā)生概率最小化。茲歐拉斯等人（2007）對綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的實(shí)施以及公眾健康的不同方面（心血管、免疫、呼吸、消化、骨骼、壓力、積極情緒、注意力以及認(rèn)知能力）進(jìn)行了研究。在放松、抗抑郁以及促進(jìn)總體健康的方面上，綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的作用尤其明顯（斯提格斯多特，2005）。此外，里貝羅與戴亞斯（2010）認(rèn)為，綠色廊道所帶來的利益能夠有效地確保都市景觀正常運(yùn)作，以改善城市質(zhì)量，從而提高城市競爭力。此外，這一主題還有一個(gè)重要的觀點(diǎn)，即綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的選址與可達(dá)性。目前已有不少研究與實(shí)踐直接講述了綠色區(qū)域的尺寸、質(zhì)量以及選址是如何改善生活質(zhì)量與公眾健康（馬斯等人，2006）。所有的這些利益都有力地證明，上述論據(jù)都能夠作為國土規(guī)劃變化方案的基礎(chǔ)，并在規(guī)劃中增加自然元素，如大規(guī)模種植樹木，正如在紐約實(shí)施的規(guī)劃一樣（威爾斯，2012）。

圖01 拉科魯尼亞：a 地址；b地貌。Fig.01 La Coru?a:(a) Location.(b) Physiognomy.

圖02 享受自然的人們。關(guān)系：人+自然+綠色國土規(guī)劃：公眾健康+福利。Fig.02 People enjoy nature.Biophilic relationship:people+nature+green territorial planning:public health+welfare.

在市級層次實(shí)施綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施戰(zhàn)略相當(dāng)于一個(gè)更有效的、富有競爭力利益的綜合規(guī)劃，它能夠增強(qiáng)區(qū)域特征，改善區(qū)域連接性與凝聚力，保護(hù)生物多樣性，最大程度減少生境破碎，使生態(tài)更具連貫性與保護(hù)性。上述的設(shè)想已有一部分被不同的學(xué)者所分析，例如里貝羅與巴拉奧（2006）。另一方面，它包括了保護(hù)地標(biāo)與人口特性的戰(zhàn)略，還包括預(yù)防城市景觀與城市庸常化的戰(zhàn)略。“城市庸?；╱rbanalización）”一詞是由西班牙地理學(xué)家弗朗西斯·穆諾茲通過結(jié)合“城市化（urbanización）”與“庸?；╞analización）”這兩個(gè)西班牙名詞而得來的。結(jié)合上述所有觀點(diǎn)，我們提出了一個(gè)理論，即綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施能夠很大程度上幫助改善公眾健康與生活質(zhì)量，從而達(dá)到經(jīng)濟(jì)節(jié)約的效果。因此，我們必須保證人們都能夠輕松方便地與這種空間形成互動(dòng)。

3 目的與目標(biāo)

本研究的主要目的是，通過拉科魯尼亞的案例分析，探索、概念化并證明綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施是提高城市競爭力、改善生活質(zhì)量的必要規(guī)劃戰(zhàn)略，是全面預(yù)防與減少公眾健康問題的關(guān)鍵，更是經(jīng)濟(jì)節(jié)約的有效手段。我們的目標(biāo)是，將這些戰(zhàn)略整合實(shí)施到像拉科魯尼亞市這樣擁有單一外表特征、單一尺寸與單一類型的綠色空間的高人口密度中型城市中，并對其實(shí)施的可持續(xù)性進(jìn)行研究。這一措施能夠保障綠色空間的可達(dá)性和生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的連接性。

圖03 拉科魯尼亞市關(guān)于綠色空間的可達(dá)性與最小尺寸的適用性研究圖表。Fig.03 Scheme of the study of applicability at LCG in terms of accessibility and minimum size.

圖04 18世紀(jì)以來拉科魯尼亞市的國土城市規(guī)劃發(fā)展。Fig.04 Territorial urban planning evolution of La Coru?a since XVIII century.

此外，我們還以聯(lián)合國教科文組織的世界生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)候選案例“拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)”為例子，研究了為當(dāng)?shù)鼐G色戰(zhàn)略增添連續(xù)性的可能性。拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)是具有高度自然價(jià)值的樞紐中心，同時(shí)也是將西班牙北部的生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)從庇里牛斯山脈延伸到大西洋的重要區(qū)域。

4 研究方法

我們所使用的方法包括，對拉科魯尼亞市新總體規(guī)劃與綠色系統(tǒng)現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析與評估。根據(jù)歐洲標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，從綠色空間的連接性、影響的區(qū)域、空間的分布、類型、可達(dá)性以及協(xié)調(diào)性等幾個(gè)不同方面進(jìn)行分析。

我們使用SWOT分析，評估綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施規(guī)劃中必須考慮的不同變量，同時(shí)還應(yīng)用了綠色空間分布的地域分析。為了研究綠色廊道以及綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施對于公眾健康的重要性，我們利用GVSIG項(xiàng)目，以可達(dá)性為依據(jù)，把距離最小的綠色區(qū)域300m為最大距離作為參考，對綠色廊道與綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施對于拉科魯尼亞市的適用性進(jìn)行了評估。該方法是由CE（ECI,2003）提議、根據(jù)自然英格蘭機(jī)構(gòu)的可達(dá)自然綠色空間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（ANGST ）和其他的學(xué)術(shù)研究來制定的（圖03）。

