A GIS-Based Approach to Combine Health, Land-Use, Socioeconomics and Ecosystem Services in Stockholm

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2020/41 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

Identifying Optimal Locations for Urban Green Infrastructure to Reduce Health Inequalities: A GIS-Based Approach to combine Health, Land-use, Socioeconomics and Ecosystem Services in Stockholm

Olivier Rostang

DEPARTMENT OF

EARTH SCIENCES

INSTITUTIONEN FÖR GEOVETENSKAPER

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2020/41 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

Identifying Optimal Locations for Urban Green Infrastructure to Reduce Health Inequalities: A GIS-Based Approach to combine Health, Land-use, Socioeconomics and Ecosystem Services in Stockholm

Olivier Rostang

Supervisor: Åsa Gren Subject Reviewer: Meta Berghauser Pont

Content

1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 2. BACKGROUND ...... 2

2.1 THE STUDY AREA OF STOCKHOLM ...... 2 2.2 URBAN AREAS AND HUMAN HEALTH ...... 3 2.2.1 Health and urban green areas ...... 3 2.2.2 Urban green areas and health in relation to socioeconomic groups...... 4 2.3 NATURE BASED SOLUTIONS, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND HEALTH ...... 5 2.3.1 Cultural ecosystem services ...... 6 3. METHODS ...... 7

3.1 LAND COVER - THE BIOTOPE MAP ...... 7 3.2 THE STOCKHOLM MOSAIC...... 7 3.3 GIS ANALYSIS ...... 8 3.3.1 Spatial Analysis: Weighted Overlay...... 8 3.3.2 Ranking the criteria...... 9 3.3.3 Determining the influence of layers ...... 12 3.3.4 Weighted Overlay Analysis: Calculating the model ...... 12 3.3.5 Detailing the GIS process ...... 13 3.4 LIMITATIONS ...... 15 4. RESULTS ...... 16

4.1 SINGLE HEALTH INDICATOR MAPS ...... 16 4.2 AGGREGATED HEALTH INDICATOR MAPS ...... 24 5. DISCUSSION ...... 28

5.1 INTERPRETATION LIMITATIONS ...... 28 5.2 COMPARISON WITH BASE MAPS ...... 29 5.3 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND DENSIFICATION ...... 29 5.4 QUALITY, QUANTITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF UGI ...... 30 5.5 SMART CITIES AND DATA DRIVEN POLICY ...... 31 5.6 DOWNSTREAM SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF IMPROVING UGIS ...... 31 5.7 MEETING THE SDGS ...... 32 5.8 FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 33 6. CONCLUSION ...... 34 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 35 8. REFERENCES ...... 35

APPENDIX A – BASE MAP (BIOTOPE/LAND-COVER)...... 43 APPENDIX B – BASE MAP (INCOME AND EDUCATION) ...... 44 APPENDIX C – BASE MAPS (HEALTH/HEALTHCARE CONSUMPTION) ...... 45

Identifying Optimal Locations for Urban Green Infrastructure to Reduce Health Inequalities: A GIS-Based Approach to combine Health, Land-use, Socioeconomics and Ecosystem Services in Stockholm

OLIVIER ROSTANG

Rostang, O., 2020: Identifying Optimal Locations for Urban Green Infrastructure to Reduce Health Inequalities: A GIS-Based Approach to combine Health, Land-use, Socioeconomics and Ecosystem Services in Stockholm. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2020.41, 50pp, 30 ECTS/hp

Abstract:

Cities are growing at unprecedented rates and are expected to be home to 70% of the world’s population in 2050. In this process, they face challenges such as densification, rapid population growth and loss of land and ecosystem service. Cities also have to remain livable and accessible to all. In 2014, the Swedish Public Health Agency declared that it would aim to close all avoidable health inequalities within one generation. In order to reach these objectives while also complying with the Sustainable Development Goals, urban green infrastructure (UGI) has been increasingly viewed as a powerful instrument that cities can utilize to help them meet their sustainability and human health targets. As nature -based solutions, UGI can greatly contribute to building resilience in urban areas by providing a numbe r of ecosystem services. Simultaneously, UGI have also been shown to possess equigenic functions – the capacity to support the health of the least advantaged population groups equally or more so than the most privileged. This study has therefore aimed to operationalize a methodology to help identify optimal locations for developing and managing UGI in Stockholm with the aim of prioritizing health and minimizing impacts on existing ecosystems. This was done by drawing on 3 spatial datasets (land-cover, health and healthcare consumption, socioeconomics) and combining them using a GIS. The resulting maps are made for individual as well as aggregated health indicators. They display multiple optimal location clusters that were often located in the outer parts of the city, notably in the north-western and south-eastern boroughs. The inner-city however, showed little need for equigenic UGI improvements. The results and the implications of this methodology are discussed in relation to several aspects of UGI, including quality, quantity and accessibility, gentrification and UGI’s role in the smart city. Suggestions for future research building on this methodology is also provided.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Urban Green Infrastructure, Health, GIS, Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development Goals

Olivier Rostang, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

iii

Identifying Optimal Locations for Urban Green Infrastructure to Reduce Health Inequalities: A GIS-Based Approach to combine Health, Land-use, Socioeconomics and Ecosystem Services in Stockholm

OLIVIER ROSTANG

Summary: Cities are growing at unprecedented rates and are expected to be home to 70% of the world’s population in 2050. In this process, they face challenges as rapidly growing urban population also makes the built environment denser and causes the loss of both land and of the benefits that humans obtain from healthy ecosystems. In this growth process however, cities also have to remain livable and accessible to all. In 2014, the Swedish Public Health Agency declared that it would aim to close all avoidable health inequalities within one generation. These are for example differences in health among men and women or among population with different socioeconomic backgrounds. In order to reach these objectives, it is necessary to comply with the Sustainable Development Goals – humanity’s goals according to the United Nations. Urban green infrastructure (UGI), an umbrella term for parks, urban forests, gardens and other natural green environments in the city, has been increasingly viewed as a powerful instrument that cities can utilize to help them meet their sustainability and human health targets. As nature -based solutions, UGI can ensure that urban areas are resistant to shocks and disturbance brought by climate change, by providing a number of ecosystem services. Simultaneously, UGI have also been shown to possess equigenic functions – the capacity to support the health of the least advantaged population groups equally or more so than the most privileged. This study has therefore aimed to create a methodology to help identify optimal locations for developing and managing UGI in Stockholm with the aim of prioritizing health and minimizing impacts on existing ecosystems. This was done by drawing on 3 spatial datasets (land-cover, health and healthcare consumption, socioeconomics) and combining them using a Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS is a digital tool where spatial data can be analyzed and transformed as well as presented, generally in the form maps. The resulting maps are made for individual as well as combined health indicators. They display multiple optimal location that were often located in the outer parts of the city, notably in the north-western and south-eastern boroughs. The inner-city however, showed little need for equigenic UGI improvements. The results and the implications of this methodology are discussed in relation to several aspects of UGI, including quality, quantity and accessibility, gentrification and UGI’s role in the smart city. Suggestions for future research building on this methodology is also provided.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Urban Green Infrastructure, Health, GIS, Ecosystem Services, Sustainable Development Goals

Olivier Rostang, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

1. Introduction

The Great Acceleration may well be the defining trend of this century. Across many socio-economic and natural systems, the world is currently experiencing a phase of unprecedented changes, from population growth to increases in CO2 concentrations (Steffen et al., 2015). One of these trends is also clearly illustrated in cities, which have quickly grown to accommodate a rising share of the world’s population. With less than 30% of the world population being urbanized in 1950, this has increased to over 55% in 2018, and it is currently expected that around 70% of the world population will live in urban areas by 2050 (United Nations, 2019). Such rapid changes have not come without challenges. Rapidly expanding cities are facing biodiversity and land losses, as well as other environmental threats (Seto et al., 2011).

Sweden is no exception to these trends with a steadily growing population since the 1980s. Stockholm, as the largest city in Sweden and Scandinavia, is home to nearly a million inhabitants and a metropolitan area of nearly 2,5 million. The rapid economic developments of the past decades combined with anticipated population growth have led to urban densification which puts pressure on the city’s ecosystems and may exacerbate existing socioeconomic gaps among its population, which, in turn, also impacts public health.

In Stockholm as in most cities, public health issues have also become crucial for urban areas to address in order to ensure they remain livable for a growing, aging and healthy population (World Health Organization, 1993). In its 2019 report, the Swedish Public Health Agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten) stated that its primary public health goal was “to create the societal conditions that ensure good and equal health among the population and close preventable health gaps within one generation” (translated from Swedish) (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2019, p. 23). Significant efforts to address the existing health inequalities will therefore need to be deployed (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2019). With many such ambitious targets, the recent United Nation’s 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should act as the guiding compass for cities and communities around the world as they seek to address both climate change and human health related issues, exemplified among others as goals 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and 3 (Good Health and Well-Being).

In the midst of these challenges, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions have emerged as promising and tangible approaches to conceptualize and address the interrelated issues of human wellbeing and the environment in urban areas (Elmqvist et al., 2013). There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that urban green infrastructure (UGI) – an umbrella term for parks, urban forests, gardens and other natural green environments in the city – has the potential to not only strengthen the social-ecological resilience of cities but to also improve human health and well-being (Andersson et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2019; Tzoulas et al., 2007). In addition, much of the existing evidence seems to suggest that economically marginalized groups may disproportionately benefit from the health effects brought by UGI (Maas et al., 2006; Mitchell and Popham, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2015). Green infrastructure could therefore prove helpful in actively reducing potential health inequalities that the Swedish government seeks to tackle.

In an attempt to contribute to reaching this goal, the aim of this paper is to use a GIS-based approach to identify areas in Stockholm with high equigenic potential – areas that could greatly contribute to reducing health inequalities in their vicinity through management of the UGI (see section 2.2.2). This is done by combining 3 layers of data on health and healthcare consumption, socioeconomic backgrounds, and land- use. Given that urban green infrastructure can greatly contribute to improving well-being and quality of life, identifying areas in urgent need of such improvements will help solve the ambitious goal of closing health inequality gaps within one generation.

