A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Green SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES

16(2): 193213
10.1177/0969776408101683
Copyright 2009 SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
http://eur.sagepub.com
European Urban
and Regiona l
Studies
A MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF GREEN

SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES
Tzin Baycan-Levent
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey
Ron Vreeker and Peter Nijkamp

Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Green spaces, such as parks, are an essential constituent of urban quality of life. It is noteworthy, however, that some cities have been more successful in
implementing a green space policy than others. This
article aims to assess the complex and heterogeneous supply of urban green spaces by means of a
multidimensional evaluation approach, and to compare the green performance of European cities in
terms of the present situation, priorities in decision
making and planning, and their success level as evaluated by experts in the field. The article examines
urban green spaces from the viewpoint of relevant
indicators, in particular quantity and availability of
urban green spaces, changes in green spaces, planning of urban green spaces, financing of urban green
spaces and level of performance, on the basis of a
comparison of 24 European cities. It deploys a proper
type of multi-criteria analysis for mixed quantitative
and qualitative information, coined Regime Analysis.A

comparison of urban green spaces in European cities
by means of this multi-criteria analysis brings to light
the critical elements in green space availability and
sets out choice directions based on priorities in decision making and policy evaluation. The results of this
Regime Analysis show that when only the indicators
on the availability of urban green spaces are used to
assess the green performance with a view to a ranking of European cities, the Southern European cities
are in the lead. However, when the planning performance indicators are also taken into consideration,
the Northern European cities appear to have higher
scores.
Scoping the scene
built-up spaces that also incorporate elements from

nature (MacHarg, 1971). Several models, some
utopian, have inspired green city advocates.
Charles Fouriers fantasy villages called
phalansteries, Ernest Callebachs novel Ecotopia,
and the most famous Ebenezer Howards
Garden City may all be seen as landmarks in the
green city movement (Roelofs, 1999). This interest
in greening cities (urban planning with nature) has
increased with the advent of the concept of
sustainable development, and nowadays many
societies have become concerned about the built
environment and with shaping nature in urban areas.
This has also led to specific ecological landscape
patterns in the countryside, as well as to the creation
Urban planning is not only concerned with the built

environment, but also with the integration of green
space in the urban fabric. The increasing concern
about and interest in environmental quality has
prompted rising attention to urban green space
ranging from single trees to playing fields or parks.
Many cities house remarkable green assets of great
historical and architectural value. This article
addresses the perceived importance of the supply of
various urban green areas (or, in general, urban green
space) in a varied set of selected European cities.
In the history of urban development, urban
planners and architects have tried to create urban
KEY WORDS European cities green spaces

urban greening urban multi-assessment methods
urban planning
Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016
194
EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES
of parks and gardens in urban areas (Baycan-Levent

et al., 2003; Dole, 1989; DTLR, 2001; Goode, 1998;
McCarthy et al., 2002; Naess, 2001; Priemus, 1999;
Scottish Executive, 2001; Turner et al., 1999;
Tyrvinen and Vnnen, 1998; URGE Team,
2004). In some towns and cities, new programmes
based on ecological approaches have been developed
for the protection and management of nature in
urban green spaces (DTLR, 2001; Goode, 1998;
Scottish Executive, 2001). Moreover, policymakers
and planners have started to pay significantly more
attention to measures designed to foster sustainable
development and to improve the quality of life in
urban areas by the clean-up and redevelopment of
under-utilized brownfield sites. Actually, there has
been a growing recognition among urban
community groups and environmental organizations
that brownfields hold enormous potential for
greening city environments, through the
implementation of parks, playgrounds, greenways,
and other open spaces (De Sousa, 2003). There has
undoubtedly been a change in attitude resulting in
greater appreciation of the value of nature in the
city. Such changes include greater awareness among
the professions responsible for the planning and
management of urban open space (Goode, 1998).
This increasing interest in the value of nature in
general and in urban environments in particular has
led to the emergence of new disciplines such as
ecological economics, environmental economics and
urban ecology. The disciplines of ecological
economics and environmental economics have tried
to develop analytical methods to capture the value of
environmental assets in monetary units, while at the
same time focusing on different valuation techniques
to estimate the value of the flow of services from the
perspective of the sustainability of ecosystems and
their interrelationships with the abiotic environment
(for an overview of different valuation
methodologies and techniques see Nijkamp, 2004;
Nunes et al., 2003; Turner et al., 1999; van den
Bergh, 1999). Urban ecology, however, has
developed in the last three decades into an
interdisciplinary research field with very useful
applications in local and regional planning. In
addition, natural and life science disciplines such as
biology, soil science, hydrology, climatology and
landscape ecology, but also social sciences and
cultural sciences, have all made important
contributions to the complex field of urban ecology.
16(2)
Since only an integrated connection between the

economic, cultural and social fields in urban areas
can lead to policy success in coping with the serious
environmental problems of many cities worldwide,
urban ecology has focused on problem-oriented
research into the improvement of the living
environment for people and has developed
interdisciplinary measures with a high degree of
complexity (Breuste et al., 1998).
In parallel with the emergence of the abovementioned new disciplines, various decision support
and evaluation methods have been developed over
the past few decades. As a response to the
shortcomings of conventional evaluation analyses, a
great diversity of modern assessment methods has
been developed in order to extend the range of
evaluation methods for environmental issues and to
offer a perspective for procedural types of decision
making in which various environmental quality
aspects are also incorporated (see also Brandon and
Lombardi, 2005). Many of these methods are able
to encapsulate the impact of policy strategies
(e.g. project, plan or programme) on a multitude of
relevant criteria, partly monetary, partly nonmonetary (including qualitative criteria). They are
often coined multi-criteria methods and are
sometimes also known as multi-assessment
methods. Multi-criteria methods have become a
useful tool in evaluation and planning studies, as
well as in environmental studies, because of their
potential to simultaneously consider different
mutually irreducible or incompatible judgement
criteria, including non-monetary aspects. These
methods will also be used in our study to create a
rank order of the relative perceived achievements of
urban green policies in various European cities.
Many urban ecology studies have convincingly
demonstrated that a successful integration of nature
within the urban environment will depend upon:
(a) applying effectively ecological knowledge;
(b) integration of complementary approaches
between relevant professions; (c) adequate training
in ecology for open space managers; (d) public
planning interpretation of nature; and
(e) partnership with the local economy (Goode,
1998). A successful greening project should
encompass: a multifunctional view of redevelopment
which takes into account economic, environmental,
biological, recreational and aesthetic issues; aim to
protect and/or restore a healthy and biodiverse
European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)
BAYCAN-LEVENT ET AL.: A MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF GREEN SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES
environment; create an interconnected quality-oflife infrastructure; and involve communities in the

decision-making process (De Sousa, 2003).
Against this background, the aim of this article1 is
to identify and categorize cities with a successful
urban green supply policy as perceived by experts in
the field. To this end, we will investigate the complex
and heterogeneous structure of urban green spaces
using a multidimensional evaluation method (namely
Regime Analysis) and in order to compare the
green performance of European cities in terms of
the present situation priorities in decision making
and planning, and their success level as evaluated by
experts from the municipalities concerned. The
article examines urban green spaces from various
relevant viewpoints, in particular quantity and
availability of urban green spaces, changes in green
spaces, planning of urban green spaces, financing
of urban green spaces and level of performance.
First, we will address urban green spaces from the
perspective of their proper values2 for the urban
fabric; we will highlight the multifaceted values of
urban green space, as well as the relevance of
adequate evaluation models and methodologies.
Then we examine the need for advanced
multidimensional evaluation approaches for suitable
application fields, and outline the Regime Analysis as
a multi-criteria technique for the evaluation of urban
green spaces. Next we compare the green
performance of 24 European cities in terms of the
present situation, and their priorities in decision
making and planning on the basis of the empirical
results of a multidimensional evaluation of urban
green spaces by means of this Regime Analysis. The
final section offers concluding remarks, which focus
on the key features of green planning policies.
Urban green spaces: values and valuation

methods
The wave of interest in urban green spaces calls for
an operational definition that is appropriate for
empirical research. In this section we will offer a
functional classification of urban green spaces that is
suitable for a multidimensional empirical
application. Urban green spaces can be defined as
public and private open spaces in urban areas,
primarily covered by vegetation, which are directly
(e.g. active or passive recreation) or indirectly