根據(jù)UE的推薦，我們選定的綠色區(qū)域的最小尺寸為5 000m2（除了交通中央分隔帶以及難以到達(dá)的綠色區(qū)域之外）。這一尺寸能夠滿足人們在遠(yuǎn)離都市繁囂的自然環(huán)境中進(jìn)行各種能夠預(yù)防糖尿病與高膽固醇等疾病的體育活動(dòng)，如散步或慢跑最少30分鐘等。

另外，我們對還劃定了能夠改善可達(dá)性的潛在生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)、各種樞紐（自然樞紐、歷史樞紐或社會價(jià)值樞紐）以及最具有農(nóng)業(yè)氣息的、能夠提供大量綠色元素的連接點(diǎn)。這一方法隨著西班牙其他城市綠色戰(zhàn)略分析提出的觀點(diǎn)而得到了補(bǔ)充。

5 結(jié)果

表01 拉科魯尼亞市綠色空間面積分布

5.1 改善拉科魯尼亞市（LCG）綠色規(guī)劃的必要性

在歐洲，有許多不同層次的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施實(shí)施舉措與建議（馬薩等人，2011；諾曼等人，2011），并逐日在不同情況得到應(yīng)用。它們雖各具特色，但由于各種現(xiàn)實(shí)障礙，如技術(shù)障礙、財(cái)政障礙、物理障礙與法律障礙，或僅僅是因?yàn)閷@一領(lǐng)域的知識認(rèn)識不深而非都大獲成功，但總體來說這些障礙都是可以克服的。拉科魯尼亞市作為最具城市化的自治區(qū)，是眾多高密度（6 417居住人口/km2）中型城市（310 000常住人口）的案例中比較值得關(guān)注的一個(gè)。該市的綠色空間在尺寸、外觀（半島）與類型上都十分獨(dú)特，為城市帶來了別致的特色。但當(dāng)談及綠色空間結(jié)構(gòu)改善、綠色系統(tǒng)規(guī)劃與管理優(yōu)化，拉科魯尼亞市同樣存在著一定的困難。

拉科魯尼亞市擁有良好的海（傳統(tǒng)港口與新的對外港口）、陸（N VI與A9）、空（阿爾維德羅機(jī)場）交通基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，但其轄區(qū)面積卻十分有限（97.83 km2）。這不僅阻礙了該市的空間增長，同時(shí)引起了大量問題。實(shí)際上，拉科魯尼亞市是西班牙人口密度最大的城市之一，其人口比1900年已經(jīng)翻了五番。該市現(xiàn)狀與歷史發(fā)展的研究顯示，該市的國土開發(fā)與自然之間的整合其實(shí)并不協(xié)調(diào)（圖04）。

圖05 a 拉科魯尼亞市綠色區(qū)域的空間分布；b 綠色空間的可達(dá)性分析（面積＞5 000m2，距離＜300m）與重點(diǎn)區(qū)域標(biāo)記；c 綠色廊道網(wǎng)絡(luò)，PGOM 2012的高園以及樞紐中心整合與連接提案。Fig.05 (a) Spatial distribution of green areas in La Coru?a.(b) Accessibility analysis to green spaces with S >5 000 m2 and distance <300m.Critic zones identification. (c) Green corridors network,Parque Alto of PGOM 2012 and proposal of hubs (natural,historic and cultural) incorporation and connections.

拉科魯尼亞市的新總體規(guī)劃（PGOM）提出了上述方法，雖然它有點(diǎn)偏離學(xué)術(shù)方向，且也是一種建設(shè)性建議，只是從一個(gè)更加復(fù)雜的角度，提出了綠道規(guī)劃中連接性、功能性、公共健康和可達(dá)性等有限的建議，但該總體規(guī)劃是一個(gè)帶著充足提案的有趣開端。

另外一個(gè)影響拉科魯尼亞市的重要障礙是加利西亞顯著的農(nóng)村特征，特別是城郊區(qū)域。然而，反過來說，這又是一個(gè)能夠連接更加城市化的區(qū)域的巨大優(yōu)勢。這一優(yōu)勢已極大程度上強(qiáng)調(diào)了綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施不同部分的心理認(rèn)知，這意味著拉科魯尼亞市的人們其實(shí)并不理解這種國土規(guī)劃的意義所在。

同樣地，如果該綠色系統(tǒng)與附近區(qū)域縫合起來，充分利用世界生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)候選案例“拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)”的優(yōu)勢（例如毗鄰各自治區(qū)）的話，將能夠增加西班牙北部生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的連續(xù)性，一直連接至大西洋。

5.2 空間分析

通過對拉科魯尼亞市的綠色空間的初步分析，我們有了足夠的信息來確定人們的需求是否得到滿足，各區(qū)域的綠色系統(tǒng)是否需要改善。為此，我們以300m的影響區(qū)域（除去中央隔離島與難以到達(dá)的區(qū)域）為基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了第二次分析。通過GIS分析，我們確定了能夠制定精確方案（圖05a）以保證所有人對綠色空間的可達(dá)性。

研究結(jié)果表明，拉科魯尼亞市目前的人均公園面積比是8.2m2/人，與世界衛(wèi)生組織規(guī)定的數(shù)值十分接近。雖然國際上對于這一數(shù)據(jù)的見解各有不同，例如，阿伯克龍比在其倫敦規(guī)劃（1943-1944）上就建議最好的數(shù)值是16.2m2/人。而目前發(fā)達(dá)國家所使用的綠色空間通用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是人均20m2的公園面積。如果我們采用這一通用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，那么意味著我們?nèi)孕韪冻龃罅康呐Α?/p>