2. Background

2.1 The study area of Stockholm

The study area is the city of Stockholm, known in Swedish as Stockholm Kommun (Stockholm municipality) or Stockholm Stad (hereby referred to as Stockholm). It was chosen because, being the economic and political center of Sweden and in some regards, of Scandinavia as a whole (Dobers and Hallin, 2009), the growing population has been accompanied by many common features of urbanization in a globalizing context, including densification, privatization, displacements in the economy and spatial segregation (Littke, 2015). Stockholm is also the capital of Sweden and of the Stockholm county, making it a major historical, political and economic center in the country. Stockholm is made up of 14 districts (see figure 1) and occupies a total surface area of 215,92km2 for a population of 962 154, which roughly corresponds to 9,5% of Sweden’s population (Stockholm Stad, 2020). While the population density in Sweden is rather low at 25,1 inhabitants per km2 compared to the European average of 117,7, Stockholm has a population density of 5 139,7 inhabitants per km2 making it more than twice as dense as Malmö, and more than four times as dense as Gothenburg (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2020). After a dip in population between 1960 and 1980, Stockholm’s population has been continuously growing, with a significant acceleration since 2008.

Fig 1. The 14 districts that make up Stockholm (Stockholm Stad, 2020). Open access; permission to reprint for non- commercial purposes.

Since the late 1990s, the Stockholm region has seen a sharp growth of employment in the post-industrial and postmodern services sectors that are mainly consisting of finance as well as information and communication technologies. These sectors have however required the presence of a of highly qualified and educated workforce which has shaped and concentrated the wealth distribution among the population towards the center of the city (Hermelin, 2007). 2

Stahre (2004) has argued that even though Stockholm exhibits multiple features of a global city – which are often associated with increased spatial segregation and loss of public land – the generous Swedish welfare system has dampened and delayed many of these negative outcomes. The city is also marked by a long history of social movements, he notes. These movements, active since the 1960s in multiples waves, have often sought to seize back control over the city’s planning and have requested greater public participation in the planning processes, as well as more attention directed towards human and livability aspects of the city. Over time, this has resulted in Stockholm gaining widespread appeal and recognition for its practices within urban planning and the attention payed to social and environmental standards.

In recent years, there are two trends that have been redefining Swedish cities and Stockholm in particular. First, important changes in housing policy over the past three decades in which dwellers have been allowed to purchase what was previously public housing properties, has contributed to drastically reducing the share of public rental housing in favor of market-based cooperative housing, thus driving up property prices at a faster rate (Andersson and Turner, 2014). This increased lack of affordable housing is complemented with a second trend: densification. While green areas still make up a large portion of the city’s surface, urban development trends have put pressure on these areas favoring quality over quantity and prioritizing densification over sprawl (Littke, 2015). Thus, Stockholm is getting increasingly expensive and gradually reducing the share of green areas which may worsen spatial segregation and access to green infrastructure among certain parts of the population. Understanding these trends is therefore a vital part in understanding the dynamics at play between health status and availability to urban green areas in relation to various socioeconomic groups.

While the post-war period in Sweden had seen decreased wealth inequality, this peaked in the 1980s at which time the Swedish society can be considered at its most equal. Since then however, the wealth gap has been widening and actively growing, making official estimates of inequalities likely less accurate due to the inability of tax authorities to fully capture the extent of wealth outflow in complicated international tax schemes and large privately held family firms (Roine and Waldenström 2007). This situation, while evidently more descriptive of the Swedish economy at a national level, does apply to some extents in the Stockholm case given the region’s prominent role in the Swedish economy as a whole, making up 31,2% of the country’s gross domestic product (Eurostat, 2019).

2.2 Urban areas and human health

Urban areas represent emerging challenges in terms of public health policies because of 3 main observable trends. First, cities are generally associated with lower levels of physical activity, which increases risks for a wide range of diseases such as those of cardiovascular origin and other non-communicable diseases, with the lack of physical activity among the population being considered a global issue (Lee et al., 2012; Sallis et al., 2016). Second, while being some of the most densely populated areas on the planet, cities also evidence an increasing trend of mental illnesses such as depressions and particularly linked to social isolation among others factors (Hidaka, 2012; Sundquist et al., 2004). Last, due to the sheer population size of today’s cities and the unprecedented levels of interconnectedness and fast travel between urban areas, they represent significant risk zones in the spread of pandemics as evidenced by the worldwide spread of the current coronavirus COVID-19 (Bogoch et al., 2020; Woc-Colburn and Hotchandani, 2020).

2.2.1 Health and urban green areas

Urban green areas have the potential to directly address most of the health issues linked to urban development as outlined above. In a global medical study spanning 5 continents, Sallis et al. (2016) found 3 that proper urban planning and in particular urban green infrastructure could contribute significantly toward improving health and reduce disease burden through added physical activity. Similar findings have also been reported by Hunter et al. (2015) and Richardson et al. (2013), though in a study of a UK city, Hillsdon et al. (2006) found no correlation between access to green areas and levels of physical activity. Likewise, mental health issues have been shown to be affected positively by access to urban green areas noting that there may also be substantial variance between quantity and quality of green areas, socioeconomic status, gender, etc. (Alcock et al., 2014; Nutsford et al., 2013; van den Berg et al., 2015).

Finally, the health benefits of urban green areas can also be viewed from a larger macro perspective in that expanding the availability of natural environments in heavily urbanized areas has shown to increase the overall resilience of the urban system (Braubach et al., 2017; Tzoulas et al., 2007). This increase in resilience has been shown to be associated with multiple beneficial effects on human health notably by enhancing the presence and diversity of habitats, species and genes, which may contribute to keeping cities cooler, less noisy and in general to act as a buffer against various hazards.

2.2.2 Urban green areas and health in relation to socioeconomic groups

Various types of health issues tend to manifest themselves differently among different socioeconomic groups in societies. In general, higher socioeconomic status tends to be correlated with better health than groups of lower socioeconomic status (Mackenbach et al., 2003; Smith, 2004). Hence, there has been a growing body of literature in the recent years which has sought to further investigate the epidemiological links of urban green areas in relation to socio-economic parameters. Overall, the research suggests that green areas can contribute to not only improving human health, but that they are also useful in tackling health inequalities brought by socioeconomic factors (Braubach et al., 2017).

While most studies confirm existing positive associations between urban green areas and improved health outcomes across the socioeconomic spectrum, not all studies have observed this trend. For instance, when analyzing the relationship between urban green coverage and mortality rates in a comparative study of multiple American cities, Richardson et al. (2012) found no associations when adjusting for socioeconomic factors. The authors did however note that the results did digress with the apparent consensus on a positive relationship and noted that both their scale as well as their setting differed, and that patterns may differ in car dependent environments. However, in similar geographical settings, Villeneuve et al. (2012) found that green areas were associated with a reduction in mortality, though the authors were cautious with the results interpretation as the possibility of socioeconomics and lifestyle as confounding variables was seen as a real possibility. In a larger literature review on the topic, Lee et al. (2012) expressed difficulty in establishing a common metrics for study comparisons given the variety of study designs. While they were wary of direct links between presence of green areas and improved health given the real possibility of confounding potential of socioeconomic factors, they did however acknowledge that positive associations exist in much of the published literature.

In the published literature on the topic, most of the studies generally focus on either self-reported health or health measured through proxies, such as mortality rates. In general, most studies do find that more green areas in a close proximity to one’s home tends to be associated with better health outcomes (de Vries et al., 2003; van den Berg et al., 2015; Villeneuve et al., 2012). It is worth noting that most of the studies on the subject originate from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and North America. Since these studies adjust for socioeconomic parameters, many also found significant health differences depending on the types of groups. For example, given the reported health levels of youth, elderly and secondary educated people exposed to different levels of green areas in their living environments, Maas et al. (2006) found that these groups benefited disproportionately from green areas. Similarly, Mitchell and Popham (2008) reported that 4 income-related health inequalities were found less frequently in populations with more surrounding green areas, using mortality rates as a health indicator. After having found that mental well-being inequalities were smaller among respondents who had reported better access to green areas, Mitchell et al. (2015) emphasized the utility of “equigenic” environments in their concluding remarks. Equigenic environments are environments that break the pattern of increased risk from socioeconomic related health issues, generally by improving the health of the most disadvantaged in population equally as much or more so than the most advantaged (Mitchell, 2013). Designing green areas with equigenic purposes in mind would thus be an effective way of tackling socioeconomically induced health inequalities, especially when compared to more complex measures such as poverty reduction.

A better understanding of how socioeconomically induced health issues are positively affected by urban green areas may be particularly relevant in policy and urban planning. In detailed report, Allen and Balfour (2014) have provided extensive policy suggestions for narrowing health inequalities in the United Kingdom by ensuring that equitable access to natural environments is available to all in the population. For instance, they have suggested that improved cooperation between agencies responsible for urban development and public health could provide more cost-effective methods for improving health. Enhanced public participation may also be key to ensure that urban green areas fit the expectations of those who use them. They also noted the importance of increasing the quantity, quality and overall use of nature-based solutions, particularly in areas which are at greater risk of developing socioeconomically linked health complications. Moreover, the report stresses the importance of building programs that are systematically supported by evidence. This includes data on the raison d’être and the projected scope as well as on the performance of these programs. This study is thus particularly relevant in the Swedish context of closing avoidable health gaps because identifying where potential benefits of properly designed urban green areas may contribute most significantly, will ultimately be of great utility in achieving the goals set by the Swedish Public Health Agency.

2.3 Nature based solutions, ecosystem services and health

Nature-based solutions (NbS) have become a prominent approach to address the multiple health challenges that are faced by urban areas, while simultaneously ensuring long-term restauration and prosperity of their ecosystem services:

“[Nature-based Solutions] are intended to support the achievement of society’s development goals and safeguard human well-being in ways that reflect cultural and societal values and enhance the resilience of ecosystems, their capacity for renewal and the provision of services. NbS are designed to address major societal challenges, such as food security, climate change, water security, human health, disaster risk, social and economic development” (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016, p. 5)

Ecosystem services (ES) are commonly defined as the multiple benefits that natural environments provide to human populations (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The concept of ES emerged as a response to a period where scientific attention and public awareness towards environmental degradation grew substantially (Braat and de Groot, 2012). The recognition of chemical pollution, habitat destruction and biodiversity decline in the second half of the 20th century became increasingly accepted as global existential problems. This ultimately culminated in the definition of sustainable development laid out by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 – a concept and goal now nearly considered common knowledge as many public and private entities have largely adopted sustainability practices in their agendas, though execution and performance quality often remain a contentious issue (Anderson, 2017).

