Age-group-based evaluation of residents’ urban green space provision: Szeged, Hungary. A case study

  • Ronald András Kolcsár Department of Geoinformatics, Physical and Environmental Geography, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
  • Ákos K. Csete Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary
  • Anna Kovács-Győri IDA Lab, Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
  • Péter Szilassi Department of Geoinformatics, Physical and Environmental Geography, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
Keywords: availability, accessibility, provision, urban park, green infrastructure


Analysis of urban green space (UGS) provision is becoming increasingly important from an urban-planning perspective, as processes related to climate change tend to worsen the urban heat-island effect. In the present study, we aimed to map the UGS provision of Szeged, Hungary, using a GIS-based complex approach. Different age groups, especially the elderly, have different demands on the ecosystem services and infrastructure of UGSs. To provide an in-depth assessment of UGS provision for planners, we analysed the UGS availability and accessibility, using subblock-level population data, which includes not only the total number of residents but also provides information about the age-group distribution for each building of the city. We delineated areas having different UGS provision levels (called provision zones) and assessed the age distribution of the residents living in each zone. We found that the residents within 2-min walking distance to public green spaces are older than expected by comparison to the age distribution of Szeged. In provision zones with abundant locally available UGSs (measured as UGS per capita within 50-m buffers), we found that the youngest (0–18 years) and oldest (≥ 61 years) inhabitants are overrepresented age groups, while the age group 19–40 has the lowest overall UGS provision within the city of Szeged. Our research, which has the potential to be adapted to other settlements, contributes to the identification of UGS-deficit areas in a city, thereby providing essential information for urban planners about where increases in UGS are most needed and helping to assess infrastructural enhancements that would be adequate for the locally most-dominant age groups.


Aquino, D. do N., Neto, O.C. da R., Moreira, M.A., Teixeira, A. dos S. and de Andrade, E.M. 2018. Use of remote sensing to identify areas at risk of degradation in the semi-arid region. Revista Ciencia Agronomica 49. (3): 420-429.

Arnberger, A., Allex, B., Eder, R., Ebenberger, M., Wanka, A., Kolland, F., Wallner, P. and Hutter, H.P. 2017. Elderly resident's uses of and preferences for urban green spaces during heat periods. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 21. 102-115.

Artmann, M., Chen, X., Iojă, C., Hof, A., Onose, D., Poniży, L., Lamovšek, A.Z. and Breuste, J. 2017. The role of urban green spaces in care facilities for elderly people across European cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 27. 203-213.

Ayala-Azcárraga, C., Diaz, D. and Zambrano, L. 2019. Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landscape and Urban Planning 189. 27-35.

Bahrini, F., Bell, S. and Mokhtarzadeh, S. 2017. The relationship between the distribution and use patterns of parks and their spatial accessibility at the city level: A case study from Tehran, Iran. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 27. 332-342.

Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J.A., Armsworth, P.R., Davies, R.G., Fuller, R.A., Johnson, P. and Gaston, K.J. 2007. Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 83. 187-195.

Belügyminisztérium 2019. Hungarian Ministry of the Interior. Database of the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior 2018. Budapest, Hungarian Ministry of Interior.

Biernacka, M. and Kronenberg, J. 2019. Urban green space availability, accessibility and attractiveness, and the delivery of ecosystem services. Cities and the Environment 12. (1):5. Available at

Biernacka, M., Kronenberg, J. and Łaszkiewicz, E. 2020. An integrated system of monitoring the availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban parks and green squares. Applied Geography 116. 102152.

Blaschke, T. and Kovács-Győri, A. 2020. Earth observation to substantiate the sustainable development goal 11: Practical considerations and experiences from Austria. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. XLIII-B4-2020, XXIV ISPRS Congress.

Bok, J. and Kwon, Y. 2016. Comparable measures of accessibility to public transport using the general transit feed specification. Sustainability (Switzerland) 8. (3): 1-224.

Bozkurt, M. 2021. Metropolitan children's physical fitness: The relationship between overweight and obesity prevalence, socioeconomic status, urban green space access, and physical activity. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 64. 127272.

Braquinho, C., Cvejić, R., Eler, K., Gonzales, P., Haase, D., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Lorance Rall, E., Niemela, J., Pauleit, S., Pintar, M., Lafortezza, R., Santos, A., Strohbach, M., Vierikko, K. and Železnikar, Š. 2015. A Typology of Urban Green Spaces, Ecosystem Provisioning Services and Demands. Green Surge, Report D3.1. EU FP7. Available at

Bui, D.H. and Mucsi, L. 2021. From land cover map to land use map: A combined pixel-based and objectbased approach using multi-temporal Landsat data, a random forest classifier, and decision rules. Remote Sensing 13. (9): 1700.