據(jù)我們預(yù)算，盡管該市大部分都是小型綠色空間。但它的綠色區(qū)域空間分布是充分。因此，我們以GIS分析的結(jié)果為基礎(chǔ)，對這些關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了分析（圖05b），這是因?yàn)樾⌒途G色空間同樣也十分重要。傅與趙（2010）在他們的研究中指出，人們通常都更習(xí)慣于在這些小型綠色空間上休閑與鍛煉，因?yàn)橄鄬τ诰嚯x遠(yuǎn)的大型綠色空間，人們更喜歡更方便到達(dá)小型綠色空間。

雖然大多數(shù)公園與花園都是小于1 000m2的微型空間，但總體來說拉科魯尼亞市的公園與花園系統(tǒng)的分布是相當(dāng)廣泛的（表01）。實(shí)際上，幾乎100%的居民都能夠在半徑為300m的范圍內(nèi)接觸到綠色空間（任何類型與尺寸），但幾乎沒有人能夠接觸到最小面積為5 000m2的公園，因?yàn)樗械拇笮凸珗@都只建造在城市最邊緣的區(qū)域。這些公園一部分是通過利用廢棄軍事設(shè)施而進(jìn)行設(shè)計(jì)的，如面積達(dá)205 000m2的圣佩德羅公園（圖06），它從某種意義上保護(hù)了該地的自然生物多樣性。面積為600 000m2的本斯公園則是通過老市政區(qū)域設(shè)計(jì)設(shè)計(jì)改造而成（圖07），其前身是一個(gè)廢棄城市垃圾填埋場，而面積為50 000m2的圣瑪格麗塔公園則來自舊城市野營區(qū)的改造。

圖06 圣佩德羅公園（廢棄軍事用地）：a 俯瞰圖；b 迷宮。Fig.06 San Pedro?s park (old military battery).:(a)Aerial view.(b) Maze.

圖07 本斯公園（廢棄城市垃圾堆填區(qū)）。Fig.07 Ben′s park (old municipal garbage dump).

圖08 LCG的潛在樞紐中心示意圖與改善綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的綠色連接點(diǎn)。Fig.08 Scheme of the potential hubs in LCG and green connection points to improve green infrastructure.

不同的公園區(qū)域能夠充當(dāng)不同樞紐中心（圖08），經(jīng)過確定，我們將其分成3個(gè)類別：（1）自然區(qū)域：德洛斯·羅薩萊斯公園、海格力士塔公園、波蒂諾木棧道、埃米尼亞塔。（2）歷史花園：門德斯努涅斯花園（1867）（圖09a）、圣卡洛斯花園（1834）（圖09b）、阿茲卡拉格廣場（約1896）。（3）文化公園：海格力士公園（世界遺產(chǎn)）（圖10）與卡斯特羅埃爾維納遺址（圖11）。這些核心公園由廊道連接，成為了空間上互相聯(lián)系的新系統(tǒng)支柱，為人們帶來全新空間與享受自然的新機(jī)遇。

除了數(shù)量之外，一個(gè)至關(guān)重要的因素是公園的質(zhì)量。在這個(gè)意義上來看，拉科魯尼亞市市政府的投資是十分慷慨的，因?yàn)樗俏靼嘌浪惺姓?，對公園管理的投資比率（歐元/平方米）最高的市政府，而且投資的效果在人們看來也是十分積極的。

對于綠色廊道，我們也對PGOM提案進(jìn)行了分析，并用更現(xiàn)實(shí)的綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施概念對其進(jìn)行了補(bǔ)充。然而，由于拉科魯尼亞市的城市類型，它有時(shí)是不可行的。另一方面，根據(jù)初步空間分析顯示，在被聯(lián)合國教科文組織選為生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)的地區(qū)，可以增加綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的建設(shè)（圖12-13）。

6 西班牙其他實(shí)踐的分析

我們對在西班牙實(shí)施的其他實(shí)踐活動(dòng)進(jìn)行了分析。由于歷史發(fā)展、形態(tài)學(xué)、物理環(huán)境、人口、預(yù)算等因素，這些分析都存在大量的決疑論特征。我們根據(jù)相似性或?qū)启斈醽喪械膯l(fā)性為基礎(chǔ)，選取了其中3個(gè)實(shí)踐的例子。

維多利亞市的居住人口與拉科魯尼亞市十分接近（243 298人），而密度相對較小，約840人/km2。該市的綠色規(guī)劃是西班牙的范例，而且被譽(yù)為“綠色歐洲之都（2012）”。該市的城市綠帶是上世紀(jì)90年代初的一個(gè)宏大計(jì)劃的成果，是一組擁有高生態(tài)與景觀價(jià)值的、由廊道相互連接的郊區(qū)公園。最近的一個(gè)研究表明，維多利亞市的城市綠帶在某種程度上能夠讓人們在穿越到城市另外一個(gè)地方時(shí)享受到西班牙最好的生活質(zhì)量。該研究調(diào)查了西班牙30個(gè)城市，涉及11項(xiàng)相關(guān)指標(biāo)，并指出最大的擔(dān)憂在于公眾健康。

這一例子使我們感到興趣的原因是，其一體化管理、公共廣播草案、社會參與方案以及空間奇異性能夠啟發(fā)像拉科魯尼亞這樣的城市。而且其政府決策者正以聯(lián)合國教科文組織所宣布的生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)為例子，對形成高地綠帶的區(qū)域整合進(jìn)行研究。該研究的其中一個(gè)目的是精確地分析LCG綠色系統(tǒng)與拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)的每一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)。