Natural and social sciences have been bridged in an effort to provide an interdisciplinary approach to these inherently interdisciplinary problems. This has resulted in multiple similar concepts aimed to fully illustrate the dependencies of humans on healthy and functioning ecosystems and the complex dynamics involved between these two entities. Though referred to in various ways (e.g. environmental services), these concepts eventually became known as ecosystem services (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981).

Adding to the growing literature on the topic, ES gained significant traction in the early 2000s after the publication of the United Nations led Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). The MEA sought to map the state of several ecosystems around the world in the context of unprecedented human impact, and to provide recommendations for policy measures concerning conservation or other forms of sustainable management practices. This historical and comprehensive report is generally thought to have laid the foundation for the current widespread use of the ES approach in policy as the amount of published papers on ES has been increasing at an exponential rate since its publication (Fisher et al., 2009; Pauleit et al., 2017).

ES have also attracted attention from fields such as economics that have sought to utilize the method to facilitate monetary valuation of various services, which has propelled the method even further in mainstream science and policy (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010). Costanza et al. (1997) were among the first to suggest ES as a means to incorporate the often-neglected costs and services provided by natural systems into markets by facilitating the quantification of these functions. This would render them comparable to other types of economic services and make it possible to account for them in economic models without systemically undervaluing them. Commodifying ES remains a delicate task however, as there may be risks to applying utilitarian market-based rationales in ecological settings – a reason why monetary valuation remains a contentious topic for many in the field (Carpenter and Turner, 2000; Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez, 2011; Kull et al., 2015).

ES however remain an efficient way of evaluating the functions of ecosystems, also in an urban context (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). ES can generally be viewed as consisting of four different types of services: provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.

2.3.1 Cultural ecosystem services

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) – defined as “the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences” (MEA, 2005) – are what give nature meaning beyond sustenance and the concept has been applied to portray dimensions as diverse as health, sense of place, aesthetical values, spiritual connections and recreational activities (Crossman et al., 2013; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). CES are therefore concerned with the livability aspect of cities. Because ecosystem services fulfill their functions under different circumstances rurally than they do in urban settings, the relationship of people to their environments can also be considered to be different depending on the location (Darvill and Lindo, 2015). For example, Andersson et al. (2015) argue that since ES functions are often indiscernible or even invisible to most residents. CES may contribute to bridging the variety of ES functions by rendering them more perceptible and accessible. This they suggest, may promote better overall understanding of the concept of ES among urbanites and increase their stewardship potential of ES in urban areas. Likewise, Darvill and Lindo (2015) suggest CES may often be more important to stakeholders than other types of ES given their perceptibility. If urbanites value their environments differently, it is particularly relevant to ensure that most people have access to high quality green areas and are able to fulfill their needs and expectations, which requires taking those preferences into account in the planning phase.

The benefits stemming from nature-based solutions, such as integrating CES into urban planning and design

6 through urban green infrastructure, tend to have proportionally larger positive effects on populations from lower socioeconomic groups, which are generally considered at higher risk of poverty-related stress and associated health issues (Mitchell and Popham, 2008). Therefore, in the face of rising inequalities and spatial segregation in Stockholm, gaining a clearer understanding of how urban green area availability in various socio-economic groups is connected to health status is a crucial step in ensuring good and equal health.

3. Methods

The aim of the present study is to use GIS to identify areas in Stockholm with a high potential for minimizing socioeconomically related health inequalities through management of the UGI, while simultaneously minimizing the pressure on existing ecosystems. The aim was determined in the context of the Swedish government’s targets of closing health inequalities in one generation, in addition to Stockholm’s commitment to using an ecosystem services approach to ensure that critical ecosystem functions are preserved.

This is done using two spatially available datasets: the Stockholm Mosaic which combines socioeconomic information together with health data, and the biotope map which provides detailed land cover data. By merging these datasets together and weighing the different parameters, it is possible to spatially identify areas that would benefit the most from interventions to improve health through management of the UGI.

3.1 Land Cover - The biotope map

This study draws its land cover data from the Stockholm biotope map which provides a detailed overview of the different types of land surfaces that cover each part of the city (Miljöförvaltningen and Lantmäteriet, 2012). Each type is grouped into a main category of which there are 7: Built environment, forest, open land, semi-open land, moorland, water and other types of land with removed vegetation. Each of these categories then offers a more detailed resolution of the sub-types of land that make up each main category, e.g. the type of forest or degree of vegetation cover within the built environment category. The main categories and their subtypes can be found in the appendix. Additionally, the biotope map groups the main surface types into 4 categories: green surfaces, blue surfaces, blue-green surfaces and grey surfaces. The green surface groups all main land types that are permeable for water (forests; open land; semi-open land; moorlands, others land with removed vegetation). Blue surfaces consist of water. Blue-green surfaces are the addition of all lands from blue and green surfaces. Grey surfaces are made up of the built environment land type. (See appendix A)

3.2 The Stockholm Mosaic

The collection of spatially specific socio-economic data used, referred to as ‘The Stockholm Mosaic’ (Larsson, n.d.), is a merger of data from three different databases, compiled on the directive of the Stockholm County Council (SLL): (1) the Swedish Mosaic database, (2) the ODB-database (Regionplanekontorets Områdesdatabas www.regionplanekontoret.sll.se) and (3) the VAL-database (SLL VAL databas www.sll.se). The Mosaic database is based on market investigations of people’s hobbies, media consumption habits and consumption habits in general, carried out by Experian (www.experian.se). The other two databases are managed by the Stockholm County Council. The ODB-database contributes information to the Stockholm Mosaic on population- and socio-economic data, such as: number of sick days per person; percentage of population with a sick period of 30 work days; percentage of children living with a single parent; number per 1000 individuals receiving economic assistance; percentage of population with 7 only elementary school education. The VAL- database contribute information on consumption of medical care, together with health statistics, such as median age for first myocardial infarction inpatient care; number per 1000 individuals in open psychiatry; number per 1000 individuals in open psychiatry; number of people in inpatient care for infection per 10,000 indiv.

Eleven mosaic groups were identified within the Stockholm Mosaic, referred to as lifestyles (livsstilar). These groups are: inner city areas of higher means; inner city areas; mixed near city suburb; young people in near city suburb; elderly people in near city suburb; apartments, lesser means; multicultural suburb; villas, higher means in near city suburb; smaller houses in suburbs and smaller communities; countryside and archipelago. The data on health and healthcare consumption (VAL) are based on the lifestyle groups, which are themselves part of the socioeconomic map. The lifestyle groups were not used other than for providing more detailed information of the health gaps. (See appendix B and C)

3.3 GIS analysis

In order to perform a meaningful spatial analysis, the overarching goal needs to be reiterated. The aim is to identify areas that have high development potential for improving the health of those who suffer from socioeconomically induced health issues or in Mitchell's (2013) words, areas with high equigenic potential. As the aim is rather broad, the inclusion and exclusion of certain criteria needs to be discussed first.

The biotope map and the Stockholm Mosaic both include a significant amount of data and the data relevant to this specific case needs to be extracted. Therefore, the following sections will focus on which data from the datasets was chosen and why. The selected data from each dataset is then ranked in GIS to perform a spatial analysis through weighted overlay. The ranking was done using a 1 to 3 scale and thus all criteria have to be ranked using this scale. Throughout the GIS analysis, the map projection reference frame used was SWEREF 99 TM and the raster cell size was 1 meter.

3.3.1 Spatial Analysis: Weighted Overlay

The current study can be viewed as a site suitability selection. For this type of spatial analysis, the weighted overlay tool is an efficient method of determining suitable areas on a map where multiple criteria of different importance need to be taken into account. The analysis works by using raster layers with similar scales but of different importance to weigh each cell value according to its determined influence. An example of this is shown in figure 2. In this case, the three criteria used are health, land-cover and socioeconomic backgrounds. The ranking system of 1 to 3 was chosen mainly due to the socioeconomic layer which has only 3 variables. To simplify the process, the other layers were also adapted into the 1 to 3 scale. The details of how this classification was done is also provided throughout section 3.3.2. The sub-sections that follow describe the ranking system used to classify each of these criteria into similar scales and reviews the influence of each layer to determine its weight in the final analysis.

Fig. 2: Example of how weighted overlay works. The inputs are two separate raster layers that have been reclassified to have the same ranking system of 1 to 3. Using the weighted overlay tool, the importance of each layer is determined by weight (75% for raster layer 1 in this example). Each cell is then multiplied by its weight and added to the other raster layer’s cell weights to form the output raster layer. An example for the upper left corner: (3*0,75) + (2*0,25)=2,75. Since the output layer is an integer, 2,75 is rounded up to 3.

3.3.2 Ranking the criteria

3.3.2.a Land-Cover - Biotope layer

Because of the scope and time limits of the study, the high resolution of the biotope map with its 64 different categories of land types could not be fully utilized. However, the 7 main classifications of land types discussed in section 3.1 are sufficient for this study because they differentiate the main distinctions in land cover (e.g. forests vs. urban land cover). As discussed in section 2.3, ecosystem services are an important consideration in this paper and the present analysis aims to identify optimal areas with equigenic potential for intervention all while attempting to limit the pressure on functions of important ecosystem services in the city. Therefore, areas that that have high ES functions such as forests are not ranked as high as other forms of land types with lower ES value (see table 1). Urban land cover for example, was given the lowest score for several reasons. Different regimes of ownership, expensive purchase prices on existing infrastructure, as well as the difficulty and ethics associated with converting existing infrastructure are all factors that render the urban cover much less interesting to intervene upon. In addition, urban land cover is more commonly found in areas of high income and the layer type detailed by the biotope map includes existing green areas such as parks, which have already received municipal intervention in some form or another. The different types of land cover and their ranking for the weighted overlay analysis are summarized in table 1.