(e.g. positive influence on the urban environment)
available for the users (URGE Team, 2004). Urban
green spaces are an important constituent of and
conditional for the sustainable development of cities.
Urban green spaces provide a range of benefits at
various spatial levels and offer many opportunities to
people in different ways. They help to define and
support the identity of towns and cities, which can
enhance their attractiveness for living, working,
investment and tourism. Therefore, these spaces can
contribute positively to both the quality of life and
the competitiveness of cities. Not only do they
provide opportunities for people, but they also offer
many contributions to social and economic life, and
to the ecological and planning system.
Urban green spaces moderate the impact of
human activities by, for example, absorbing
pollutants and releasing oxygen (Hough, 1984). In
addition, they maintain a certain degree of humidity
in the atmosphere; regulate rainfall; moderate the
temperatures; curb soil erosion; form the basis for
the conservation of fauna and flora (Morancho,
2003); contribute to the maintenance of a healthy
urban environment by providing clean air, water and
soil (de Groot, 1994); improve the urban climate;
and maintain the balance of the citys natural urban
environment (Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995). They
preserve the local natural and cultural heritage by
providing habitats for a diversity of urban wildlife
and conserve a diversity of urban resources.
Particular types of green space can offer a larger
diversity of land uses and opportunities for a wide
range of activities, help to foster active lifestyles, and
can be of real benefit to human health. The use of
urban green spaces can be a semi-therapeutic form of
recreation while relaxing, walking, and taking part in
outdoor sports. Natural areas and wildlife experiences
enable residents to escape from urban areas and
problems, and give them an opportunity to experience
nature, tranquillity, and exploration or adventure
(Chiesura, 2004; Rossman and Ulehla, 1977).
Therefore, natural settings constitute favourite places
for residents (Korpela et al., 2001). The studies which
focus on the psychological effects of nature (see
Hartig et al., 1991; Kaplan, 2001; Rossman and
Ulehla, 1977; Ulrich, 1981; 1984) show that the
importance of contacts with nature extends beyond
aesthetic benefits, and includes a range of other
benefits in terms of psychological well-being.
195
196
Contact with nature may mitigate mental fatigue,

facilitate recovery from stress, and reduce aggression
and violence in the city (Cackowski and Nasar, 2003;
Kuo and Sullivan 2001a; 2001b). Natural views in the
midst of the urban scene appear to sustain interest
and attention more effectively. Most natural views
apparently elicit positive feelings, reduce fear in
stressed subjects, hold interest, and may block or
reduce stressful thoughts; they might also provide
relief from anxiety or stress. The results of many
studies offer evidence of the great restorative effects
arising from experiences in nature.
In addition, urban green spaces provide safe play
areas for children, contribute to their physical,
mental and social development (Hart, 1997), and
have an important role in the basic education of
schoolchildren with regard to the environment and
nature. Well-managed and maintained green spaces
contribute to social justice by creating opportunities
for people of all ages to interact (Scottish Executive,
2001). They emphasize the diversity of urban areas
by reflecting the different communities they serve
and meeting their varying needs. They enhance
cultural life by providing venues for local festivals,
civic celebrations and theatrical performances.
Urban greening improves the social well-being of
city residents in a variety of ways. The greening
projects tend to reduce costs related to urban sprawl
and infrastructure provision, attract investment, raise
property values and invigorate local economies, boost
tourism, preserve farmland, and safeguard
environmental quality generally (De Sousa, 2003).
A network of high-quality green spaces linking
residential areas with business, retail and leisure
developments can help to improve the accessibility
and attractiveness of local facilities and employment
centres. Well-designed networks of green spaces help
to encourage people to travel safely by foot or by
bicycle for recreation or commuting (Scottish
Executive, 2001). Furthermore, well-designed urban
green spaces provide a barrier to noise by acting both
as an acoustic screen between roads and residential
areas (Morancho, 2003), and as a visual screen (Dole,
1989). Urban green spaces may also function as a
boundary landscape separating neighbourhoods of
distinct socio-economic characteristics, and may also
serve as a landscape feature in the transformation and
continuing segregation of neighbourhoods. At the
neighbourhood level, green spaces have traditionally
functioned as places for passive and active recreation,
16(2)
environmental improvements, and as a mechanism for

social control (Solecki and Welch, 1995).
However, a green space might deliver products
such as wood or fruits and also compost and energy
as a result of urban green production. The presence
of these spaces can create an increase in the
economic value of an area and may provide new jobs.
Green areas, water bodies, open space and attractive
landscape types are aspects of an attractive setting.
In particular, attractive landscape types lead to a
considerable increase in house prices (Luttik, 2000;
Morancho, 2003).
However, urban green spaces can also be a source
of crime and therefore be unsafe, especially at night.
Urban green space is often seen as an attractive place
for doing illegal businesses to some criminals, and it
is also seen as a nice place to sleep for the homeless.
This has to do with the camouflage possibilities of
urban green space; a park with a lot of bushes and
dark places is more dangerous than open space. In
contradiction of what has been written before, from
this point of view, the visual screening/camouflage
(barrier) function of urban green spaces has a
negative influence on the merit perspective to the
described users, with the exception of criminals and
homeless people.
All these functions of urban green spaces clearly
show that green spaces have a complex and
multidimensional structure, and important values
contributing to the overall quality of urban life. A
taxonomy of values for urban green spaces has been
described by Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp (2005a). In
this taxonomy, the authors have defined a variety of
urban green space values classified according to five
distinctions: (a) ecological values: intrinsic natural
value, genetic diversity value, life support value;
(b) economic values: market value; (c) social values:
recreational value, aesthetic value, cultural
symbolization value, historical value, characterbuilding value, therapeutic value, social interaction
value, substitution value; (d) planning values:
instrumental/structural value, synergetic and
competitive value; (5) multidimensional values:
scientific value, policy value. The authors have also
developed an operational taxonomy for the evaluation
of urban green spaces in parallel with their taxonomy
of urban green space values (see Table 1). This
taxonomic framework offers a systematic assessment
approach regarding the complex and
multidimensional structure of urban green spaces.
Bequest value
Indirect use value
Genetic diversity value
Life-support value
Direct use value
Existence value
Social values
Recreational value
Aesthetic value
Direct/
indirect use value
Existence value
Ecological values
Intrinsic natural value
Economic values
Market value
Types of values of urban

green spaces from
economic perspective
Types of values of
urban green spaces
Urban green spaces are valued for sports and sight-seeing

possibilities. The diversity of land uses and opportunities
for a wide range of activities that urban green space offers can
create a pull effect on society and attraction to the urban green
space. They help to foster active lifestyles and can be of real
benefit to health.
Urban green spaces have an aesthetic appeal. The presence of
urban green spaces in a city increases the quality of life. This
The market value of urban green space stems from its production
and employment functions. A green space is essentially able to
deliver products such as wood and fruits and also compost and
energy as elements of urban green production. On the other hand,
such spaces provide new jobs for development, maintenance and
governance of the area. Their presence can create an increase in
the economic value of an area that is reflected by hedonic prices
and affects the real estate market.
Urban green spaces have an intrinsic natural value for a healthy