另外一個(gè)例子是巴倫西亞。該市擁有較高的城市密度（5 995.7人/km2），而且都市區(qū)由4個(gè)宏偉的景觀聚合而成，環(huán)境優(yōu)美，擁有優(yōu)質(zhì)景觀資源。他們嘗試將景觀與城市環(huán)境以及農(nóng)業(yè)、文化與自然空間連接起來并進(jìn)行共同保護(hù)，用的就是我們案例中關(guān)于樞紐中心中提議的方法。最后一個(gè)例子是穆爾西亞自治區(qū)（430 571居住人口）。雖然它只是一個(gè)區(qū)域性的實(shí)踐，但其在參與的歐洲項(xiàng)目（保護(hù)與享受自然）中關(guān)于運(yùn)用財(cái)政、技術(shù)與政治手段實(shí)行綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施措施的實(shí)踐方面上引起了我們濃厚的興趣。

圖0 9 歷史樞紐中心：a 門德斯努涅斯歷史花園（1867）；b 圣卡洛斯歷史花園（1834）。Fig.09 Historical hubs:(a) Mendez Nú?ez historical garden(1867).(b) San Carlos Historical gardens (1834).

圖10 海格力士塔（世界遺產(chǎn)）。公元前1世紀(jì)。文化樞紐中心。Fig.10 Hercules′ Tower (World Heritage).1st century BC.Cultural hub.

圖11 卡斯特羅埃爾維納遺址（公元前3世紀(jì)），文化樞紐中心。Fig.11 Castro de Elvi?a(3rd century AC.),Cultural hub.

圖12 UNESCO劃分的生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)中“拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)”的典型景觀圖。Fig.12 View of typical landscape of“Mari?as coru?esas e Terras do Mandeo”declared Reserve Biosphere by UNESCO.

圖13 拉科魯尼亞市的城市空間與城郊農(nóng)業(yè)區(qū)域連接的可能性，以及西班牙保護(hù)空間網(wǎng)絡(luò)。Fig.13 Potentiality of La Coru?a city spatial connection with the peripheral agricultural zones and network of protected spaces in Spain.

圖14 新城市規(guī)劃：綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施、人、城市、健康以及福利。Fig.14 New Urban planning:Green infrastructure,people,cities,health and welfare.

圖15 梅拉燈塔（拉科魯尼亞）。UNESCO劃分的生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)中“拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)”的典型景觀圖。Fig.15 Lighthouse at Mera (La Coru?a).Typical landscape of“Mari?as coru?esas e Terras do Mandeo”declared Reserve Biosphere by UNESCO.

7 SWOT分析

7.1 優(yōu)勢

（1）物理環(huán)境十分適合國土規(guī)劃與自然環(huán)境的整合。環(huán)境的回應(yīng)能力十分快。（2）城市的地貌能夠允許建設(shè)藍(lán)色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。（3）在更多的鄉(xiāng)村區(qū)域能夠進(jìn)行外延發(fā)展規(guī)劃。（4）城市再生敏感度高。

7.2 劣勢

（1）對綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施概念與原則的忽視。由于沒有全球規(guī)劃與明確的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，造成部門間缺乏對話溝通。（2）土地地貌單一，使規(guī)劃變得復(fù)雜。（3）城市類別（街道狹窄，開放空間少等）。（4）城市密度高。（5）歷史規(guī)劃脫節(jié)。（6）法律與財(cái)政制度。

7.3 機(jī)會

（1）信息與教育；社會參與；社會意識覺醒。（2）國土規(guī)劃使城市親近最具有農(nóng)業(yè)與自然氣息的環(huán)境。（3）具有歷史、自然或文化重要性的樞紐中心的認(rèn)同與存在。（4）由生態(tài)系統(tǒng)利益帶來的管理成本節(jié)省。（5）公眾健康與生活質(zhì)量的提高。健康的影響評估對于政治評價(jià)決策來說十分重要也十分有用。（6）申報(bào)“拉科魯尼亞海洋與陸地生物圈保護(hù)區(qū)”的可能性。（7）經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)興的潛力。

7.4 威脅

（1）經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)。（2）社會壓力。心理障礙。（3）特殊利益。（4）新城市干預(yù)斷章取義。（5）缺乏評估健康利益的方法，影響其實(shí)施。

8 討論與總結(jié)

目前，已有大量研究證實(shí)了在類似拉科魯尼亞市這樣的密集城市整合與實(shí)施綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施策略的必要性，因?yàn)檫@些策略能夠改善公眾健康，提升生活質(zhì)量與景觀質(zhì)量，并作為一個(gè)有競爭力的全球優(yōu)勢為城市服務(wù)。

綜合前期的研究工作，結(jié)合SWOT矩陣圖與地理研究，我們可以看到，在拉科魯尼亞市建設(shè)綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施存在著巨大的戰(zhàn)略機(jī)遇。通過實(shí)施這一戰(zhàn)略，人們就能夠方便到達(dá)并使用300m以內(nèi)的尺寸為5 000m2以上的大型綠色空間。這樣，既達(dá)到歐洲標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，也改善了公眾健康（圖14）。