Table 1: Because the weighted overlay analysis requires the ranking of different criteria, here the main land types of the biotope map are briefly described, and their ES functions are estimated in relation to the other types of land on a scale of 3 (low, medium, high). The last column indicates the score that each land type is assigned for the weighted overlay and why. Description and ES functions estimations are based on Colding (2013) Miljöförvaltningen and Lantmäteriet (2012) and Skånes (2019).

Type of land cover Brief description and ES Rank in spatial analysis function assessment (weighted overlay) Forest Forests harbor a wide variety 2: Forest are viable options for of species, including many development into UGI for keystone species (e.g. oaks), health improvements though

they are productive and they do not rank highest permeable, thus can be because of their important ES estimated to have high ES functions. Development should value be prioritized to areas with less critical ES functions

Urban/built environment With much soil being sealed 1: With low ES function and off by hard concrete cover, and high costs of intervention, low to medium vegetation urban land cover is ranked presence, urban land cover has lowest low ES value

Open land Former agricultural areas, semi 3: as semi natural environment, natural with low tree cover. ES the land is already disturbed function is considered medium and may be more flexible for transformation, low tree cover and permeability with natural element feature make this a viable alternative for UGI improvements while retaining important ES functions

Semi-open land Former agricultural areas, semi 3: as semi natural environment, natural, with some tree cover. the land is already disturbed ES function is considered and may be more flexible for medium transformation, low tree cover and permeability with natural element feature make this a viable alternative for UGI improvements while retaining important ES functions

Moorland Contains bushed and tree 1: As wetlands have greatly covered green surfaces. As declined in the Stockholm area some of the moorlands are and are important habitats for semi-aquatic and more amphibians, wetland birds and uncommon, their ES functions insects, it ranks lowest is considered high

Land with low vegetation Permeable grey surfaces (e.g. 3: As permeable areas than sand, gravel, dirt) with less may be unutilized, they possess than 10% vegetation. ES high potential for development functions are medium to low into UGIs

Water Water areas ensure critical ES 1: Water ranks lowest on the functions but are not scale because it cannot be considered in this study transformed into UGIs

3.3.2.b Socioeconomic layer

As described in section 3.2, the Stockholm Mosaic is an aggregate of multiple datasets. The mosaic and ODB databases provide information on socioeconomic backgrounds in various parts of the city. The eleven mosaic groups described in 3.2 are further categorized into three main socioeconomic groups based on income and education: high, medium and low. Similar to the biotope map criteria, these groups are ranked

10 on a scale of 1 to 3 in order to be included in the weighted overlay analysis. On average, people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to be more exposed to socioeconomically induced health complication such as chronic diseases (Mackenbach et al., 2003; Smith, 2004). As discussed in section 2.2., UGIs can be utilized to reduce these health inequalities. Therefore, areas with higher concentrations of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds would likely benefit from more interventions to improve UGIs in an overall effort to improve health and well-being in that area. It is also worth noting that higher socioeconomic groups tend to have better access to properly managed parks and other UGIs in contrast to lower socioeconomic groups. For those reasons, low, medium and high socioeconomics groups respectively rank 3, 2 and 1.

3.3.2.c Health layer

The third criteria in the analysis is health. Health was considered to be the most important criteria, and therefore the one that weighs the most in the analysis. With a fairly large, detailed and varied set of data on health in Stockholm, it is important to describe the selection process. First, the differences between mental health and physical health are accounted for. Certain health indicators (e.g. median age at first hospitalized hearth attack) are more indicative of physical health while others may be more descriptive of mental health (e.g. hospitalized suicide attempts per 100 000). The distinction between mental and physical health was made for two specific reasons. Firstly, differences between mental and physical health may be indicative of varying environments and may not be traced back to the same root causes. Second, physical and mental health may be found in varying degrees depending on the socioeconomic background. For example, suicides attempts are found more commonly in medium and high socioeconomic groups, while the median age at the first heart attack tends to be lowest among lower socioeconomic groups (SLL VAL-database). Because these differences exist, they are worth taking into account. An overview of the health indicators and their rankings is available in table 2.

Table 2: This table provides a summary of all health indicators used in this study. Each of them is then assigned to a type depending on whether the indicator is more telling of mental or physical health. To fit into the common scale for the weighted overlay analysis, the data on each indicator is grouped into 3 equal groups. In each of the case above, lower is better (except for the median age of first hospitalized heart attack in which case higher is better). Therefore, the lower end grouping of each data is assigned to the lowest scale of 1. The same applied for the highest values and the highest scale. Data obtained from SLL VAL-database (sll.se).

Health indicator Type of indicator Ranking Sick days per person Physical/Mental health 1. <26 (16-64 years; average per year; 2003-2009) 2. 26 to 35 3. >35

Median age at first hospitalized heart attack Physical health 1. >79 (2002-2009) 2. 74 to 79 3. <74

Inpatient care suicide attempts per 100 000 Mental health 1. <67 (2003-2008) 2. 67 to 100 3. >100

Children in open psychiatric treatments Mental Health 1. <46 (0-17 years; share per 1000; 2005-2009) 2. 46 to 51 3. >51

Young adults in open psychiatric treatments Mental Health 1. <69 (18-24 years; share per 1000; 2005-2009) 2. 69 to 74 3. >74

Children with hospitalized infections Physical Health 1. <37 (0-17 years; share per 10 000; 2005-2009) 2. 37 to 54 3. >54

3.3.3 Determining the influence of layers

The weighted overlay analysis allows us to determine the influence of individual layers since not all criteria used in a site suitability analysis are equally important. In this study, the primary focus was to identify sites that can greatly contribute to improving existing health inequalities in their vicinity with appropriate municipal intervention. Therefore, health was accounted to be the criteria with most influence in this particular case. In that sense, areas with problematic health situations are identified and prioritized because they score highest and also weigh the most. Since the total influence has to equal 100% (a calculation necessity in weighted overlay), health criteria where given a 50% influence and as such, half of the value of output raster cells originate from the health data.

Land-cover was considered the second most important criteria in this analysis. This is because municipal intervention is generally constricted by several factors. Ecosystem services, land prices, intervention costs are all important elements to consider in urban planning (Calavita, 1984; Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). The choice of land was therefore seen as an essential criterion to influence the site selection, second to health. Therefore, the influence of the biotope layer was set at 35% in the weighted overlay analysis.

The final criterion of socioeconomic backgrounds was attributed the remaining 15% of influence. The lower influence of socioeconomics over e.g. land-cover is due to the fact that health data is sampled independently of backgrounds. As such, any socioeconomically induced health inequalities will be taken into account by the health parameter of the model. However, there are two major considerations to factor in. First, since the health data cannot fully reflect all existing differences brought by social status, there will inevitably be shortcomings to using health data as the sole measure of socioeconomic disparities, even if these are accounted for. Second, there is evidence of differences in healthcare consumption across the socioeconomic spectrum (Agerholm et al., 2013). Therefore, a minor yet non-negligible influence of socioeconomics could serve to factor in some of the underlying inequalities not represented in the previous datasets.

3.3.4 Weighted Overlay Analysis: Calculating the model

With all criteria identified, reclassified, ranked and weighted, the process of weighted overlay can be conducted for each single health indicator. This generates a map reflecting the areas with most potential for addressing that specific health indicator. As health indicators are reflective of some issues but fail to highlight others, the multiple weighted overlay layers addressing the health indicators listed in table 2 are then combined to provide a more holistic view of health disparities. Each map is then weighted equally in relation to the other health aspects. Once the process is executed for every health indicator, a new overlay map can then be created as an aggregate of all the health indicators, as well as maps for physical health and mental health respectively, each weighing equally in the final calculation. Table 3 provides an overview of the weighted overlay process through an example of a random site score.

Table 3: Illustration of a single cell analysis in the model. In this example, the varying health indicator used is sick days per person (16-64 years; average per year) and a random location is picked, and its value calculated. In this given area where sick days per person average 29 days in a year, with semi-open land cover and classed as a medium income and education area, the score for the cell value would be (2*0,5)+(3*0,35)+(2*0,15)=2,35 and would therefore be displayed as medium priority (value=2) in the model (numbers shown in red).

Criteria Scoring for criteria Weight of Criteria Score for site X Health indicator 1: <26 50% 2*0,5=1 (e.g. sick days per 2: 26 to 35 person) 3: >35

Type of land cover 3: open land; semi- 35% 3*0,35=1,05 open land; land with low vegetation 2: forest 1: urban/built environment; moorland; water

Socioeconomic group 3: Low income & 15% 2*0,15=0,30 education 2: Medium income & education 1: High income & education

3.3.5 Detailing the GIS process

This section provides an overview of how the datasets were processed and transformed in GIS. A flow chart detailing all the steps taken in the analysis can be visualized in figure 3.

Fig. 3: A flowchart of the model developed to calculate areas most in need of intervention for equigenic health improvements. Blue represent inputs, yellow are ArcMap tools and outputs are displayed in green. The detailed steps for each tool used in the model are described in sections 3.3.2. Because the influence of layers in weighted overlay need to add up to 100, each layer in the weighted overlay steps 9 and 10 (with an uneven number of inputs) were slightly adjusted by one point.

3.4 Limitations

One main limitation throughout this study has been to efficiently take multiple factors into account, while ensuring that they are properly balanced in the final analysis. A less complicated way of performing this study would have been to identify the land types which are easiest and cheapest to transform and to overlay these with a socioeconomic map. Such an approach was attempted initially. However, there are several limitations to this approach making it overly simplistic. For example, health and healthcare consumption are not fully reflected by socioeconomics, just as socioeconomical data does not entirely reflect health. While some trends may be visibly linked with income, other health issues were distributed more unevenly among different types of socioeconomic backgrounds, which complicates the analysis. Therefore, it was decided that that socioeconomics would be a factor, but not the decisive factor.

In a similar way, the analysis was also affected by the resolution of the data. As the weighted overlay analysis requires all parameters to be graded on the same scale, the scale with lowest resolution was chosen as the main ranking system of 1, 2, 3, reflecting the low, medium, high socioeconomic dataset respectively. Hence, it was decided that both land cover and health would be classified using a 1 to 3 scale as well, resulting in less precision than would e.g. a 1 to 10 scale. Nevertheless, the results remain informative and provide a basis for future analysis. Much like the ranking of the overlay equation components, the weighted aspect also provides ground for error and judgment. The weight, and hence, the importance of each of the layers was determined by a reflection of processes regarding what objectives the study was aimed to achieve and the context in which it ought to achieve them. The Swedish government’s goal of closing the gaps in health inequalities was used as the main objective to address and therefore health was given more weight than the other layers.