ecosystem. The biological diversity that the urban green spaces
offer contributes to ecological cycles, while the spatial continuity
of urban green spaces enables spatial movement of wildlife.
Urban green spaces can be a genetic reservoir, while providing
habitats for a diversity of urban wildlife (such as birds and insects)
and preserving a diversity of urban resources (such as trees and
plants). This preservation function is explicitly present in urban
green spaces such as botanical and zoological gardens.
Urban green space moderates the impact of human activities by
absorbing pollutants and releasing oxygen and improves the
urban climate. This purification ability that we call a regulation
function of urban green space makes an important contribution
to the ecological processes and life-support systems.
Functions and contributions
Table 1 Values and valuation methods for urban green spaces (adapted from Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp, 2005a)
(Continued)
Monetary valuation: travel cost method, tourism

revenues, contingent valuation
Monetary valuation: market analysis, production

functions, financial analysis, economic
costbenefit analysis, travel cost method, hedonic
price method
Monetary valuation: costbenefit analysis, travel

cost method, replacement costs, tourism revenues,
production function, contingent valuation
Non-monetary valuation: species and ecosystem
richness indices, genetic difference, genetic
distance, phenotypic trait analysis, biodiversity
index, keystone processes, health index,
ecosystem resilience and stability analysis,
hierarchical structure, population viability
analysis, eco-regions or eco-zones
Valuation methods
197
Existence value
Bequest value
Indirect use value
Indirect use value
Indirect use value
Historical value
Character building
value
Therapeutic value
Social interaction
value

green spaces from
Cultural
symbolization value
Types of values of
urban green spaces
Table 1 (Continued)
occurs not only because of their beauty, but also because the
aesthetic quality of urban green spaces enables people to orient
themselves in space and time. In addition, the aesthetic value of
urban green spaces plays an important role in planning as a
component of urban design.
Urban green spaces can symbolize national and local self-images
and aspirations (for example, Central Park in New York and
Gaudis Guell Park in Barcelona). Urban green areas can
stimulate local cultural moods and sense of belonging and
identity. They enhance cultural life by providing venues for
local festivals, civic celebrations and theatrical performances.
Urban green spaces provide natural and cultural historical
values. They also provide an important historical museum and
contribute to our sense of duration, antiquity, continuity and
identity. Urban green spaces preserve the natural and cultural
local heritage for future generations and their preservation
function forms a pre-condition for sustainable development.
Urban green spaces can be used by organizations that encourage
the human spirit to value the challenge of self-competence,
preferences for teamwork or alone, etc. Urban green spaces can
help to teach one to care about ones physical condition and also
to calculate risks, to learn the instability of the weather, to lose and
find ones way, to think about success and failure.
The use of urban green spaces can be a semi-therapeutic
recreation while relaxing, walking and taking part in outdoor
sports. They can also provide a setting to treat psychologically
disturbed persons, while satisfying the evolutionary need for
challenge, adventure, exertion and risk. Urban green spaces may
provide a niche that meets psychosomatic needs. In addition,
urban green spaces provide safe playgrounds for children and
contribute to childrens physical, mental and social development.
Urban green spaces can contribute to social justice by creating
opportunities for people of all ages to interact. They emphasize
Valuation methods
(Continued)
198
16(2)
Indirect use value
Planning values
Instrumental/
structural value
Multidimensional values
Scientific value
Indirect use value
Existence value
Direct use value
Substitution value
Synergetic and
competitive value

green spaces from
Types of values of
urban green spaces
Table 1 (Continued)
Urban green space can be seen as a laboratory for the pursuit of

science. Urban green space can be an object of academic study
and research in the areas of genetics, geology, biology, medicine,
agriculture, forestry and evolutionism. This scientific value of
urban green space enables society to better understand the natural
Urban green spaces form the landscape and townscape structure

of towns and cities. Urban green spaces are of importance in the
urban planning process as a technical instrument. Sometimes they
can serve as a noise barrier or as visual screening. They can
increase the quality of neighbourhoods by their windbreak and
camouflage abilities. They can contribute to energy reduction by
providing shelter for buildings. They can also function as buffer
zone between parts of the city and can help to control city growth
or soften the impact of development.
This value of urban green spaces is related to their quality. The
quality of green spaces helps to define the identity of towns and
cities, which can enhance their attractiveness for living, working,
investment and tourism. Therefore, urban green spaces can create
a synergy among different types of land use, their presence can
create an increase in the economic value of an area, and they can
also contribute positively to the competitiveness of cities.
the diversity of urban areas by reflecting the different

communities they serve and meeting their varying needs.
Therefore, they contribute positively to a multicultural society.
Urban green spaces can be seen as positive and negative
alternatives for shortcomings in other fields. They can be a
positive alternative for low-income groups without access to
sports clubs or without financial opportunities to go on vacation,
car-less people, and flat-dwellers without gardens/balconies, etc.
They can also be seen as a nice place to sleep for the homeless and
for doing illegal business as a negative alternative.
(Continued)
Monetary valuation: financial analysis,

costbenefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis,
tourism revenues, taxes revenues
Non-monetary valuation: performance analysis,
multi-criteria decision method, meta-analysis,
Monetary valuation: costbenefit analysis,

contingent valuation, hedonic price method
Non-monetary valuation: geographical
information system (GIS) method, multi-criteria
decision method
Valuation methods
199
Policy value
Types of values of
urban green spaces
Table 1 (Continued)
Indirect use value/

existence value

green spaces from
Valuation methods
value transfer, rough set analysis, fuzzy set
analysis, content analysis

environment and appreciate applied science, which makes it
possible to manage and rebuild the environment. In addition,
urban green spaces play an important role in the basic education
of schoolchildren with regard to environment and nature. The
scientific value of urban green spaces can be seen as a part of
their education function.
Urban green spaces are of importance, not only in the urban
planning process but also in urban policies. This value is reflected
in the level of budget allocated to, and the actual expenditures of
urban authorities on green spaces. The policy value of urban
green spaces is related, on the one hand, to public authorities as
policymakers, and, on the other hand, the financial function that
is also connected to public function with the amount of green
taxes or tourism taxes the people or visitors have to pay. In
addition, sometimes an entrance fee for some special green spaces,
such as botanical gardens, can be another financial instrument.
200
16(2)
Another classification has been developed by

Costanza et al. (1997) on the basis of ecosystem
functions and ecosystem services. The authors have
grouped ecosystem services into 17 major categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
gas regulation
climate regulation
disturbance regulation
water regulation
water supply
erosion control and sediment retention
soil formation
nutrient cycling
waste treatment
pollination
biological control
refugia
food production
raw materials
genetic resources
recreation
culture.
In this approach, ecosystem goods and services

represent the benefits derived by human populations,
directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions,
which refer variously to the habitat, biological or
system properties or processes of ecosystems.
Ecosystem services provide an important portion of
the total contribution to human welfare, and the
authors have called for these services to be given
adequate weight in the decision-making process.
The specific methods to capture the monetary
value of environmental assets have been developed
by economic science. In these methods, the value of
environmental assets is calculated in two ways;
directly and indirectly. Direct methods, such as
contingent valuation (CVM), obtain the value of the
environmental asset by directly asking people how
much they would be willing to pay for its use or
conservation. Indirect methods such as the travel
cost method (TCM) or hedonic prices (HPM)
calculate the value indirectly, by observing
individuals behaviour or through the influence
exercised by the environment on the market price of
another good (for evaluation methods see Nijkamp,
2004; Nunes et al., 2003; Turner et al., 1999; van
den Bergh, 1999). These methods are also used for
the monetary valuation of urban green spaces (see
Luttik, 2000; Morancho, 2003; Tyrvinen and
Vnnen, 1998). However, most of the values