同時(shí)，我們還了解到實(shí)施區(qū)域性規(guī)劃以增強(qiáng)西班牙南部保護(hù)區(qū)域的空間連續(xù)性，進(jìn)而連接到大西洋的必要性（圖15）。我們必須通過各種教育活動(dòng)改變?nèi)藗儗G色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施規(guī)劃的理解，通過將西班牙人的現(xiàn)有觀念從“公共設(shè)備”轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椤熬G色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施”，不斷發(fā)揚(yáng)與宣傳綠色基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的概念及其帶來的廣大利益。

1 Introduction

The last UNFPA statistical data showed that over the 50% of the world's population has lived in urban areas since 2010.Although it's true that cities offer multiple opportunities (jobs,knowledge,culture,…) also it is true that they have a negative aspect in everything related with the fast pace of life,the lack of leisure areas,the social incohesion and public health.Among the different alternatives that may be suggested to try to minimize this problem and look for more healthy cities,inside a global sustainability framework,stands out the green infrastructure (GI).As we know,green infrastructure,regardless of their different conceptual approaches and contexts,discussed deeply by many authors (Benedict and McMahon,2006;Sylwester,2009),is a strong multiscale planning strategy whose use is booming in the international panorama.Undeniably,both GI and its various components as green corridors,parks,gardens,etc ...have a strong nature of multifunctionality that is supported by numerous scientific and technical studies (Fabos,1995;Tzoulas et al.2007) and form a complex system that produces multiple benefits,including public health (PH).

In a case study of the city of La Coru?a(northeast of Spain,Fig.01) (LCG),we have analyzed as the approach of GI on a municipal and provincial scale may be the suitable solution to numerous existing problems in medium-sized cities,with a high population density and with some appearance peculiarities,geographical siting and psychology barriers,connecting it with the benefits that are generated to public health in a double aspect:prevention and economical savings.

2 Background and Literature Review

We are aware that the rapid urbanization has caused numerous changes in public health and in social welfare because the nature has been replaced with modern environments,holding the population up to complicated situations.This fact is aggravated in more overcrowded cities with little public space where the incidence of diseases is greater owing to a lack of space to practice sports,heat island effect,greater level of pollution,etc.It is the case of cities as LCG which do not offer,in general,some appropriate surroundings for the inhabitants above all because they lack suitable areas that cause numerous and valuable ecosystemic benefits that work synergistically like palliative of diseases and systems of public health prevention.

A rising body of scientific evidences suggests that the contact with green spaces (GS) in its different typologies improves the health visibly,perhaps,by the biophilic feeling,a term coined by Erich Fromm and Wilson (1984) (Fig.02).A study of Maas et al.(2006) shows a positive relationship among the number of green spaces in the environment where people live and their health perception.Other studies show that the residents of areas with a suitable GI have a longer longevity,do more physical activity and are healthier.If we remember the definition adopted by the WHO:"health is a state of complete physical,mental,and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity",we can deduce a direct connection with the green planning of the cities because health is considered as a phenomenon not only somatic (biological) and psychological,but also social.

It is important to keep in mind that one of the GI benefits is to protect vulnerable populations from factors that cause diseases,that is,the primary preventive intervention (PPI) of a public health system that is applied before disease occurs,as a result the most effective one,in economic savings and the fight against these diseases.This perspective appears from the PH origins and has been considered by its founders as Virchow.Therefore,we share the ideas of Kuppuswamy (2009) who indicates that there exists a clear need to evaluate the potential economic implications of the GI linked to health effects and the budget of health services facilitating interdisciplinary studies for urban planning.

The advantage of the use of territorial planning approaches that it is aimed at the hybridization between grey and green infrastructure is evident,on an urban scale,in numerous studies and theories that pursue the use of technical and scientific guidelines to make a more modern urbanism and nicer environments,or as Mohsen Mostafavi quoted,an ecological urbanism,landscape urbanism according to Charles Waldheim or James Corner approaches,looking for "landscape in the city and the city in the landscape" and,in a landscape planning and design more coherent in the conceptual line of the greenways (Fábos,1995)and green infrastructure (Benedict and McMahon,2006).The result of this perspective,in short,and by definition is multiscalar (municipality,region,state…) and multifunctional because it generates different types of benefits such as a) minimize the effects of climate change:temperature regulation,fixation of CO2,VOCs and O3,b) regeneration territories;c) conservation of biodiversity and wildlife,d) improving interaction,inclusion and social cohesion (Forest Research,2008),e)economic growth and investment.But perhaps one of the most important is the aim of this paper:f) public health and well-being,GI is the key for improvement both physically and psychologically,recognition based on a body of evidences that shows that it can improve the quality of life,psychological health,welfare,increase life expectancy,etc.Many studies show that the use of vegetation is suitable to fight these diseases such as asthma and to minimize the presence of sunburn and skin cancer by lowering the temperature.Tzoulas et al.(2007) studied the implementation of GI and public health in its different variants(cardiovascular,immune,respiratory,digestive,skeletal,stress,positive emotions,attention and cognitive ability).In particular,it is associated with relaxation and to combat depression and promote general health (Stigsdotter,2005).Furthermore,Ribeiro and Dias (2010) argue that the benefits generated by green corridors can strongly contribute to place the urban landscape on the right track to improve the quality of cities and therefore its competitiveness.Another important point in this topic is the location and accessibility;there are different studies and experiences that relate directly the size,quality and location of green areas improvements in quality of life and public health(Maas et al.,2006).All these benefits represent convincing arguments that can serve as base for change proposals in territorial planning and to add new natural elements like thousands of trees,as it happened in New York (Wells,2012).