Chênes, C., Giuliani, G. and Ray, N. 2021. Modelling physical accessibility to public green spaces in Switzerland to support the SDG11. Geomatics 1. (4): 383-398.

Cheng, Y., Zhang, J., Wei, W. and Zhao, B. 2021. Effects of urban parks on residents' expressed happiness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Landscape and Urban Planning 212. 104118.

CICES 2022. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. CICES Version 5.1. Copenhagen, European Environment Agency.

Copernicus 2018. Urban Atlas 2018. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, EU.

Csete, Á.K. and Gulyás, Á. 2021. Green infrastructure- based hydrological modelling, a comparison between different urban districts, through the case of Szeged, Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 70. (4): 353-368.

Csete, Á.K., Kolcsár, R.A. and Gulyás, Á. 2021. Rainwater harvesting potential and vegetation irrigation assessment derived from building databased hydrological modelling through the case study of Szeged. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences 16. (2): 469-482.

Csomós, G., Farkas, J.Z. and Kovács, Z. 2020. Access to urban green spaces and environmental inequality in post-socialist cities. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69. (2): 191-207.

Csomós, G., Farkas, Z.J., Kolcsár, R.A., Szilassi, P. and Kovács, Z. 2021. Measuring socio-economic disparities in green space availability in post-socialist cities. Habitat International 117. 102434.

Edwards, D., Elliott, A., Hislop, M., Martin, S., Morris, J., O'Brien, L., Peace, A., Sarajevs, V., Serrand, M. and Valatin, G. 2009. A Valuation of the Economic and Social Contribution of Forestry for People in Scotland. Edinburgh, Forestry Commission Scotland. Available at

Ekkel, E.D. and de Vries, S. 2017. Nearby green space and human health: Evaluating accessibility metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning 157. 214-220.

ESRI 2018. Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGIS Network Analyst. Redlands, California, ESRI.

Fehér, É. 2018. Szeged megyei jogú város építési szabályzatának módosítása a lakás rendeltetési egységekhez tartozó telekhányadok meghatározására vonatkozóan (Modification of regulation of constructions for county seat Szeged retating to building plot rate of flat units). Szeged, Szeged Megyei Jogú Város Önkormányzata. Available at

Fuller, R.A. and Gaston, K.J. 2009. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biology Letters 5. (3): 352-355.

Gál, T., Skarbit, N. and Unger, J. 2016. Urban heat island patterns and their dynamics based on an urban climate measurement network. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (2): 105-116. Available at

Gehl, J. 2010. Cities for People. Washington, D. C., Island Press. Geofabrik 2018. Geofabrik OpenStreetMap Data Extracts. Access date: 2018.12.05.

Geofabrik 2021. Geofabrik OpenStreetMap Data Extracts Access date: 2021.02.05.

Hare, T.S. and Barcus, H.R. 2007. Geographical accessibility and Kentucky's heart-related hospital services. Applied Geography 27. (3-4): 181-205.

Henits, L., Jürgens, C. and Mucsi, L. 2016. Seasonal multitemporal land-cover classification and change detection analysis of Bochum, Germany, using multitemporal Landsat TM data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 37. (15): 3439-3454.

Herbel, I., Croitoru, A.E., Rus, I., Harpa, G.V. and Ciupertea, A.F. 2016. Detection of atmospheric urban heat island through direct measurements in Cluj-Napoca city, Romania. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (2): 117-128.

Huang, B., Zhao, B. and Song, Y. 2018. Urban landuse mapping using a deep convolutional neural network with high spatial resolution multispectral remote sensing imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 214. 73-86.

James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K.L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A. E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemelä, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J.P. and Ward Thompson, C. 2009. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 8. (2): 65-75.

Jiang, S., Alves, A., Rodrigues, F., Ferreira, J. and Pereira, F.C. 2015. Mining point-of-interest data from social networks for urban land use classification and disaggregation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 53. 36-46.

Kabisch, N. and Haase, D. 2014. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 122. 129-139.

Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Haase, D. and Kronenberg, J. 2016. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecological Indicators 70.586-596.

Kántor, N. 2016. Differences between the evaluation of thermal environment in shaded and sunny position. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (2):139-153.

Kemperman, A.D.A.M. and Timmermans, H.J.P. 2007. Heterogeneity in urban park use of aging visitors: A latent class analysis. Leisure Sciences 28. (1): 57-71.

Kerishnan, P.B. and Maruthaveeran, S. 2021. Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks - A review of the evidence. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 58. 126985.