Another limitation to be aware of in the interpretation of the data is the extent to which certain types of biases are reflected in the different datasets. A significant number of studies that link health to green areas draw on self-reported health (de Vries et al., 2003; Mitchell and Popham, 2008). In this study however, reported medical health is used. In this data for example, there may be difficulties in interpreting the results from mental health indicators, such as people receiving psychiatric treatments and their variation among different socioeconomic groups. This point is raised because judgements on the desirability of the health indicators had to be made in order to perform the analysis. In such a judgment, a low number of people receiving psychiatric treatment may be viewed here as desirable. However, since there are health variations between socioeconomic groups, one may question the meaning of such numbers: have mental illnesses increased? Is treatment more easily accessible? Is mental illness correlated with income? Are some people/groups more likely to develop illnesses or to seek help? While the data can be viewed as reliable, it is remains important to remember that biases may exist at all levels of the analysis, including within the initial data.

Furthermore, a source of statistical bias known as the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) is a one element to be aware of when dealing with zoning systems. The health data layer provides values based on the most frequent medical situation in a given area, or in this case, lifestyles. As health values of individuals in the population are aggregated to fit within a spatially delineated area (i.e. lifestyles), this may arbitrarily cause the disproportionate splitting or grouping of values (Wong, 2004), somewhat similar to how gerrymandering practices may be unrepresentative of the real distribution of voter districts – though not intentionally.

A last notable limitation of the study is also the use of the raw, unprocessed biotope map (land cover). Because the intervention maps were developed based on the existing land classification, this provides information on specifically where a given land type is available. In practice however, the benefits of an area are also defined by its accessibility, not only its mere presence. Therefore, it would also have been relevant 15 to include buffer zones of e.g. 300 meters surrounding the land-cover areas of interest to symbolize the accessibility of the UGI.

4. Results

The results section is comprised of two parts. The first part, section 4.1, showcases the maps generated in the weighted overlay steps 1 to 7, as displayed in figure 3. These are maps showing relevant areas particularly prone to receiving intervention for specific health outcomes improvements. The second part, section 4.2, displays aggregated maps using grouped health outcomes (i.e. mental and physical health) as well as a general health intervention map which uses all health indicators identically weighted for maximal intervention efficiency by minimizing health inequalities through the use of urban green areas (weighted overlay steps 8-10 in figure 3). Throughout this section, high priority and high potential areas were used interchangeably to illustrate the different optimal locations for equigenic UGI.

4.1 Single health indicator maps

Figures 4 to 9 show areas with a measuring scale of low to high levels of equigenic potential based on a single health indicator each. Priority areas are displayed in light to dark green with dark green being areas with highest equigenic potential, i.e. areas particularly favorable to receiving priority attention to develop urban green areas with the goal of improving specific health outcomes, while also reducing pressure on ecosystem services. White areas within city limits indicate an absence of data. Since not all health trends are manifested equally within various population groups, the single health indicator maps display widely varying results depending on which indicator is used.

The health indicator in figure 4 is based on a yearly average of sick days per person for the 2003 to 2009 period. The data encompasses people ranging from 16 to 64 years of age. The map showcases a rather high number of areas that could benefit from local intervention. The high potential areas appear to cluster in the south eastern part of the city particularly around the boroughs (stadsdelsområde) of Skarpnäck, Farsta and Enskede-Årsta-Vantör, and in the north western part in Spånga-Tensta and Rinkeby-Kista. Bromma, Skärholmen and Hägersten-Liljeholmen also contain minor clusters.

Most of the areas located around the city center are classified as medium to high while the center itself is mainly considered low, meaning that there is a sharp contrast between the inner city and its suburbs.

Fig. 4: Map of areas with potential for equigenic health improvements based on land-type and ecosystem service value, socioeconomics and one health indicator. In this case, the health indicator used to produce the priority map is a yearly average of sick days per person for the 2003 to 2009 period which includes people ranging from 16 to 64 years of age. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data. Areas with high value indicate that any kind of intervention to improve or construct urban green areas could greatly benefit the surrounding populations with the goals to improve upon this specific health indicator while ensuring marginalized groups and critical ES functions are not overlooked. Higher resolution maps are available upon request.

The health indicator in figure 5 is based on the median age at first heart attack among the population and the map showcases results that vary from the previous map. Areas with low potential are more commonly found throughout the city and particularly more frequently in the suburbs while remaining low in the inner city as well. Areas with high equigenic potential are clustered in four main locations. Two clusters are found in the north western part, one in Hässelby-Vällingby and another one bordering Spånga-Tensta and Rinkeby-Kista. The third cluster us spread out in Skärholmen. The fourth and largest cluster can be found overlapping the boroughs of Skarpnäck to Farsta to the southern part of Enskede-Årsta-Vantör. There appear

17 to be fewer minor clusters than in the previous map (fig. 4) with more concentrated high potential spots instead.

Fig. 5: Map of areas with potential for equigenic health improvements based on the median age at first heart attack among the population. The health data is based on the period 2002-2009. See figure 4 for more general information. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

Using inpatient care suicides attempts as health indicator fig. 6 shows a rather similar pattern to the one displayed in fig. 4, that is, a relatively low potential inner-city area with medium to high potential locations in most of the southern and western suburbs. Small clusters of high potential areas are seen throughout the map with major clusters found in the north-west (Rinkeby-Kista and Spånga-Tensta) and in the south (Hägersten-Liljeholmen, Farsta, Skarpnäck). High potential areas are also seen more commonly in the Skärholmen, though they seem more dispersed and fragmented.

Fig. 6: Map of areas with potential for equigenic health improvements based on hospitalized suicide attempts per 100 000 as health indicator. The data is based on the period 2003-2008. See figure 4 for more general information. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

The health indicator in figure 7 displays the number of children in open psychiatric treatment. Similar to previous maps, the urban core of the city is largely considered a low potential area for equigenic UGI improvements. The pattern of distribution of high potential areas is, however, different from previous results, with high potential areas being considerably fragmented and spread out throughout the entire suburbs. The prevalence of locations with high potential are also more frequent, while low potential ones are contained to only a few areas. Large clusters are less common, though found mostly in the south-eastern part around Skarpnäck and Farsta. Smaller clusters can be seen in the north-western boroughs of Rinkeby- Kista and Bromma. In assessing this health indicator, it is also noticeable that the northern parts of Östermalm now appear in medium to high potential.

Fig. 7: Map of areas with potential for equigenic health improvements based young children in open psychiatric treatments as health indicator. The data is based on the period 2005-2009 and includes ages 0 to 17. See figure 4 for more general information. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

In figure 8, the share per 1000 of young adults in open psychiatric treatments is utilized as the health indicator. This map strongly resembles the previous map, using the share of children in open psychiatric treatments (figure 7) as a health indicator. A few differences can however be seen, notably in the immediate surroundings of the inner city. For example, the number of high potential areas identified in Östermalm are significantly lower. This is also the case in Södermalm and Kungsholmen. For the rest of the boroughs, a fragmented mosaic of high potential areas can be observed with only a few numbers of clustered low potential areas, as most of the peripheral city mostly falls within medium potential.

Fig. 8: Map of areas with potential for equigenic health improvements based young adults in open psychiatric treatments as health indicator. The data is based on the period 2005-2009 and includes ages 18 to 24. See figure 4 for more general information. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

The results shown in figure 9, using the share per 10 000 of children with hospitalized infections as the health indicator, differ from the results shown in previous maps. In this particular scenario medium potential areas make up the vast majority of the land. Low potential zones are clustered in the north-west (Hässelby- Vällingby, Spånga-Tensta, Rinkeby-Kista), the south-west (Skärholmen) and the south-east (Enskede- Årsta-Vantör, Farsta). The major change associated with this scenario is the concentration of high priority areas located in the inner city, which seems to demonstrate that hospitalized infections among children may be more common in the inner city. Overall however, high potential areas are limited in this map and lack significant clusters as they appear mainly fragmented.

Fig. 9: Map of areas with potential for equigenic health improvements based on the share per 10 000 of children with hospitalized infections as health indicator. The data is based on the period 2005-2009 and includes ages 0 to 17. See fig. 4 for more general information. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

Through the weighted overlay process, the biotope and socioeconomics map are merged with single health indicators, generating maps displaying areas that are most beneficial to targeted for improving specific health factors (see fig. 10). For example, if one is seeking to improve the median age at which populations in the city have their first hospitalized heart attack, map number 2 may provide a relevant basis for informed decision making.

Figure 10: The maps shown here (a-f) indicate which areas of Stockholm that stand the most to gain from equigenic intervention in relation to a single health indicator: a) health indicator 1 – sick days per person; b) median age at first hospitalized heart attack; c) hospitalized suicide attempts; d) young children in open psychiatric treatment; e) young adults in open psychiatric treatment; f) children with hospitalized infections. This figure is displayed for comparative purposes given that the maps provide different outcomes depending on which health indicator is used. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

Overall, a few general observations can be made when comparing all the single indicator maps of this section. First, the inner city appears to fall largely within the category of low equigenic potential. This could be due to several factors such as a homogenous, high income and higher health population associated with land that does not meet the requirements for this study. Only one map displayed the inner city as medium potential with a limited number of small high potential pockets. Some other parts of the city are often situated in high potential areas, with the north-west (Rinkeby-Kista; Spånga Tensta) and south-eastern boroughs (Skarpnäck; Farsta; Enskede-Årsta-Vantör) being particularly prone to receive high priority ranking. Skärholmen also displayed a few recurring high potential areas.

4.2 Aggregated health indicator maps

This section showcases aggregated map produced using grouped health outcomes (i.e. mental and physical health) as well as a general health intervention map, which uses all health indicators identically weighted for maximal intervention efficiency for minimizing urban green related health inequalities through urban green areas (see weighted overlay steps 8-10 in fig. 3). Since the land-cover and socioeconomic data are both already included in the single health indicator maps, this last step is done using only those previous maps all weighted equally to generate the aggregated maps.