The implementation of GI strategies at municipal level represents a competitive benefit of comprehensive planning more effective that reinforces the areas character,improves the connectivity and the cohesivity,the biodiversity,minimizes the fragmentation and works in more rational parameters of ecological coherence and of preservation,part of these proposals has been analyzed by different authors like Ribero and Barao(2006).And the other hand,it includes strategies to protect the landmarks,population identity and to avoid deterioration processes of urban landscape,of urbanalización,term coined by the Spanish geographer Frances Mu?oz who combines the two Spanish words urbanización (urbanization)and banalización (trivialize).Through all these perspectives,we put forward a thesis that GI can contribute significantly to improve public health and quality of life,with the consequent economical savings,for that,the accessibility of all population to this kind of spaces must be guaranteed.

3 Goals and Objectives

The main purpose of this study is to explore,conceptualize and show,through LCG's case study,that GI is a necessary planning strategy for improving competitiveness and quality of life and are the key to reduce public health problems in its double aspect,prevention and an economical savings.Our objective is to consider the suitability of integrating these approaches in medium-sized cities with a high population density and with singular characteristics of appearance,size and types of green spaces such as the city of La Coru?a.An incorporation that allows to suggest strategies to guarantee the accessibility of all the citizens to green spaces and guarantee the ecological connectivity.

Moreover,the possibility of suturing and giving continuity to this green local strategy with the candidacy of "Mari?as coru?esas e Terras do Mandeo" for World Biosphere Reserve by Unesco is being studied,because it represents a hub with natural value and the opening of Northern Spain ecological network which extends from Pyrenees to the Atlantic Ocean.

4 Methods

The methodology involves the analysis and estimation of the current state of the green system and the new masterplan of La Coru?a.The analysis is drawn from different perspectives:continuity of the system of green spaces,areas of influence,spatial distribution,type,accessibility and harmonization with European standards.

A SWOT analysis to evaluate the different variables that had to be taken into account in the proposal of the GI planning and a territorial analysis of green spaces distribution were used.To study the thesis that the green corridors and the GI are very important to the improvement of the PH,it was evaluated,by means of the GVSIG program,its applicability to La Coru?a city in terms of accessibility,defined by using a maximum distance of 300 m to some green area of a minimum size determined as a reference,measure proposed by the CE (ECI,2003) and recommended by ANGST of Natural England (2010) and different studies like Wendel-Vos et al.(2004) among others (Fig.03).

The minimum size selected is 5000m2(dismissing those areas in median strips and hard to access locations) as recommended by UE and it meet the appropriate conditions to do different physical activities like walking or jogging for a minimum of 30 minutes,the recommended daily value of exercise to fight against diabetes,cholesterol,etc,by enjoying a natural environment unconnected with urban life.

Also,potential ecological networks,that allow to improve the accessibility,hubs (of natural,historic or social value) and connection points with the most agricultural periurban areas that offer spatial continuity of green mass,were identified.The approach is enriched with the incorporation of viewpoints emanated from the analysis of green strategies in other cities of Spain.

5 Results

5.1 The Need to Improve the Green Planning of La Coru?a (LCG)

In Europe there are numerous initiatives and recommendations for GI implementation at different scales (Mazza et al.,2011;Nauman et al.,2011),and day by day applied in more scenarios with different characteristics,with more or less success due to the existence of barriers,often surmountable,of technical,financial,physical and legal nature,or simply because of a lack of deep knowledge of this philosophy.The case of the city of LCG,the most urban of this autonomous community,is an interesting case of medium-sized city (310,000 real inhabitants) with a high density(6417 inhab./km2) that shows singularities in size,appearance (peninsula),typology of green spaces,urban peculiarities,that lend a special character to the city and,also,problems when it comes time to can improve its structure and to suggest a strategic change of planning and management of its green system.

The city has very good transport infrastructures,by land (N VI and A9),sea (traditional harbor and new foreign harbor) and air (Alvedro airport) but it has a very little municipal area (37.83Km2) which prevents its spatial growth and causes the mass situation,in fact is one of the cities with greatest population density of Spain,which has been increased fivefold since 1900.The analysis of the current situation and of the historic evolution shows up that a territorial development of integration with the most natural part has not been followed (Fig.04).

The new master plan (PGOM),which raises these approaches although some what away from the more academic line,represents an interesting starting point with adequate proposals as Parque Alto,although,as a constructive criticism,only gives some limited proposals superficially from a more comprehensive and complex perspective in the GI conceptual line (connectivity,multifunctional,public health,accessibility,…).

Another important handicap perceived in La Coru?a is that the marked rural character of Galicia,in general,and of the periurban areas of the city,in particular,and the other side,a great advantage which would be able to serve as a link with the more urbanest parts,has stressed the psychological perception of the GI different parts enormously,which means that the population does not understand the approach of this kind of territorial planning.

In the same way,this green system seems interesting to be sutured with adjacent areas,taking advantage of the possible declaration of a World Biosphere Reserve of "Mari?as coru?esas e Terras do Mandeo",UNESCO candidate,which includes neighboring municipalities,as it would mean giving continuity to the ecological network in northern Spain and open it to the Atlantic.

5.2 Spatial Analysis

The first analysis relating to the situation of GS in LGC supplies us with the details to know if the citizens' needs are well covered and the zones whose green system need be improved.To this end,an analysis with influence zones of 300 m(dismissing those areas located in median strips and hard to access places) was carried out.After GIS analysis,we identified the weak points where would be precise to make proposals (Fig.05) to guarantee the accessibility of all the population.