attached to urban green spaces are non-priced
environmental benefits which include, for example,
pleasant landscape, peace and quiet, and hence
potential recreational opportunities and qualitative
valuations of green spaces are difficult to integrate
into the assessment procedure. For non-monetary
valuation of urban green spaces, suitable methods
can be the geographical information system (GIS)
method, the multi-criteria decision method,
meta-analysis, and rough set analysis (for the
applications of these methods for urban green
spaces, see Balram and Dragicevic, 2005;
Baycan-Levent and Nijkamp, 2005b).
It is obvious that the complex and
multidimensional structure of urban green spaces
makes the description or design of a single best
evaluation model for urban green spaces difficult.
Increasing complexity in urban green spaces needs
an evaluation on the basis of multiple decision
criteria and multiple effects in an urban policy
context. This multidimensional evaluation may
comprise monetary and non-monetary valuation
methods for both quantitative and qualitative
information. Consequently, this evaluation should
provide relevant policies and guidance to help
society and planning authorities improve the quality
of life in cities. Therefore, the possible evaluation
methods for several dimensions of urban green
spaces should be seen as an integrative part of a
comprehensive evaluation. This overview of current
evaluation practices has drawn attention to the
combination of methods, tools and data and the
integration of results from evaluations that use
different strategies, carried out from different
perspectives. In the next section we will concisely
describe a particular multidimensional evaluation
method which complies with the above-mentioned
desiderata for evaluation of urban green spaces, and
which will be deployed in our empirical study.
Multidimensional evaluation methods: a

description of Regime Analysis
Multidimensional evaluation methods
A comparative analysis of urban green spaces in
different cities calls for an appropriate
201
202
multidimensional evaluation tool. Multidimensional

evaluation methods have been developed as a
response to the shortcomings of conventional
evaluation studies (such as costbenefit analysis) in
the past few decades. These new methods offer a
perspective for procedural types of decision making
in which various quality aspects are also
incorporated. After a concise general introduction to
these methods, we will describe a particular method
used in our work, namely Regime Analysis.
A modern analytical tool in the framework of
multidimensional evaluation methods is multicriteria analysis (MCA). MCA can be regarded as a
more general method of welfare analysis, and
presents an empirical support mechanism for a
traditional, neo-classical economic analysis of social
welfare and policy instruments (see Munda, 1997).
MCA is part of decision theory, which aims to
identify the best possible alternative out of a set of
rival choice options, where each option is
characterized by multiple different judgement
criteria. However, these criteria may be mutually
conflicting in nature and hence lead to complex
trade-off problems. Furthermore, the relative policy
priority or weight attached to each individual
criterion impacts on the final choice. In a multicriteria framework, different mutually conflicting
evaluation criteria are taken into consideration.
Multi-criteria decision methods constitute an
important toolbox for helping a decisionmaker to
master actions involving multiple criteria (Arrow
and Raynaud, 1986; Roy, 1990). An evaluation
method can support the ranking of alternative
choice options regarding management, policy,
development scenarios or projects. This can lead to a
complete ranking, the best alternative, a set of
applicable alternatives, or an incomplete ranking. In
general, the aim of these methods is to combine
assessment methods with judgement methods, and
to offer a solid analytical basis for modern decision
analysis (Nijkamp et al., 1990).
Depending on the type of information, multicriteria methods can be divided into two classes:
quantitative and qualitative methods. While
quantitative methods require numerical information
about the scores of each criterion, qualitative
methods can be used if non-numerical or categorical
information on scores is available or if a mixture of
quantitative and qualitative scores is available
(Janssen and Munda, 1999). Multi-criteria methods
16(2)
comprise various classes of decision-making

approaches such as Regime Analysis, Flag Model,
and Saatys Hierarchical Method that are based on
the characteristics of the available information (for a
general overview see Vreeker et al., 2002). Over
recent decades, a wide range of multi-criteria
methods has been developed. Multi-criteria methods
have become a useful tool not only in evaluation and
planning studies (such as land-use and transport),
but also in relation to urban sustainability analysis.
These methods have also seen a wide range of
applications in environmental studies because of
their potential to simultaneously consider different
mutually irreducible or incompatible judgement
criteria, including non-monetary aspects.
Regime Analysis
After a general overview of multidimensional
evaluation approaches in the previous section, here
we explain Regime Analysis as a methodology which
is one of the decision-making approaches of MCA
deployed in this study on the evaluation of urban
green spaces. Later (under Description of
database), we evaluate the results of the Regime
Analysis which enable us to compare the green
performance supply of European cities.
Regime Analysis is a discrete multi-assessment
method suitable to assess and rank the performance
of both projects and policies. The strength of
Regime Analysis is that it is able to cope with binary,
ordinal, categorical and cardinal (ratio and interval
scale) data, as well as with mixed data. This applies
to both the effects and the weights in the evaluation
of alternatives.
The fundamental framework of the method is
based upon two kinds of input data: an impact
matrix (a structured information table) and a set of
(attribute or criterion) weights (Hinloopen et al.,
1983; Nijkamp et al., 1990). The impact matrix is
composed of elements which measure the effect of
each considered alternative in relation to each
policy-relevant criterion. The set of weights
incorporates information concerning the relative
importance of the criteria in the evaluation. If there
is no prioritization of criteria in the evaluation
process, all criteria will be assigned the same
numerical weight value.
Regime Analysis is a discrete multi-criteria

method, and it is in essence based on a
generalization of pairwise comparison methods. In
order to gain a better understanding of Regime
Analysis, we will first present its basic principles. It
is an evaluation method in which the basic aim is to
rank a set of alternatives by means of their pairwise
comparisons in relation to the chosen criteria. We
consider here a choice problem where we have a set
of alternatives i and a set of criteria n. We begin our
analysis by comparing alternative i with alternative k
in relation to all criteria.
Before we continue, we need to clarify the
concept of a regime. Let us assume that alternative i
performs better than k on criterion n (i.e. Sikj = eij
ekj > 0). It should be noted that in case of ordinal
information about the performance of the
alternatives, the order of magnitude of Sikj is not
relevant, but only its sign. Accordingly, if ikj = sign
Sikj = +, then alternative i is better than k for
criterion n. By conducting such a pairwise
comparison for alternatives i and k for all criteria
n(n = 1,...,N), we are able to construct a N 1 regime
vector rik. This regime vector can be defined as:
rik = (ik1,..., ikN), i,k,k i
The regime vector contains in case of
qualitative information only the signs +, 0 and .
A + sign indicates that a certain alternative
dominates the other one, while a sign indicates the
opposite. Within the regime analysis, a 0 sign is used
to indicate a tie between the two alternatives
considered.
The complete regime vector reflects a certain
degree of dominance of alternative i over k for the
unweighted effects for all N criteria. In case the
vector only consists of + signs, alternative i would
absolutely dominate k. In reality a regime vector
contains +, 0 and signs, so that then additional
information is necessary to come to a verdict about
the dominance of an alternative.
Let us now continue with our example. In the
succeeding step of the Regime Analysis, we select all
criteria for which alternative i performs better than,
or is equal to, alternative k. This class of criteria is
called a concordance set.
To rank the alternatives we use the weights
which are assigned to the criteria and construct a socalled concordance index. The concordance index is
the sum of the weights that are related to the criteria
203
for which i is better than k. We call this sum Cik.

