ReviewHeliyon2024
Evaluating the benefits of urban green infrastructure: Methods, indicators, and gaps.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overlooked considerations in prescribing green and blue infrastructure solutions for urban environments.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Review
- Monitoring environmental heat on urban green infrastructure in central Italy based on the florence case study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Green infrastructure (GI) offers a promising solution for mitigating the adverse effects of climate change, but evaluating its effectiveness necessitates a comprehensive understanding of how that has been quantified in the literature. This study aims to review the methods (monitoring, remote sensing, and modelling) employed to assess the effectiveness of GI in urban areas for three ecosystem services: heat mitigation (cooling of air temperature), thermal comfort control, and air quality mitigation. The objectives include evaluating the suitability of these approaches across diverse scales, categorising the essential parameters, and identifying the strengths and limitations inherent in each method. Through a literature review, 126 research papers were selected for detailed analysis. Modelling was the dominant method for heat mitigation (45.6 %), thermal comfort (70 %), and air pollution (51.9 %). The main inputs for assessing these three ecosystem services by GI were: meteorological parameters used in monitoring or modelling, morphological parameters (describing vegetation, surface, and built-up area conditions), specified parameters depending on the evaluated benefit such as landscape metrics (for heat mitigation), personal factors (for thermal comfort), pollutant measures (for air pollution), and other parameters (e.g. building and traffic heat emissions). The application scale of each method was dependent on the instruments, satellite data, and simulation tools utilised. Monitoring methods were employed in studies ranging from street-scale to neighbourhood-scale, remote sensing methods covered city-scale to regional-scale assessments, and modelling studies spanned from street-scale to regional-scale analyses. These diverse methods used to assess the GI benefits each have individual strengths and limitations which need to match the context and objectives of the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.