The results emanated of the current situation show that there is a ratio of 8,2m2/inhab.,very close to the ratio proposed by WHO,although on the international level exists quite controversy,for example,Abercrombie suggested 16,2m2/inhab.in his plan to London (1943-1944).Currently,developed countries are adopting a general standard of green space of 20m2park area per capita.If this standard is adopted,we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.

It is estimated that the spatial distribution of green areas is adequate,although the most are small GS.For this reason,it is proposed that the critical points were analyzed based on results of GIS analysis (Fig.05),in spite of they are also important because,as Fu and Zhao (2010) pointed out in their study,sometimes they are more frequently used to rest and to do exercise since,in certain situations,the residents prefer near small areas than far and big zones.

The spatial distribution of parks and gardens system is very broad although the most part of them(177) are microspaces smaller than 1000m2(Table 1),in fact,almost the 100% of the residences have access to green zones (any type and size) within a radius of 300 meters,but few of them have access to parks of minimum dimensions (>5000m2).Large parks exist only in the most perimeter zones,parks that have been designed ex novo using either old military installations,thanks to which,in certain way,a great natural biodiversity has been kept and it was possible to outline a 205,000m2park (San Pedro Park) (Fig.06) or old municipal areas like Bens Park (600,000m2) (Fig.07),old municipal landfill,or Saint Margarita Park,old urban camping(50,000m2).

Different areas,that would be able to work perfectly as hubs (Fig.08),have been identified and classified in three typologies:a) natural:Parque de los Rosales.Parque de la Torre de Hércules.Paseo marítimo del Porti?o.Punta Herminia;b)Historic Gardens:Méndez Nu?ez (1867) (Fig.09.a).Jardín de San Carlos (1834) (Fig.09.b).Plaza de Azcarraga (circa 1896) and c) Cultural:Parque de la Torre de Hércules (World Heritage)(Fig.10) and Castro de Elvi?a (Fig.11).These cores would be able to be part of the backbone of the spatially interconnected new system,linked by means of corridors and offering new spaces and opportunities to be in touch with nature.

One factor hugely important besides the quantity is the quality,in that sense,the municipal government is generous because it is one of the city councils of Spain that invests the most ratio of euros/m2in its management and the result is very positive in population opinion.

Regarding green corridors,the new PGOM proposal has been analyzed and it has been complemented with new contributions more realist with GI concept,sometimes it is not possible because of the city urban typology.And the other hand,the preliminary spatial analysis would allow to join the potential GI of La Coru?a with the area proposed to be declared Reserve Biosphere by the UNESCO (Fig.12 and 13).

6 Analysis of other Experiences in Spain

Different experiences carried out in Spain were analyzed,characterized by a large casuistry owing to the historic evolution,the morphology,physical environment,population,budget,etc,and three of them were selected by its similarities or by provided inspiration for La Coru?a.

Vitoria has a number of inhabitants similar to La Coru?a (243,298 inhab.) although with a minor density,840 inhab./km2.Its green planning represents the Spanish paradigm,evidence of that fact has been the appointment as "Green European Capital" (2012).Its green belt,645 has,the result of an ambitious plan that was started at the beginning of the years 90 of the last century,is a group of periurban parks with a high ecological and landscape value connected strategically by means of corridors which,in part,has enabled it to reach the second place among the cities with the greatest quality of life in Spain in a recent study carried out in 30 Spanish cities,taking into account 11 relevant indicators.The same study shows that one of the biggest worries is health.

This example interests us owing to its integral management,its protocol of public broadcasting,its social participative approach and its spatialsingularity that can be used as a guide for cities like La Coru?a,and moreover,its policymakers are analyzing the integration of all the area that forms the highland belt in a group by means of Biosphere Reserve UNESCO Declaration of the whole area.One of the goals of this study is precisely to analyze the stitches of the green system of LCG with the possible appointment of Mari?as coru?esas e Terras do Mandeo.

Table 1 :Distribution of green spaces surfaces at La Coru?a.

Another interesting example is Valencia due to its high urban density (5995.7 inhab./km2),its metropolitan area is a territory of environmental and landscape excellence owing to the convergence of 4 great landscapes.They try to make the protection and connection of the landscapes with urban surroundings and agricultural,cultural and natural spaces,in the same way that it would be able to put into practice in the hubs identified in our case.The last example is Murcia (430,571 inhab.) although it is a regional initiative,we have a special interest in the experience of its participation in European projects (Reverse and Surf-Nature)with relation to financial,technical and political alternatives to carry out GI initiatives.

7 SWOT Analysis

7.1 Strengths:

(1)Physical environment very suitable for territorial planning proposals of integration with the natural environment.Capacity of response very fast.

(2)The city physiognomy allows the inclusion of Blue Infrastructure.

(3)Possible planning with perimeter growth in more rural zones.

(4)Sensibility to urban regeneration.

7.2 Weaknesses:

(1)Ignorance in relation to green infrastructure concepts and principles.Lack of dialogue among departments originated by the absence of a global project and a clear leadership.

(2)Singular territorial physiognomy.Complication in planning.

(3)Urban typology (narrow streets,little free areas,etc.)

(4)High urban density.

(5)Disjointed historic planning.

(6)Legal and financial framework

7.3 Opportunities:

(1)Information and education.Social participation.Social consciousness raising.

(2)Territorial planning joining the city closely to the most agricultural or natural environment.

(3)Identification and presence of hubs with special historic,natural or cultural importance.

(4)Savings of maintenance costs and derived from ecosystem benefits.