Then we calculate the concordance index for the
same alternatives, by considering the criteria for
which k is better than i, i.e. Cki. Having calculated
these two sums, we subtract these two values in
order to obtain the net concordance index ik = Cik
Cki. A positive value means that i supersedes k.
Because in most cases we have only ordinal
information about the weights (and no numerical
trade-offs), our interest is in the sign of the net
concordance index ik. If the sign is positive, this will
indicate that alternative i is more attractive than
alternative k; otherwise, the opposite holds. We are
then able to rank our alternatives. We note that,
because of the ordinal nature of the information in
the indicator ik, no information exists on the size of
the difference between the alternatives; it is only the
sign of the indicator that matters.
We may also solve the complicating situation that
it may not be possible to determine an unambiguous
result (i.e. a complete ranking of alternatives)
because of the problem of ambiguity in the sign of
the index , in particular when ordinal weights are
used. In order to solve this problem, we introduce a
performance indicator as a semi-probability
measure pik for the dominance of criteria i with
respect to criteria k as follows:
pik = prob (ik > 0)
(1)
Next, we define an aggregate probability

measure, which represents the success
(performance) score for alternative i as follows:
1 p
pi =
I = 1 ji ik
(2)
The problem now is to assess the value of pik and

of pi. The Regime Analysis then assumes a specific
probability distribution of the set of feasible weights.
This assumption is based upon the Laplace criterion
in the case of decision making under uncertainty. In
the case of a probability distribution of qualitative
information, in principle, the use of stochastic
analysis will suffice, which is consistent with an
originally ordinal data set. This procedure helps to
overcome the methodological problems we may
encounter by applying a numerical operation on
qualitative data.
From the viewpoint of numerical analysis, the
Regime Analysis identifies the feasible domain
within which feasible values of the criterion weights
204
must fall in order to be compatible with the

condition imposed by their probability value. By
means of a random generator, numerous values of
the weights can be calculated. At the end of this
process, we are then able to calculate the probability
score (or success score) pi for each alternative i. We
can then determine an unambiguous and
quantitative ranking of the alternatives.
Regime Analysis is also able to examine both
quantitative and cardinal data. In the case of choice
problems with qualitative data, we first need to
transform the qualitative data into cardinal data and
then apply Regime Analysis. Regime Analysis is able
to do this consistently and therefore is classified as
an indirect method for qualitative data analysis.
When we apply the cardinalization of qualitative
data through indirect methods such as Regime
Analysis, we do not lose information as we do in
direct methods. This method will be used in the
empirical comparative study of urban green spaces
in European cities. More details on Regime Analysis
can be found in Nijkamp et al. (1990).3
Comparison of European cities green

performance
Framework of the empirical research
Many cities have adopted a green policy. But which
city has managed to have the most satisfactory
provision in terms of green spaces? To analyse this, a
systematic survey was organized among experts in
the city at hand.
The sample in our study contains European cities
which aim to share their experience in innovative
green space policies and strategies. Our sample
consists of 24 European cities which are from 15
countries: from Eastern and South Eastern Europe
(i.e. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland, Slovenia, Turkey)
to Western Europe (i.e. Ireland, UK) and from
Northern Europe (i.e. Belgium, Finland, Germany)
via Central Europe (i.e. Austria, Hungary,
Switzerland) to Southern Europe (i.e., France, Italy,
Spain). They were carefully selected in the
above-mentioned URGE (2004) project. Therefore,
our sample is rather representative in terms of
diversity of countries to map out the green picture
of Europe. Where necessary, the responsible expert
16(2)
who filled out the questionnaire gathered information

from other departments, so that the subjectivity of
information is more or less the same for all cities.
The questionnaires contained six thematic
groups of questions:
1. general profile of the city (area, population, landuse, socio-economic indicators, etc.)
2. urban green spaces in general (types, size,
importance, changes in, etc.)
3. specific green spaces (data per green space)
4. financing of green spaces (present budget, changes
in the budget, etc.)
5. green policy (main targets, goals and strategies,
planning instruments, citizen participation,
responsible department[s], etc.)
6. policy evaluation (success level, success
conditions).
In this study, in order to compare the green
performance of European cities in terms of the
present situation, priorities in decision making and
planning, and their success level as evaluated by
experts selected by the municipalities concerned, we
use relevant actual information, in particular, on
planning and policy evaluation as well as on the
availability of green spaces. We will next examine
urban green spaces in terms of both quantitative and
qualitative information on the basis of multi-criteria
analysis by means of the Regime Analysis.
Description of database
A systematic comparison of various cities urban
green supply performance calls for a proper
classification of relevant features. For the application
of multi-criteria analysis, five thematic groups of
criteria were distinguished:
Quantity and availability of urban green spaces
focuses on the most important quantitatively
well-definable physical features of urban green
spaces.
Changes in green spaces quantitatively examines
changes in the total area of green spaces in the
last 10 years.
Planning of green spaces contains qualitative
criteria referring to the planning system of a city.
Financing of urban green spaces quantitatively

investigates changes in the budget.
Level of performance reflects the success level of
urban green space policy in light of the objectives
of a city from the representatives own evaluation
perspectives.
Table 2 summarizes these five thematic groups of
criteria and accompanying subcriteria. The
definition of each subcriterion in Table 2 and its
data sources are given below. These definitions also
explain the data set in Table 3, which we use in our
Regime Analysis.
Proportion of green spaces with respect to total area
(%). This is the proportion of total green spaces
in terms of land-use within the administrative
area of the city. Total green spaces consist of
gardens, urban parks, neighbourhood parks,
historical gardens, green squares and plazas,
green playgrounds, and other city-specific green
spaces. This information is obtained by
presenting two different questions: the first one
pertains to the land-use data, while the second
explores the types of urban green spaces.
Proportion of green spaces per 1,000 inhabitants
(m2). This data can be obtained directly from the
representatives of municipalities by
questionnaires.
Existence of a regional green space system. A
regional green space system may be defined by
green fingers (following natural lines, e.g. rivers),
green corridors (following traffic routes),
greenbelts, fragmented green, urban forests and
other city-specific green spaces. This information
about the existence of a regional green space
system is obtained in terms of yes or no.
Recent changes in the total area of green spaces in
the last 10 years. These data are collected directly
from the representatives of municipalities via
questionnaires. The changes are defined as an
increase, a decrease, or no change in the total area
of green spaces in the last 10 years.
Importance of green spaces to the city compared with
other functions. The aim of this question is to
highlight the importance and the priority of
urban green spaces in the city from the
perspective of the planning authorities. The
importance of green spaces is defined in five
categories; (a) very important; (b) important;
(c) quite important; (d) less important;
(e) not important.
Existence of general goals and strategies for the
planning of urban green spaces. This information
Table 2 Dimensions of urban green spaces policy and accompanying criteria

Criteria
Sub-criteria
Data type
Evaluation rule
Quantity and availability

of urban green spaces
Proportion of green spaces with respect to

total area (%)
Proportion of green spaces per 1,000
inhabitant (m2)
Existence of a regional green space system
Recent changes in the total area of green
spaces in the last 10 years
Importance of green spaces to the city
compared with other functions
Existence of general goals and strategies for the
planning of urban green
Existence of special planning instruments for
urban green spaces
Experience with citizens participation
Changes in the budget for greenery in the last
two years
Success level of urban green space policy in
light of the objectives of a city from the
representatives own evaluation perspectives
Quantitative
Higher is better
Quantitative
Higher is better
Qualitative
Quantitative
Existence is better
Increase is better
Qualitative
Higher is better
Qualitative
Existence is better
Qualitative
Existence is better
Qualitative
Quantitative
Experience is better
Increase is better
Qualitative
Higher is better
Changes in green spaces

Planning of green spaces
Financing of urban green spaces

Level of performance
205
206
comes directly from the representatives of

municipalities via questionnaires in terms of
yes or no.
Existence of special planning instruments for urban
green spaces. This information is acquired directly
from the representatives of municipalities via
questionnaires in terms of yes or no.
Experience with citizen participation. This
information is derived directly from the
representatives of municipalities via
questionnaires in terms of yes or no.
Changes in the budget for green spaces in the last two
years. These data are gathered directly from the
representatives of municipalities via
questionnaires. The changes are defined as an
increase, a decrease, or no change in the budget
for green spaces in the last two years.
Level of performance. By investigating this
subcriterion we aim to highlight the success level
of urban green space policies in the light of the
citys objectives from the representatives own
evaluation perspectives. The performance is
defined in five categories: (a) very successful;
(b) moderately successful; (c) marginally
successful; (d) not very successful; (e) not
successful at all.
Results of Regime Analysis