Drawing on all indicators classified as mental health indicators figure, 11 showcases a fragmented value landscape, with low priority areas being mostly confined to the city center and the majority of the surface being classified as medium potential locations. High equigenic potential areas are found as a grid-like pattern throughout the peripheral city with some major clusters again situated in the north-western boroughs of Rinkeby-Kista and Spånga-Tensta and in the south-eastern boroughs of Skarpnäck, Farsta and Enskede- Årsta-Vantör. Bromma, Skärholmen, Hägersten-Liljeholmen and Elvsjö evidence several rather medium- sized clusters. A small cluster can also be found in the northern part of Östermalm.

In contrast, figure 12 uses physical health indicators to construct a representation of suggested intervention areas to improve physical health across the city. The results display significant differences as low potential areas in the inner-city are reaching outwards and medium potential areas covering most of the peripheral city. A major difference is visible in the frequency of high potential areas, which are considerably fewer in number and clustered a limited number of locations. Four clusters can be observed on the border of Rinkeby- Kista and Spånga-Tensta, on the southern coastline of Hässelby-Vällingby, a more fragmented cluster in Skärholmen and one bordering Farsta and Enskede-Årsta-Vantör.

Figure 11: Map of areas with high equigenic potential based the aggregation of 4 mental health indicator as displayed in table 2. All 4 have equal influence in the weighted overlay analysis (25%). White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

Figure 12: Map of areas with high equigenic potential based the aggregation of 3 physical health indicator as displayed in table 2. All 3 indicators have equal influence in the weighted overlay analysis (33%), except sick days per person which was weighted at 34% as influences have to add up to 100%. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

Figure 13 is the result of the final weighted overlay process, in which all the individual health indicator maps have been merged to form a general health map. This map thus takes into account all the maps from figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. This allows for the identification of areas where multiple health indicators overlap. If a given locations is attributed a higher ranking multiple times, it is more likely to figure as high priority in figure 13. This final map shows similar patterns to the previously seen maps, whereby the inner-city is largely considered as low-priority and generally comprises much fewer optimal intervention locations. In contrast, most of the peripheral city is ranked as medium priority with a few smaller low priority cluster areas located throughout the outer city. High priority areas are also dispersed and tend to form clusters in the north-west and south-east. A large cluster is located in the boroughs of Rinkeby-Kista, Skarpnäck and 26

Farsta/Enskede-Årsta-Vantör. Minor high priority clusters are found all throughout Bromma, Hässelby- Vällingby. Lastly, a few fragmented clusters are observable in Skärholmen, Hägersten-Liljeholmen and Enskede-Årsta-Vantör.

Figure 13: Map of areas with high equigenic potential based on all aggregated health indicators. White areas represented on the map within the city limits indicate an absence of data.

5. Discussion

The present study has aimed to operationalize a methodological approach for meeting Sweden’s health targets in the context of sustainable urban development by combining existing spatially specific human health- and socioeconomic data with a high resolution urban land cover map, with the goal of providing an overview of locations where intervention to improve human health through management of the UGI would be most cost-effective, hence providing a holistic social-ecological basis for data-driven decision-making.

From a general standpoint, the results described above have shown that there are several areas in the city that require and could benefit more from support than others in their transitions towards becoming more sustainable and healthier. Certain parts of the city have emerged as clearly preferable to intervene in should the city of Stockholm decide to pursue the upgrade and improvement of its UGI with health targets in mind. The inner-city area appears to generally require less intervention than the surrounding suburbs, while certain peripheral areas of the city have also been shown to harbor high-potential clusters for efficient intervention. The results also suggest that mental and physical health targets may be reached in different locations, with a few locations identified as providing opportunities to address both simultaneously.

5.1 Interpretation Limitations

It is clear to the author of this study – as it should be for anyone reading it – that the results provided above have a number of caveats and ought to be cautiously interpreted within the context of the existing research. The maps above in section 4 and 4.1 in particular, should preferably be viewed as steps in a process rather than results on their own. They may provide a data-founded basis for addressing specific health targets or may simply show with added precision which parts of the city that would potentially benefit more and less attention from management intervention. Their objective is thus not to claim that new UGI or improved UGI will be able to e.g. reduce suicide attempts if implemented in areas of high priority, but rather to provide a basis for discussion about where municipal authorities could invest more resources in critical areas so as to yield a better “return on investment” in terms of health, ecosystem service preservation and social justice. For a summarized overview of health, figure 13 uses aggregated health data which serves as a basis for general health improvements as multiple health indicators may be particularly clustered in certain areas and require special consideration. While intervention cannot guarantee results, existing research does suggest that UGI improvements tend to lead to better health outcomes in their vicinity (Jennings et al., 2016).

A cautionary approach is suggested here to aid in the interpretation of the results. The maps generated could be used in the preliminary phase of any UGI development. In the research and planning phase, they can provide a basis for informed decisions regarding which areas to focus on and consult ahead of construction. It is increasingly clear that public participation in public infrastructure projects is an important part of sustainability that can greatly contribute to meeting the needs and the expectations of local users (Garmendia and Stagl, 2010). By narrowing down the search areas considerably with relevant metrics, the present study enables authorities to direct more time and resources on determining how to best develop a given urban green area to best serve its users and ultimately improve their health. This “return on investment” strategy of directing resources at locations where they are most needed and where interventions will also be most effective is likely to be increasingly commons as data collection in urban areas increases both in quantity and precision.

5.2 Comparison with Base Maps

Appendices A, B and C provide an overview of the base maps that were used in the overlay process. The first striking difference between appendix A and appendices B and C is the resolution. While the contour of land cover types is precisely delineated, both the socioeconomic and the health data are made up larger, more homogenous areas. This difference in precision is apparent in the fragmentation of the result maps (fig. 4 to 12) as the variation of between low, medium and high potential intervention locations seem mostly determined by the type of land, hence the abrupt changes and fragmentation. Implementing buffer zones (e.g. 300 meters) around land cover types could have been used to smoothen the edges and render the maps more visually telling. They do, however, still manage to convey information on the main clustering points. Interestingly, while the influence of the socioeconomic data was not high (15%), much of the optimal locations identified in this study have been located in areas of low or medium to low income (see fig.13 and appendix fig. B1). Given the weight of the health layer (50%), and the localization of the less desirable health indicators (see table 2 and appendix C, all figures), there appears to be a link between low income areas and worse health, though it may not always be self-evident. In many of the health indicators maps (fig. C1 to C6) the inner-city area often characterized by the most desirable health such as lower number of sick days per person per year, a higher median age of first heart attack, lower levels of hospitalized suicide attempts, etc. It appears relatively clear from a health perspective at least, that the city center of Stockholm is generally better off. It is however more complex to identify a clear pattern when looking at the peripheral city as variation can be seen throughout the different health indicators. As a general comment, even with a low socioeconomic influence, the link between optimal UGI development areas and socioeconomics stands out a relatively substantial, even if the MAUP renders some of the apparent precision of the resulting maps less reliable.

5.3 Ecosystem Services and Densification

The inclusion of ecosystem service indicators in the study has provided a basis for not only tackling human health issues, but also for potentially easing the pressure on urban ecosystem in relation to their potential to generate additional ecosystem services, such as promoting biodiversity and mitigating run-off (see table 1). Being faced with more growth and densification, the city of Stockholm has indicated its desire to remain conscious of its changing environmental situation and has committed to using an ecosystem services approach to ensure that critical ecosystem functions are preserved (Stockholm Läns Landsting, 2018). Including additional ES indicators, apart from the urban green related human health benefits (a cultural ecosystem service type), in the mapping process, through the weighting of the green land cover categories presented in the biotope map, allows for the inclusion and weighting of additional values of the work of ecosystems in the sustainable urban planning process. As the densification process continues appropriate management strategies of the UGI is becoming key in addressing the problems that go hand in hand with densification, such as crowding, declining life quality and decreasing accessibility to green spaces (Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015), ensuring that the densification process does not come at the cost of critical ES functions.

In this context, there are also a number of different opportunities for cities for addressing the challenges of densification. One of these include green roofs which have experienced renewed attention as questions of social-ecological resilience, food security and biodiversity have become essential means of exploring new possibilities in a dense and compact urban environment (Dixon and Wilkinson, 2016; Hui, 2011). Such approaches could benefit from the type of methodology or approach presented in this study by e.g. modifying the land type requirements to address e.g. built environment and flat roofs, hence contributing to 29 maximizing the potential of green environments in the context of creating sustainable urban development strategies.

5.4 Quality, Quantity and Accessibility of UGI

This study has sought to concern itself with the presence of adequate land to either create or upgrade Stockholm’s green infrastructure. Land types with existing greenery were attributed a higher score given their existing ES functions and their accessibility to the municipality. Many suitable areas for health improvements that were identified in the analysis were located in areas of lower income, which tended to have more presence of greenery in general than more privileged socio-economic groups in the city center. This raises questions on the efficacy of green infrastructure and the relation between quantity and quality of urban green spaces. Zhang et al. (2017) have suggested that quality of UGI is an important element in the perception of users. It appears to play a significant role in their overall satisfaction, but also in the benefits that people extract from their green areas. Dillen et al. (2012) have also shown that both quantity and quality of green infrastructure are correlated with high health outcomes, which suggests attention ought to not only be directed at creating green areas, but also actively ensuring that they meet the expectation of users.

The quality of a UGI can be viewed as the of social functions that a UGI responds to within the spectrum of social-ecological functions, including safety. An example of this are the differences in usage between UGI with and without public lighting systems, as lit areas tend to significantly increase the perception of safety (Luymes and Tamminga, 1995). Certain population groups, such women and elderly, tend to experience more feelings of insecurity and may avoid areas because of these feelings, particularly when dark (Tandogan and Ilhan, 2016). In areas such as Stockholm, with shorter days during a significant part of the year, quality of UGI and of lighting may be particularly important. As such, appendix fig. 1 and appendix fig. 2 show urban forests to be more predominant in areas of lower income. It may be conjectured however, that the quantity of public lighting in urban forests may not be comparable to that of smaller, more central UGIs. Thus, the while the quantity, and accessibility of UGI are important determinants, the quality aspect cannot be forgone.