(5)Public health and quality of life improvement.The impact evaluation of health is important and very useful to make decisions in political evaluations.

(6)Possible declaration of "Mari?as coru?esas e Terras do Mandeo" like Reserve of the Biosphere.

(7) Potentiality of economic regeneration.

7.4 Threats:

(1)Economic crisis.

(2)Social pressure.Psychological barrier.

(3)Particular interests.

(4)New urban interventions taken out of context.

(5)The lack of methodologies that assess health benefits can affect its implementation.

8 Discussion and Conclusion

Studies developed and currently underway highlight the need to integrate and implement these planning strategies in dense cities with similar physical characteristics to those of La Coru?a as they involve improving public health,quality of life and landscape,functioning as a competitive global advantage.

Synthesis of the preliminary research work,supported by the SWOT matrix and the geographical study,shows a strategic opportunity for the incorporation of GI in LGC that allows and guarantees the accessibility to green spaces bigger than 5000m2located within a radius minor than 300 m,following the European recommendations with the consequent improvement of public health(Fig.14).

It shows the need for regional planning to enhance and strengthen supramunicipal spatial connectivity of the protected areas network in northern Spain and open it to the Atlantic (Fig.15).GI planning must be accompanied by an informative and educational campaign adapted to the psychological bias of the population,transmitting its concept and its varied benefits with the aim of changing the current concept that exists in Spain of "public equipment" to "green infrastructure".

.

[1]Benedict M.A.,McMahon,Edward T.Green Infrastructure:Linking Landscapes and Communities[M].Washington:Island Press,2006.

[2]ECI.European Common Indicators:Towards a Local Sustainability Profile[R].Milano:Ambiente Italia Research Institute,2003.

[3]Fabos J.Gy.The Greenway Movement,Uses and Potentialities of Greenways[C]//Fabos J.Gy.,Ahern J. Greenways:The beginning of an international movement.Elsevier,1995:1-13.

[4]Forest Research.A valuation of the economic and social contribution of forestry for people in Scotland[R].Final report for Forestry Commission Scotland.Farnham:Forest Research,2008.

[5]Fu Fan and Zhao Caijun.Distributed Green Space System:An Implementable Green Infrastructure for the City[C]// Fábos J.Gy.,Ryan R.L.,Lindhult M.S.,Kumble P.,Kollányi L.,Ahern J.,Jombach S.Budapest,Hungary:2010:Proceedings of Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning 2010,2010:285-291.

[6]Kuppuswamy,Hemavathy.Improving Health in Cities Using Green Infrastructure:a Review[R].FORUM Ejournal 9.Newcastle University,2009:63-76.

[7]Maas J.,Verheij R.A.,Groenewegen P.P.,de Vries S.Spreeuwenberg P.Green space,urbanity and health:how strong is the relation?[J]J.Epidem.and Comm.Health.2006,60(7):587–592.

[8]Mazza L.,Bennett G.,De Nocker L.,Gantioler S.,Losarcos L.,Margerison C.,Kaphengst T.,McConville A.,Rayment M.,ten Brink P.,Tucker G.,van Diggelen R.Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency[R].Final report for the EC,DG Environment.2011.

[9]Naumann,Sandra,McKenna D.,Timo K.,Mav P.,Matt R.,Design,implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects[R].Final report to the EC,DG Environment.Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting,2011.

[10]Ribeiro,Luis,Barao,Teresa.Greenways for recreation and maintenance of Landscape quality:five case studies in Portugal[J].Landscape and urban planning.2006,76:79-97.

[11]Ribeiro,Luis,Dias,Teresa.Improving Small Cities Competitiveness through Greenway Planning and Design:Vila-Franca-de-Xira,Lisboa Metropolitan Area[C]// Fábos J.Gy.,Ryan R.L.,Lindhult M.S.,Kumble P.,Kollányi L.,Ahern J.,Jombach S.Budapest:2010:Proceedings of Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning 2010,2010:79-86

[12]Tzoulas K.,Korpela K.,V.S.,Yli-Pelkonen V.,Ka zmierczak A.,Niemela J.,James P.Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green infrastructure:A literature review[J].Landscape and Urban Planning,2007,81:167-178.

[13]Sylwester,Alexandra.Green infrastructure -Supporting connectivity,maintaining sustainability[J/OL].European Commission,DG Environment,2009[2013-10-25]. http://greeninfrastructureeurope.org/download/Discussion%20Paper%20 Green%20Infrastructure%20Aleksandra%20Sylwester.pdf

[14]Wendel-Vos GC,Schuit AJ,de Niet R,Boshuizen HC,Saris WH,Kromhout D.Factors of the physical environment associated with walking and bicycling[J].Med.Sci.Sports.Exerc,2004:36(4):725-30.

[15]Wells.Using urban forestry research in New York City[C]//Johnston M.,Percival G.Trees,people and the built environment.Edinburgh:FCResearch Report,2012:1–258.

[16]Wilson E.O.Biofilia.The human bond with other species[M].Cambridge,Boston,Massachusetts,USA:Harvard University Press,1984.

注釋：

圖01（a）資料來源：http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/philobiblon/resources_es.html.，圖01（b）、圖06（a）、圖06（b）、圖07、圖09（a）、圖09（b）、圖10資料來源：拉科魯尼亞市議會，圖04資料來源：國防檔案部，圖11 資料來源：馬爾維新等人，圖12、圖15 資料來源：瑪麗娜斯-貝坦佐斯事務(wù)所。