In our case-study, we have thus made a
multidimensional comparison of evaluated urban
green spaces in 24 European cities (see Table 3). In
order to do this, we used the 10 indicators defined in
the previous section, emphasizing different aspects
of the quality of urban green areas. The
measurement scales of these indicators differ and
range from ordinal scales (yes/no indicators) to ratio
scales (percentages). This mixture of data limits the
application of quantitative data analysis techniques
and calls for the use of a Regime Analysis.
In our analysis of urban green spaces we used the
data set presented in Table 3. This data set has been
constructed in close consultation with several urban
green experts in the URGE partner cities. However,
the experts were not asked to express their
preferences with regard to the selected indicators.
As a consequence, we could not construct a weight
16(2)
vector for each consulted expert. To overcome this

problem in the final evaluation of the urban green
space, we have used a uniform weight vector and
tested the robustness of the outcomes by means of a
sensitivity analysis. We thus simulated that the
experts deem all indicators of equal importance and
thus have assigned the same weight value. In a
subsequent sensitivity analysis, we applied different
weighting schemes, by putting a relatively stronger
emphasis on specific types of indicators to test the
robustness of the evaluation outcomes. This analysis
thus indicated whether the results obtained, by
applying the uniform weight vector, are robust
enough for changes in the values of weights.
A first investigation of the data set points us
towards various inefficient alternatives; that is,
inferior provisions of green spaces. Inefficient
alternatives are alternatives that are dominated by at
least one other alternative with respect to all
indicators. The results of this first inspection are
presented in Table 4.
The ranking obtained by applying the Regime
Analysis is depicted in Figure 1. The results of the
Regime Analysis, with the application of a uniform
weight vector, indicate that the green spaces in the
cities of Marseilles and Malaga both obtain the
highest position in our ranking. Both cities dominate
the other cities with respect to the availability of
urban green spaces. This is highlighted by the high
scores on Percentage of green space and Proportion
of green spaces per 1,000 inhabitants. This result
can be explained by specific local circumstances.
Marseilles, for example, has specific urban green
spaces, espaces naturels which cover 90 km2. With its
forest-like parks of 426 km2, urban parks of 1,100
km2 and a regional green system of natural parks of
49,957 km2, Malaga reflects a very special situation.
But it is also important to look at the intensity of
urban planning efforts with regard to urban green
spaces. When we consider the planning-related
indicators (Indicators 5, 6 and 7), we find that both
Marseilles and Malaga now have only an average
performance, and are dominated by the Northern
and Western European cities of Berlin, Berne,
Dublin, Edinburgh, Espoo, Leipzig, Salzburg,
Warsaw and Zurich.
How robust are these results for variations in the
criterion weights? After performing a sensitivity
analysis on the applied weighting vector, we arrive
at the following results:
0.5
14.8
2.6
4.0
Istanbul
Leipzig
Ljubljana
Lodz
25.0
Edinburgh
7.6
16.4
Dublin
Helsinki
2.6
Cracow
13.1
21.3
Budapest
Genoa
14.0
Birmingham
1.0
10.4
Berne
Espoo
11.3
14.3
Antwerp
Berlin
Cities
1) Proportion
of green
spaces with
respect
to total
area (%)
14,947
25,966
2,675
89,617
94,154
49,394
24,465
144,592
40,000
65,455
61,800
20,000
42,519
51,509
37,786
2) Proportion
of green spaces
per 1,000
inhabitants
(m2 )
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
3) Existence
of a regional
green space
system
MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION OF URBAN GREEN SPACES
Table 3 Impact matrix
no change
decrease
increase
increase
decrease
increase
increase
decrease
no change
decrease
decrease
increase
increase
increase
increase
4) Recent
changes
in the total
area of green
spaces in the
last 10 years
Changes in
green spaces
quite important
quite important
very important
quite important
important
important
important
important
important
quite important
quite important
quite important
important
important
very important
5) Importance
of green spaces
to the city
compared
with other
functions
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
6) Existence of
general goals
and strategies
for the planning
of urban
green spaces
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
7) Existence of
special
planning
instruments
for urban
green spaces
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
8) Experience
with citizens
participation
increase
increase
increase
decrease
decrease
no change
increase
decrease
increase
increase
increase
decrease
decrease
decrease
decrease
9) Changes
in the budget
for greenery
in the last
2 years
Financing of
urban green
spaces
(Continued)
very successful
marginally
successful
moderately
successful
moderately
successful
marginally
successful
marginally
successful
moderately
successful
marginally
successful
moderately
successful
marginally
successful
moderately
successful
very successful
moderately
successful
not very
successful
not very
successfull
10) Level of
performance
Level of
performance
207
1) Proportion
of green
spaces with
respect
to total
area (%)
59.3
39.3
11.0
11.4
1.2
13.5
14.4
22.3
17.4
Cities
Malaga
Marseilles
Montpellier
Salzburg
Sarajevo
Turin
Vienna
Warsaw
Zurich
44,253
68,499
36,863
19,444
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
3) Existence
of a regional
green space
system
decrease
decrease
decrease
increase
decrease
increase
increase
decrease
increase
4) Recent
changes
in the total
area of green
spaces in the
last 10 years
Changes in
green spaces
important
important
important
quite important
important
very important
important
important
important
5) Importance
of green spaces
to the city
compared
with other
functions
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
6) Existence of
general goals
and strategies
for the
planning of
urban green
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
7) Existence of
special
planning
instruments
for urban
green
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
8) Experience
with citizens
participation
increase
increase
no change
no change
increase
increase
increase
decrease
increase
9) Changes
in the budget
for greenery
in the last
2 years
Financing of
urban green
spaces
moderately
successful
very successful
very successful
moderately
successful
marginally
successful
moderately
successful
moderately
successful
moderately
successful
very successful
10) Level of
performance
Level of
performance
11,818
118,225
27,729
51,755
4,614,815
2) Proportion
of green spaces
per 1,000
inhabitants
(m2 )
MULTICRITERIA EVALUATION OF URBAN GREEN SPACES
Table 3 (Continued)
208
16(2)
Table 4 Inefficient (inferior) alternatives according to the

Regime Analysis
City
Dominated by*
Birmingham
Budapest
Cracow
Genoa
Ljubljana
Leipzig
Malaga, Marseilles, Warsaw
Warsaw
Malaga, Marseilles
Cracow, Dublin, Malaga, Montpellier,
Warsaw, Zurich
Dublin, Malaga, Marseilles,
Montpellier
Warsaw
Dublin, Malaga, Montpellier, Warsaw,
Zurich
Malaga
Dublin, Malaga, Warsaw, Zurich
Lodz
Salzburg
Sarajevo
Turin
Vienna
problems and flaws in planning and management of

urban green spaces. However, when the rankings of
Northern and Eastern European cities are
compared, their different performance levels can be
evaluated, as there are some geographical and
regional characteristics which are effective in
achieving their levels of success. These
characteristics stem from: the role and the strength
or weakness of the municipalities in the planning
system; the effectiveness of the planning
instruments; and the priorities given to solving
problems. More comparative studies are needed to
define the similarities and differences between the
institutional settings in different regions and
countries, and to develop relevant policies for
greening cities.
* Dominant cities are shown in bold.
No weight vector appears to exist whereby the