In line with the reasoning that it is also of importance of addressing quality of UGI, the results showed little little need for intervention in the central city area. In this context a relevant question is: “To which extent are the more affluent residents in the central city area likely to have accessibility to additional green areas, other than the ones provided in their area of main residence, e.g. through owning second homes or holiday houses, whereby their exposure to green areas would be high than revealed through the geographic overview presented in this study?

In addition to quality and quantity, an important aspect of effective UGI is its accessibility. Accessibility to UGI has been shown to be a determinant in health outcomes (Mitchell and Popham, 2008, 2007). Dai (2011) has identified many factors that can affect the accessibility of a UGI, such as the availability of UGI and its number of users in a given area. Geographic barriers he argues – such as highways – also impact travel time and accessibility and may technically be considered close and accessible to a population, but distant and inaccessible in practical terms. Dai suggests that access to UGI can be divided into actual accessibility (use of UGI) and potential accessibility (availability of UGI), where factors such as gender, income and distance all affect an end user’s accessibility. This study has dealt with potential accessibility as it has not sought to address the question of actual accessibility, but rather to determine which types of land would be relevant to receive intervention. The question of accessibility does however remain important and needs to be raised in discussions of effective UGI.

5.5 Smart Cities and Data Driven Policy

Drawing from multiple datasets to provide data driven decision making, this study offers an insight into how collected data in the city could be harnessed to provider tailored and more effective intervention. Using data as a basis for decision making has long been a tedious and flawed process. With the acceleration of digital technologies and the opportunities for cities to harvest the immense pools of data available to improve the overall well-being of its population, the possibilities and the reliability of this process are greatly increased. More and better data driven decisions at the city level could open the opportunities for targeted subsidies, which theoretically means more relevant projects could be financed as budgets could be managed in a more informed and cost-effective way. Targeted subsidies aimed at the poorest households have e.g. proven to be effective in ensuring that low-income population are able to reduce energy cost in their budgets through building renovations (Heffner and Campbell, 2011). The same principles could theoretically be enacted for lower-income urban areas and ensure that public infrastructure be adequate in all parts of the city. Using data to implement sustainable and targeted assistance programs may be a flexible and swift approach to tackling various challenges though it is vital to keep in mind that such practices may lead to budgets cuts as spending gets more efficient. Similarly, while sustainability may be a key goal of smart cities, business, innovation and entrepreneurialism are often prioritized in practice (Haarstad, 2017). In either case, it remains an important part of the process to develop reliable and consistent metrics to measure the efficiency of such interventions. Concerns of the usefulness of the Smart City approach for more sustainable urban development has been raised, especially in the context of the absence of analysis around health and social sustainability issues for city dwellers and about whom the Smart City is for (Colding and Barthel, 2017) – hence the spatially specific focus on human health in combination with socioeconomic parameters in this study.

5.6 Downstream Social Implications of Improving UGIs

As described in section 2.2, a growing number of studies are able to discern health benefits of green areas (Hartig et al., 2014) and a subsection of these have also shown that they can be particularly useful in addressing health inequalities (Mitchell et al., 2015). Using green infrastructure to address health problem is a long-term perspective as the benefits will likely only be reaped over longer time periods, not to mention the difficulties faced in measuring progress. However, some have also pointed out the paradoxical shorter term effects associated with increased and improved green areas, namely gentrification (Wolch et al., 2014). Because green spaces may increase the livability of an area through aesthetics and value creation, it is common to observe an increase in property prices in urban areas when these are located close to green infrastructure such as parks or urban forests (Morancho, 2003; Tyrväinen, 1997). This automatically opens up a debate about how to ensure that the people who would benefit most from green spaces actually end up benefitting from them. Who a city is being built for is a crucial question to raise in urban planning. Stockholm has stated its goals of reducing social and health inequalities while also ensuring that access to green areas is increased as densification of the urban landscape progresses (Stockholm Läns Landsting, 2018).

In the context of this study, this insight offers further grounds for how the results above should be interpreted and utilized. The results should be seen as the first step towards a sustainable process of designing urban green infrastructure to benefit those who currently live there. While this may seem fairly straightforward, many downstream implications of tackling health through UGIs need to be discussed. It is increasingly clear that public participation in projects not only improves the democratic aspects of planning processes, but that it also fosters sustainability (Amado et al., 2010; Garmendia and Stagl, 2010). As such,

31 public consultation tools have been developed, such as the Wayfinder (https://wayfinder.earth/) to assist public officials and project management in building social-ecological resilience into the process. Using the resulting maps of this study as a ground for identifying where public consultations ought to take place can be a first step towards a socially equitable planning process.

As planning process advances, it is also highly likely that a heterogenous group of citizens will expect their urban green environments to fulfill different functions, especially in multicultural areas. Certain communities may tend to prefer areas allowing the opportunity to gather in medium to large groups while other communities may prefer to experience their environments alone or in small groups. These differentiations can also apply to individuals and parameters such as gender and age (Conedera et al., 2015). Similarly, is also increasingly common to rely on multifunctional design in an ecological setting so as to ensure multiple ecosystem services are being provided (Leeuwen et al., 2010), whereby cultural ES, can serve as catalysts to include ES in the planning process as they are generally more easily perceptible by residents and users (Andersson et al., 2015).

Thus, to ensure that the downstream effects of a given green area fulfill the health improvements they are intended to deliver, gentrification processes should be avoided, or at least significantly slowed down (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009; Wolch et al., 2014). Due to the intimate relationships that people share with their green areas, it may also be relevant from an urban planning standpoint to consider a certain level of social sustainability policies. These are defined as “policies and institutions that have the overall effect of integrating diverse groups and cultural practices in a just and equitable fashion” (Stren and Polèse, 2000, p. 3). Vienna is generally cited as a model for combining sustainability and affordability by ensuring housing policies remain affordable and inclusive (Cucca, 2017). In a comparative study of the social impacts of sustainability policies between Copenhagen and Vienna, Cucca found that Copenhagen had transitioned from a welfare city to an entrepreneurial policy style mainly driven by business and innovation. Combined with the municipality’s selling of its housing in 1990s the rising costs of housing and business friendly environmental policies have caused massive gentrification and housing segregation of population of different incomes. Comparatively, Vienna’s hold on its housing and development of sustainability programs in coordination with housing policies has allowed it to address its growth and resilience challenges with a socially conscious perspective. As mentioned in section 2, Stockholm is itself currently experiencing a comparable situation to Copenhagen and could thus benefit from beginning to adopt a more socially sustainable urban policy if it wishes to meet the Swedish government’s health goals.

5.7 Meeting the SDGs

In 2016, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations became the official goals of humanity, replacing the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). The report consist of 17 goals that individual countries are responsible for implementing. Janoušková et al. (2018) have argued that the process of reaching the goals requires significant efforts from governments to provide accessible high- quality data in order to be able to track and assess the quality of the progress. The methodology developed in this study draws on public data and may be valuable in reaching the SDGs for two reasons. Firstly, the case provided in this paper has shown that it is possible to combine the inclusion of multiple parameters in the identification of optimal locations for UGI. Because human health and ecosystem services were prioritized, this method directly addresses goals number 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), 10 (Reduced Inequalities), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life on Land).

Secondly, Nilsson et al. (2016) have argued that effective interactions between the different goals is a crucial determinant of their successful implementation. Building on this conceptualization, this methodology provides a framework to effectively integrate goal number 17 (Partnership for the Goals) into the planning process by allowing multiple stakeholder’s perspectives to be included into the urban planning process. As 32 the number of parameters may be increased, further stakeholders have the possibility to be included as, including different actors in the public and private spheres. The technology may also be easily shared and adjusted according to context to help other urban areas include multiple parameters in their planning process. In addition, this approach also encourages the merging of multiple individual SDGs, which strengthens the holistic aspect and effectiveness of the UGI development and management towards reaching the goals.

5.8 Future research

Following the results in this study and recommendations in the existing literature, further research is needed to establish clearer general links between health and urban green, as well as the role of socioeconomics in that equation (van den Berg et al., 2015). While positive associations between health and UGI are clear in many European locations, there are still a number of gaps that persist notably establishing links between built environment density and green infrastructure effects. Similar studies in North-America for example, have indicated that in fragmented urban landscapes with more urban sprawl, the presence of greenery may be counter effective as it may rather cause practices such as long-distance commuting and social isolation and segregation (Richardson et al., 2012; Sister et al., 2010). Building on this paper’s methodology, future studies could make use of the Stockholm sociotope map (Ståhle et al., 2002) as contrasting dataset to the biotope map used in this study, which may yield different results. The biotope map did not provide any information regarding the social use of certain types of land within the city limits and both the sociotope and park maps may therefore complementary information valuable in the planning process.

Another research suggestion would also be to create more comprehensive scenario that the city could compare depending on what criteria it wishes to prioritize. In such a case, ecosystem service or health indicators could be weighted differently in various scenarios to visualize e.g. high biodiversity scenarios or high equigenic scenarios, similar to Feinberg (2019). If repeated for different criteria, these would also enable the identification of tradeoff zones which are useful locations to consider in the planning process as they could receive particular attention and be developed more cautiously and with greater focus on multifunctionality. Buffer zones could also be used around a given biotope type to indicate the accessibility, and use e.g. a 300 meter accessibility buffer (Rusche, 2011). Finally, in addition to being fully data reliant, future studies would likely benefit from mixed methods approaches and include more qualitative data such as interviews with locals and officials regarding expectations and practices respectively.

6. Conclusion

In 2014, the Swedish Public Health Agency declared that it would aim to close all avoidable health inequalities within one generation. In order to reach these objectives while also complying with the SDGs (goals 3, 10, 11, 13, 14), UGI has been increasingly viewed as a powerful instrument that cities can utilize to help them meet their sustainability and human health targets (Andersson et al., 2014). As nature-based solutions, UGI can greatly contribute to building resilience in urban areas by providing a number of ecosystem services (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). Simultaneously, UGI also possess equigenic functions, that is the capacity to support the health of the least advantaged equally or more so than the most privileged (Mitchell et al., 2015).