Kolcsár, R.A., Csikós, N. and Szilassi, P. 2021. Testing the limitations of buffer zones and Urban atlas population data in urban green space provision analyses through the case study of Szeged, Hungary. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 57. 126942.

Koprowska, K., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J. and Marcińczak, S. 2018. Subjective perception of noise exposure in relation to urban green space availability. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 31. 93-102.

Kothencz, G., Kolcsár, R., Cabrera-Barona, P. and Szilassi, P. 2017. Urban green space perception and its contribution to well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14. (7): 766.

Kovács-Győri, A., Ristea, A., Kolcsar, R., Resch, B., Crivellari, A. and Blaschke, T. 2018. Beyond spatial proximity-classifying parks and their visitors in london based on spatiotemporal and sentiment analysis of twitter data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7. (9): 378.

Kraemer, R. and Kabisch, N. 2021. Parks in context: advancing citywide spatial quality assessments of urban green spaces using fine-scaled indicators. Ecology and Society 26. (2): 45.

Kraft, S. 2016. Measuring and modelling the spatial accessibility of public transport stops in GIS. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (1): 57-69.

Kronenberg, J. 2015. Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12. 218-227.

KSH 2021. Hungarian Statistical Office. Demography, 2020. Budapest, Hungarian Central Statistical Office.

Kwan, M.P. and Weber, J. 2008. Scale and accessibility: Implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Applied Geography 28. (2): 110-123.

Le Texier, M., Schiel, K. and Caruso, G. 2018. The provision of urban green space and its accessibility: Spatial data effects in Brussels. PLoS ONE 13. (10): e0204684.

Lechner Tudásközpont 2015. Data from the Lechner Knowledge Center (former Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing), Budapest.

Levy-Storms, L., Chen, L. and Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2018. Older adults' needs and preferences for open space and physical activity in and near parks: A systematic review. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 26. (4): 682-696.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Levy-Storms, L., Chen, L. and Brozen, M. 2016. Parks for an aging population: Needs and preferences of low-income seniors in Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association 82. (3): 236-251.

Makovníková, J., Pálka, B., Širáň, M., Kizeková, M. and Kanianska, R. 2019. The potential of regulating ecosystem service - filtering potential for inorganic pollutants - supplied by soils of Slovakia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (2): 177-185.

Maryanti, M.R., Khadijah, H., Uzair, A.M., Megat, M.A.R. and Ghazali, M. 2016. The urban green space provision using the standards approach: issues and challenges of its implementation in Malaysia. Sustainable Development and Planning 8. 369-379.

McGrail, M.R. and Humphreys, J.S. 2009. Measuring spatial accessibility to primary care in rural areas: Improving the effectiveness of the two-step floating catchment area method. Applied Geography 29. (4): 533-541.

MEA 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, UNEP. Available at

Mora-Garcia, R.T., Marti-Ciriquian, P., Perez-Sanchez, R. and Cespedes-Lopez, M.F. 2018. A comparative analysis of manhattan, euclidean and network distances. Why are network distances more useful to urban professionals? International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management. SGEM Scientific eLibrary. Available at

Morar, T., Radoslav, R., Spiridon, L. and Păcurar, L. 2014. Assessing pedestrian accessibility to green space using GIS. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences 10. (42): 116-139.

Mucsi, L., Liska, C.M., Henits, L., Tobak, Z., Csendes, B. and Nagy, L. 2017. The evaluation and application of an urban land cover map with image data fusion and laboratory measurements. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 66. (2): 145-156.

Naghibi, M., Faizi, M. and Ekhlassi, A. 2021. Design possibilities of leftover spaces as a pocket park in relation to planting enclosure. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 64. 127273.

Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S. and Koskela, T. 2007. Access to green areas and the frequency of visits - A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 6. (4): 235-247.

Oh, K. and Jeong, S. 2007. Assessing the spatial distribution of urban parks using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning 82. (1-2): 25-32.

Pafi, M., Siragusa, A., Ferri, S. and Halkia, S. 2016. Measuring the accessibility of urban green areas: A comparison of the Green ESM with other datasets in four European cities. JRC Publications repository. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. Available at

Park, K. 2017. Psychological park accessibility: a systematic literature review of perceptual components affecting park use. Landscape Research 42. (5): 508-520.

Poleman, H. 2018. A walk to the park? Assessing access to green areas in Europe's cities. Update using completed Copernicus urban atlas data. WP 01/2018. European Commission. Available at

Pongrácz, R., Bartholy, J., Dezső, Z. and Dian, C. 2016. Analysis of the air temperature and relative humidity measurements in Budapest-Ferencváros. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (2): 93-103.