highly ranking city of Genoa will attain the first
position in our ranking or will be ranked above
Malaga and Marseilles.
Malaga will attain a second position in our
ranking if much weight is attached to the special
planning instruments.
Istanbul will, together with Malaga, gain the first
position in our ranking if more weight is placed
on changes in total area of green spaces.
Genoa and Antwerp will change positions if
more weight is placed on the indicator changes in
the budget.
To summarize, if we consider the supply of
green urban areas, the Regime Analysis places the
Southern European cities of Malaga and Marseilles
first in the overall ranking. Clearly, the indicators
related to the availability of green spaces mainly
determine this ranking. If we also take a look at the
planning performance indicators, we may conclude
that the Northern European cities have higher
scores. But many of these cities have a below-average
score on the availability of green spaces. Hence, high
scores on their planning performance might indicate
significant efforts to maintain the quality of the
existing urban green spaces. While Northern
European cities have higher scores, in contrast,
Eastern European cities have the lowest scores and
are placed at the bottom end of the ranking. The low
scores of these cities are probably the result of
Conclusions
Urban green spaces have multifaceted values
comprising ecological, economic, social and planning
dimensions. From a methodological perspective, this
multidimensional nature of urban green spaces
requires a corresponding multidimensional set of
characteristic attributes and a set of judgement
criteria in a broader context of relevant policy angles.
This article has focused on the complex and
multidimensional structure of urban green spaces
especially at a policy level. It has compared the
green performance of European cities in terms of
the present situation, priorities in decision making
and planning, and their success levels as evaluated by
experts selected by the municipalities concerned, on
the basis of a type of multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
called Regime Analysis. The results of this Regime
Analysis show that when the indicators related to the
availability of urban green spaces are used to
determine the green performance and ranking of
European cities, the Southern European cities are in
the lead. However, when the planning performance
indicators are taken into consideration, the
Northern European cities have higher scores.
The results of our comparative analysis should be
interpreted with caution. When coming to a final
verdict, one has to take into account the local
circumstances. For example, the Finnish cities of
Helsinki and Espoo both score poorly in our
ranking. This is mainly caused by the below-average
209
210
16(2)
Regime Analysis
0,98 0,97
0,9
0,84
0,77
0,72 0,71
Result
0,67
0,61
0,55
0,5 0,5
0,47
0,44
0,4
0,37 0,35
0,31
0,26
0,23
0,21
0,11
0,05
Sarajevo
Ljubljana
Cracow
Lodz
Espoo
Salzburg
Helsinki
Birmingham
Istanbul
Berlin
Berne
Turin
Leipzig
Edinburgh
Vienna
Dublin
Zurich
Warsaw
Budapest
Antwerp
Montpellier
Genoa
Malaga
Marseilles
0,07
Figure 1 Ranking of European cities by means of green performance
availability of urban green spaces in Espoo and by

the decrease in both the total area of green spaces,
and the budget for green spaces in Helsinki.
Nevertheless, this does not indicate that inhabitants
of those cities do not have access to green areas.
Espoo and Helsinki are both surrounded by
enormous natural green areas such as green fingers
and forests.
However, it should be kept in mind that the
performance indicator used in this analysis is not an
objective indicator, as it reflects the perceived
performance of the city from the expert
representatives evaluation perspectives. The
representatives evaluate the performance in greater
detail from several viewpoints. For example, some of
the representatives of the cities in our sample
indicated that they are successful in the conservation
and management of urban green spaces, but they
have no success in creating new green spaces; while
others emphasized that they are successful in central
parts of the city, but that the availability of green
spaces decreases between the city centre and the

suburbs. Clearly, this is caused by the fact that we
analysed the performance of a city by means of a
performance score provided by that city.
In conclusion, the use of an MCA has allowed us
to create a ranking of the performance of urban
green space policy in various cities, as seen through
the eyes of the cities expert representatives. The
results show not only the ranking in terms of
performance but also the existence of some
geographical and regional characteristics which
affect performance. Although the individual results
of this study are subjective by their very nature, the
aggregated subjective results may also show some
objective results, or at least some commonalities in
the perception of representatives of different cities.
These commonalities in perception can be evaluated
as an important indicator. We may conclude that the
satisfaction level of the representatives of Northern
European cities is higher than those of Eastern
European cities. More comparative studies including
both objective and subjective indicators may help in

defining performance levels of cities and may lead to
the development of relevant policies for different
circumstances.
The case-studies show that the effects of urban
green spaces cannot always be expressed in
quantitative values, let alone in monetary terms. In
assessments conducted by means of conventional
methods, for example costbenefit analysis, the
valuation (monetarization) of certain effects is often
circumvented by including them as pro-memoria
(PM) items. With respect to green spaces, this
means that insufficient attention will be given to
such effects, resulting in a limited scope of analysis.
The MCA method of Regime Analysis is
particularly suitable for the evaluation of alternatives
that produce both quantitative and qualitative
impacts. Furthermore, the method does not require
any standardization of impact scores. This means
that decisionmakers and other stakeholders can
easily understand the input used by the method.
This may ensure that the assessment and decisionmaking process becomes more transparent, which is
important since the concepts of public participation
and accountability assume a more prominent place
in the public arena.
Regime Analysis is sometimes perceived by the
non-expert as a mysterious black-box in MCA.
This may then also hold for the outcomes it
produces. These are not easily interpretable. It is
therefore the task of the decision-analyst to
communicate and explain the activities undertaken
in such an MCA endeavour. This reflects the fact
that decision making in the public arena needs to be
more than a one-shot activity, but should be
interactive, participative and accountable. This holds
especially for decision-making situations
surrounding urban green spaces, as the outcomes
may directly affect many stakeholders quality of life.
Notes
1
This research was conducted in parallel with the EU

project Development of Urban Green Spaces to Improve
the Quality of Life in Cities and Urban Regions (URGE),
which is funded under Key-Action 4 The City of
Tomorrow and Cultural Heritage of the Programme
Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development of
the 5th Framework Programme of the European Union
(URGE Team, 2004). The URGE project aims to develop

interdisciplinary tools for both scientists and planners all
over Europe for the planning and management of urban
green spaces. The main question addressed concerns how
urban green spaces (both in a qualitative and a quantitative
sense) can be developed from ecological, economic, social
and planning perspectives, and which tools and
instruments are helpful in this respect. The overall project
goal is the elaboration and testing of an interdisciplinary,
systematic catalogue of methods and measures, based on a
broad range of experience from various European cities.
The term proper values refers to the values of urban
green spaces from several perspectives including social,
economic, ecological, and planning. See page 222 and
Table 1 for details.
Regime analysis is included in the software package
SAMIsoft, a deliverable of the EU project SAMI.
References
Arrow, K.J. and Raynaud, H. (1986) Social Choice and
Multicriterion Decision Making. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Balram, S. and Dragicevic, S. (2005) Attitudes toward Urban
Green Spaces: Integrating Questionnaire Survey and
Collaborative GIS Techniques to Improve Attitude
Measurements, Landscape and Urban Planning 71: 14762.
Baycan-Levent, T. and Nijkamp, P. (2005a) Evaluation of
Urban Green Spaces, in D. Miller and D. Patassini
(eds) Beyond Benefit Cost Analysis: Accounting for Nonmarket Values in Planning Evaluation, pp. 6387.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Baycan-Levent, T. and Nijkamp, P. (2005b) Urban Green
Space Policies: a Comparative Study on Performance
and Success Conditions in European Cities, Research
Paper, Department of Regional Economics, Free
University, Amsterdam.
Baycan-Levent, T., van Leeuwen, E., Rodenburg, C. and
Nijkamp, P. (2003) Development and Management of
Green Spaces in European Cities: a Comparative
Analysis, in E. Beriatos and J. Colman (eds) The Pulsar
Effect in Urban Planning, pp. 23747. Volos, Greece:
ISOCARP Congress Publications and University of
Thessaly Press.
Brandon, P.S. and Lombardi, P. (2005) Evaluation of the
Sustainable Development in the Built Environment.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Breuste, J., Feldman, H. and Uhlmann, O. (eds) (1998)
Urban Ecology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Cackowski, J.M. and Nasar, J.L. (2003) The Restorative
Effects of Roadside Vegetation: Implications for
Automobile Driver Anger and Frustration, Environment
and Behaviour 35 (6): 73651.
211
212
Chiesura, A. (2004) The Role of Urban Parks for the