Razak, M.A.W.A., Othman, N. and Nazir, N.N.M. 2016. Connecting people with nature: Urban park and human well-being. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222. 476-484.

Rossi, S.D., Byrne, J.A. and Pickering, C.M. 2015. The role of distance in peri-urban national park use: Who visits them and how far do they travel?Applied Geography 63. 77-88.

Rosso, F., Cappa, F., Spitzmiller, R. and Ferrero, M. 2022. Pocket parks towards more sustainable cities. Architectural, environmental, managerial and legal considerations towards an integrated framework: A case study in the Mediterranean region. Environmental Challenges 7. 100402.

Rupprecht, D.C., Byrne, J.A., Ueda, H., and Lo, A.Y. 2015. 'It's real, not fake like a park': Residents' perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 143. 205-218.

Schipperijn, J., Stigsdotter, U.K., Randrup, T.B. and Troelsen, J. 2010. Influences on the use of urban green space - A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 9. (1): 25-32.

Shahid, R., Bertazzon, S., Knudtson, M.L. and Ghali, W.A. 2009. Comparison of distance measures in spatial analytical modeling for health service planning. BMC Health Services Research 9. 200.

Stanners, D. and Bourdeau, P. (eds.) 1995. Europe's Environment: the Dobris Assessment. Specially prepared for the presentation of the European Environment Agency. London, Earthscan Publications.Available at

Stessens, P., Khan, A.Z., Huysmans, M. and Canters, F. 2017. Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: A GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels. Ecosystem Services 28. 328-340.

Szilassi, P., Breuste, J., Kolcsár, A.R. and Aigner, G. 2020. Mobile application-based field survey as possible tool for investigating visitors' perception and preferences of the vegetation. In Making Green Cities. Eds.: Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Ioja, C. and Quareshi, S., Cham, Springer, 459-473.

Takács, Á., Kovács, A., Kiss, M., Gulyás, Á. and Kántor, N. 2016. Study on the transmissivity characteristics of urban trees in Szeged, Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65. (2): 155-167.

TEEB 2022. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Project. United Nations Environment Programme. Geneva, Switzerland, UNEP FI.

USGS 2018. United States Geological Survey. NDVI, the Foundation for Remote Sensing Phenology U.S. Geological Survey.

Uzzoli, A., Egri, Z., Szilágyi, D. and Pál, V. 2020. Does better availability mean better accessibility? Spatial inequalities in the care of acute myocardial infarction in Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 69. (4): 401-418.

Van den Bosch, C.K. 2021. Promoting health and wellbeing through urban forests - Introducing the 3-30-300 rule. IUCN Urban Alliance publication. Available at

Weldon, S., Bailey, C. and O'Brien, L. 2007. New pathways for health and well-being in Scotland: Research to understand and overcome barriers to accessing woodlands. Edinburgh, Forestry Commission Scotland. Available at

Wen, C., Albert, C. and von Haaren, C. 2020. Equality in access to urban green spaces: A case study in Hannover, Germany, with a focus on the elderly population. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 55. 126820.

Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J. and Newell, J.P. 2014. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities 'just green enough'. Landscape and Urban Planning 125. 234-244.

WHO 2017. Urban planning, environment and health: from evidence to policy action. WHO report. New York, UN World Health Organization.

WHO Regional Office for Europe 2017. Urban green spaces: a brief for action. WHO report. New York, UN World Health Organization.

Wright, W.H.E., Zarger, R.K. and Mihelcic, J.R. 2012. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning 107. (3): 272-282.

Wu, L. and Kim, S.K. 2021. Exploring the equality of accessing urban green spaces: A comparative study of 341 Chinese cities. Ecological Indicators 121. 107080.

Wüstemann, H., Kalisch, D. and Kolbe, J. 2017. Access to urban green space and environmental inequalities in Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 164. 124-131.

Yang, L., Liu, J., Liang, Y., Lu, Y. and Yang, H. 2021. Spatially varying effects of street greenery on walking time of older adults. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10. (9): 596.

You, H. 2016. Characterizing the inequalities in urban public green space provision in Shenzhen, China. Habitat International 56. 176-180.

Zepp, H., Gross, L. and Inostroza, L. 2020. And the winner is? Comparing urban green space provision and accessibility in eight European metropolitan areas using a spatially explicit approach. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 49. 126603.

Zhang, X., Du, S. and Wang, Q. 2017. Hierarchical semantic cognition for urban functional zones with VHR satellite images and POI data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 132.170-184.

How to Cite
KolcsárR. A., Csete Ákos K., Kovács-GyőriA., & SzilassiP. (2022). Age-group-based evaluation of residents’ urban green space provision: Szeged, Hungary. A case study. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 71(3), 249-269.