Sustainable City, Landscape and Urban Planning
68: 12938.
Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S.,
Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Laskin, R., Sutton, P. and van
den Belt, M. (1997) The Value of the Worlds
Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, Nature 387
(15): 25360.
de Groot, R.S. (1994) Environmental Functions and the
Economic Value of Natural Ecosystems, in A.M.
Jansson, M. Hammer, C. Folke and R. Constanza (eds)
Investing in Natural Capital: the Ecological Economics
Approach to Sustainability, pp. 15168. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
De Sousa, C.A. (2003) Turning Brownfields into Green
Space in the City of Toronto, Landscape and Urban
Planning 62: 18198.
Dole, J. (1989) Greenscape 5: Green Cities, Architects
Journal (10 May): 619.
DTLR (2001) Green Spaces, Better Places: Interim Report
of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. London:
Department for Transport, Local Government and
the Regions.
Goode, D. (1998) Integration of Nature in Urban
Development, in J. Breuste, H. Feldman and
O. Uhlmann (eds) Urban Ecology, pp. 58992.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hart, R. (1997) Childrens Participation: the Theory and
Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community
Development and Environmental Care. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G.W. (1991) Restorative
Effects of Natural Environment Experiences,
Environment and Behaviour 23 (1): 326.
Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P. and Rietveld, P. (1983)
Qualitative Discrete Multiple Criteria Choice Models,
Regional Planning, Regional Science and Urban Economics
13: 77102.
Hough, M. (1984) City Form and Natural Processes.
London: Croom Helm.
Janssen, R. and Munda, G. (1999) Multi-criteria Methods
for Quantitative, Qualitative and Fuzzy Evaluation
Problems, in J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.) Handbook of
Environmental and Resource Economics, pp. 83752.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Kaplan, R. (2001) The Nature of the View from Home:
Psychological Benefits, Environment and Behaviour
33 (4): 50742.
Korpela, K.M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F.G. and Fuhrer, U.
(2001) Restorative Experience and Self-regulation in
Favorite Places, Environment and Behaviour 33 (4):
57289.
Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C. (2001a) Environment and
Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce
Crime?, Environment and Behaviour 33 (3): 34367.
16(2)
Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C. (2001b) Aggression and

Violence in the Inner City: Effects of Environment via
Mental Fatigue, Environment and Behaviour 33 (4):
54371.
Luttik, J. (2000) The Value of Trees, Water and Open
Space as Reflected by House Prices in the Netherlands,
Landscape and Urban Planning 48: 1617.
McCarthy, J., Lloyd, G. and Illsley, B. (2002) National
Parks in Scotland: Balancing Environment and
Economy, European Planning Studies 10 (5): 66570.
MacHarg, I.L. (1971) Design with Nature. New York:
Doubleday, Garden City.
Morancho, A.B. (2003) A Hedonic Valuation of Urban
Green Areas, Landscape and Urban Planning 66: 3541.
Munda, G. (1997) Multicriteria Evaluation as a
Multidimensional Approach to Welfare Measurement,
in J.C.J.M. van den Bergh and J. van der Straaten (eds)
Economy and Ecosystems in Change: Analytical and
Historical Approaches, 96115. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishers.
Naess, P. (2001) Urban Planning and Sustainable
Development, European Planning Studies 9 (4): 50324.
Nijkamp, P. (2004) Environmental Economics and Evaluation,
Vol. 4. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. and Voogd, H. (1990)
Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning.
Amsterdam: North Holland.
Nunes, P.A.L.D, van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. and Nijkamp, P.
(2003) The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity: Methods,
Values and Policy Applications. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishers.
Priemus, H. (1999) Sustainable Cities: How to Realize an
Ecological Breakthrough: a Dutch Approach,
International Planning Studies 4 (2): 21336.
Roelofs, J. (1999) Building and Designing with Nature:
Urban Design, Greening Cities: Building Just and
Sustainable Communities, New York, NY: The Bootstrap
Press.
Rossman, B.B. and Ulehla, Z.J. (1977) Psychological
Reward Values Associated with Wilderness Use: a
Functional-reinforcement Approach, Environment and
Behaviour 9 (1): 4166.
Roy, B. (1990) Decision Aid and Decision Making, in
C.A. Bana e Costa (ed.) Readings in Multiple Criteria
Decision Aid, pp. 1735. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Scottish Executive (2001) Rethinking Open Space.
Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. Kit Campbell
Associates.
Solecki, W.D. and Welch, J.M. (1995) Urban Parks: Green
Spaces or Green Walls?, Landscape and Urban Planning
32: 93106.
Stanners, D. and Bourdeau, P. (1995) Europes
Environment: the Dobris Assessment. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Turner, R.K., Button, K. and Nijkamp, P. (eds) (1999)

Ecosystems and Nature: Economics, Science and Policy,
Environmental Analysis and Economic Policy, Series 7.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Tyrvinen, L. and Vnnen, H. (1998) The Economic
Value of Urban Forest Amenities: an Application of the
Contingent Valuation Method, Landscape and Urban
Planning 43: 10518.
Ulrich, R.S. (1981) Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some
Psychophysiological Effects, Environmental Behavior
13 (5): 52356.
Ulrich, R.S. (1984) View through a Window May
Influence Recovery from Surgery, Science 224 (4647):
4201.
URGE Team (Corporate Authors) (2004) Making Greener
Cities a Practical Guide, No. 8/2004. Leipzig-Halle:
UFZ Centre for Environmental Research.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (ed.) (1999) Handbook of

Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishers.
Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P. and Welle, C.T. (2002) A
Multicriteria Decision Support Methodology for
Evaluating Airport Expansion Plans, Transportation
Research Part D, 7: 2747.
Correspondence to:
Tzin Baycan-Levent, Department of Urban and
Regional Planning, Istanbul Technical University,
Taskisla 34437 Taksim, Istanbul, Turkey.
[email: tuzin.baycanlevent@itu.edu.tr]
213

A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Green SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Green SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16(2): 193213

A MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF GREEN

Ron Vreeker and Peter Nijkamp

and qualitative information, coined Regime Analysis.A

Scoping the scene

built-up spaces that also incorporate elements from

Urban planning is not only concerned with the built

KEY WORDS European cities green spaces

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES

of parks and gardens in urban areas (Baycan-Levent

Since only an integrated connection between the

European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

BAYCAN-LEVENT ET AL.: A MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF GREEN SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES

environment; create an interconnected quality-oflife infrastructure; and involve communities in the

Urban green spaces: values and valuation

(e.g. active or passive recreation) or indirectly

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

EUROPEAN URBAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES

Contact with nature may mitigate mental fatigue,

environmental improvements, and as a mechanism for

European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

Indirect use value

Genetic diversity value

Direct use value

Types of values of urban

Urban green spaces are valued for sports and sight-seeing

Urban green spaces have an intrinsic natural value for a healthy

Functions and contributions

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

Monetary valuation: travel cost method, tourism

Monetary valuation: market analysis, production

Monetary valuation: costbenefit analysis, travel

European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)

Indirect use value

Indirect use value

Indirect use value

Types of values of urban

Functions and contributions

European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

Indirect use value

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

Direct use value

Types of values of urban

Urban green space can be seen as a laboratory for the pursuit of

Urban green spaces form the landscape and townscape structure

the diversity of urban areas by reflecting the different

Functions and contributions

Monetary valuation: financial analysis,

Monetary valuation: costbenefit analysis,

European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)

Indirect use value/

Types of values of urban

Functions and contributions

European Urban and Regional Studies 2009 16(2)

Downloaded from eur.sagepub.com at CIDADE UNIVERSITARIA on May 19, 2016

BAYCAN-LEVENT ET AL.: A MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF GREEN SPACES IN EUROPEAN CITIES

Another classification has been developed by

In this approach, ecosystem goods and services