This study has therefore aimed to utilize this existing knowledge and operationalize a methodology to help identify optimal locations for developing and managing UGI in Stockholm with the aim of prioritizing health and minimizing impacts on existing ecosystems. This was done by drawing on 3 spatial datasets (land-cover, health and healthcare consumption, socioeconomics) and combining them using a GIS. Since the study was effectively a site suitability selection, the weighted overlay spatial analysis tool was used for which the 3 datasets were ranked, and their influence determined (see section 3.3). The weighted overlay process was performed once for every health indicator included in the study and then combined to generate aggregated health maps (see fig. 3). The ensuing maps (fig. 4 to fig. 14) have enabled the identification of certain areas considered optimal (high equigenic potential) and also shown other locations whose equigenic potential was considered medium to low. Overall, the boroughs of Rinkeby-Kista, Farsta and Skarpnäck frequently displayed larger clusters of high equigenic potential locations, while the boroughs of Bromma, Skärholmen, Hägersten-Liljeholmen and Enskede-Årsta-Vantör showcased smaller clusters with high equigenic potential. The resulting maps also displayed the inner-city as a largely low equigenic potential area.

The research has several implications for policy and urban planning as it provides a basis for informed decision-making surrounding the sustainable development and management of UGI. Aspects such as the importance for the distinction between quality and quantity of UGI was discussed, along with certain consequences of the increasingly common practice of data driven urban planning and the importance of including ecosystem services and health in the process. The downstream social implications of developing and improving UGI and the associated effects on real-estate prices and gentrification was also touched upon. Finally, the role of this type of research in reaching the SDGs was reviewed. Recommendations for future research were formulated, such as the investigation of exposure to green environments between different socioeconomics groups. It was also suggested that further research building on this methodology ought to consider buffer zones and multi-scenario development to identify tradeoff areas.

Reaching the SDGs and the ambitious public health targets set by the Swedish government will require seizing all opportunity and deploying multi-faceted action. UGI and nature-based solutions in general offer a substantial amount of benefits, such as improved human health and well-being, strengthened ecosystem services and all their associated benefits, as well as urban resilience – a key characteristic for cities of the 21st century. This study has shown that it is possible to embed sustainability and resilience in the urban planning process and therefore use data to ultimately ensure the well-being of the population and of the planet.

7. Acknowledgements

I am grateful to all the people who have helped me along the way. A special thank you goes out to Åsa Gren, who truly deserves the SUPER in supervisor. Thank you being with me from the beginning and always reminding with joy and a smile that everything will be great! Your motivation was extremely valuable and greatly appreciated.

I would also like to give thanks to my subject reviewer, Meta Berghauser Pont whose feedback was sharp, insightful, and particularly helpful at putting me on a newer, more relevant track for the future of this research.

As far as GIS goes, I thank Daniel Löwenborg for providing me with the base knowledge and GIS resources that helped me shape the methods in its current form, as well as Emma Sundström who pointed me in the right direction from the beginning. I would also like to throw in a particular thank you to the people on the r/gis subreddit community for always answering my questions with great attention and detail. You put me on the right track, and I am very thankful for that.

In addition, I thank Sagnik Signa Roy for being my idea bouncer, without whom my methods section would not have been as comprehensive. On a similar note, I thank the Torslunda collective for making my days brighter when I needed it the most and for always being a warm and welcoming family.

I also thank Tamina Burggraf for providing a comprehensive opposition to this thesis, and thereby helped me improve it.

I sincerely thank Małgorzata Blicharska, our thesis course director who should be credited with having always been swift and thorough at keeping us up to date with the deadlines and answering our (probably repetitive) questions, even during challenging pandemic times.

8. References

Agerholm, J., Bruce, D., Ponce de Leon, A., Burström, B., 2013. Socioeconomic differences in healthcare utilization, with and without adjustment for need: An example from Stockholm, Sweden. Scand J Public Health 41, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812473205

Alcock, I., White, M.P., Wheeler, B.W., Fleming, L.E., Depledge, M.H., 2014. Longitudinal Effects on Mental Health of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1247–1255. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403688w

Allen, J., Balfour, R., 2014. Natural solutions for tackling health inequalities. UCL Institute of Health Equity.

Amado, M.P., Santos, C.V., Moura, E.B., Silva, V.G., 2010. Public Participation in Sustainable Urban Planning 8.

Anderson, D., 2017. Sustainability: Myth, Madness, and Magic. Blackstone.

Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Gren, Å., 2014. Reconnecting Cities to the Biosphere: Stewardship of Green Infrastructure and Urban Ecosystem

Services. AMBIO 43, 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0506-y

Andersson, E., Tengö, M., McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., 2015. Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services 12, 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002

Andersson, R., Turner, L.M., 2014. Segregation, gentrification, and residualisation: from public housing to market-driven housing allocation in inner city Stockholm. International Journal of Housing Policy 14, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2013.872949

Bogoch, I.I., Watts, A., Thomas-Bachli, A., Huber, C., Kraemer, M.U.G., Khan, K., 2020. Potential for global spread of a novel coronavirus from China. J Travel Med. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa011

Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., 2012. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services 1, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011

Braubach, M., Egorov, A., Mudu, P., Wolf, T., Thompson, C.W., Martuzzi, M., 2017. Effects of Urban Green Space on Environmental Health, Equity and Resilience, in: Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A. (Eds.), Nature‐based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice, Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 187–205.

Calavita, N., 1984. Urbanization, Public Control of Land Use and Private Ownership of Land: The Development of Italian Planning Law. The Urban Lawyer 16, 459–488.

Carpenter, S.R., Turner, M., 2000. Opening the Black Boxes: Ecosystem Science and Economic Valuation. Ecosystems 3, 1–3.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009. Health Effects of Gentrification [WWW Document]. URL https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm (accessed 6.17.20).

Chen, X., de Vries, S., Assmuth, T., Dick, J., Hermans, T., Hertel, O., Jensen, A., Jones, L., Kabisch, S., Lanki, T., Lehmann, I., Maskell, L., Norton, L., Reis, S., 2019. Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban environments. Science of The Total Environment 651, 2118–2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.030

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., Maginnis, S. (Eds.), 2016. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en

Colding, J., 2013. Local Assessment of Stockholm: Revisiting the Stockholm Urban Assessment, in: Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C. (Eds.), Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_17

Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2017. An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model. Journal of Cleaner Production 164, 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.191

Conedera, M., Del Biaggio, A., Seeland, K., Moretti, M., Home, R., 2015. Residents’ preferences and use of urban and peri-urban green spaces in a Swiss mountainous region of the Southern Alps. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.01.003

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., Groot, R. de, Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Belt, M. van den, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E.G., Martín- Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., 2013. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, Special Issue on Mapping and Modelling Ecosystem Services 4, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001

Cucca, R., 2017. The social impact of green urban renewal in two European Capital Cities: Copenhagen and Vienna in comparison. Environmental Justice in the Anthropocene Symposium 17.

Dai, D., 2011. Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning 102, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002

Darvill, R., Lindo, Z., 2015. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services, Best Practices for Mapping Ecosystem Services 13, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.004 de Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2003. Natural Environments— Healthy Environments? An Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship between Greenspace and Health. Environ Plan A 35, 1717–1731. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35111

Dillen, S.M.E. van, Vries, S. de, Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2012. Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents’ health: adding quality to quantity. J Epidemiol Community Health 66, e8–e8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2009.104695

Dixon, T., Wilkinson, S., 2016. Building Resilience in Urban Settlements Through Green Roof Retrofit, in: Wilkinson, S., Dixon, T. (Eds.), Green Roof Retrofit. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119055587.ch1

Dobers, P., Hallin, A., 2009. The Use of Internet in Building the Brand of "Stockholm: The Capital of Scandinavia”, in: Gascó-Hernández, M., Torres-Coronas, T. (Eds.), Information Communication Technologies and City Marketing: Digital Opportunities for Cities around the World. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 265–294.

Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., 1981. Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species, 1st ed. ed. Random House, New York.

Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C. (Eds.), 2013. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1

Eurostat, 2019. Eurostat regional yearbook 2019 edition., 2019 edition. ed, Statistical books. Publications Office, Luxembourg.

Feinberg, M., 2019. Exploring an emerging land use conflict: GIS based site selection for expanding forests in Denmark. Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2019. Folkhälsans utveckling Årsrapport 2019 (No. 18130).

Garmendia, E., Stagl, S., 2010. Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics 69, 1712–1722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.027

Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69, 1209–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D.N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P., Andersson, E., Hamstead, Z., Kremer, P., 2013. Urban Ecosystem Services, in: Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities: A Global Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 175–251.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 35, 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708

Haaland, C., van den Bosch, C.K., 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14, 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009

Haarstad, H., 2017. Constructing the sustainable city: examining the role of sustainability in the ‘smart city’ discourse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 19, 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1245610

Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., Frumkin, H., 2014. Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health 35, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443

Heffner, G., Campbell, N., 2011. Evaluating the co-benefits of low-income energy-efficiency programmes. Presented at the The Dublin Workshop, International Energy Agency (IEA), Dublin, p. 40.

Hermelin, B., 2007. The urbanization and suburbanization of the service economy: producer services and specialization in stockholm. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 89, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00260.x

Hidaka, B.H., 2012. Depression as a disease of modernity: Explanations for increasing prevalence. Journal of Affective Disorders 140, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.036

Hillsdon, M., Panter, J., Foster, C., Jones, A., 2006. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health 120, 1127–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.007

Hui, S.C.M., 2011. Green roof urban farming for buildings in high-density urban cities. Presented at the Hainan China World Green Roof Conference 18-21 March, Hainan, China.

Hunter, R.F., Christian, H., Veitch, J., Astell-Burt, T., Hipp, J.A., Schipperijn, J., 2015. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: A systematic review and recommendations for future research. Social Science & Medicine 124, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.051

Janoušková, S., Hák, T., Moldan, B., 2018. Global SDGs Assessments: Helping or Confusing Indicators? Sustainability 10, 1540. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051540

Jennings, V., Larson, L., Yun, J., 2016. Advancing Sustainability through Urban Green Space: Cultural Ecosystem Services, Equity, and Social Determinants of Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020196

Kull, C.A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., Castro-Larrañaga, M., 2015. The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004

Larsson, N., n.d. Mosaic-VAL-ODB. En överskit av samband mellan livsstilar, vårdkonsumption, och socioekonomiska data i Stockholms län. Department of Public Health Science, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, SE.

Lee, I.-M., Shiroma, E.J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S.N., Katzmarzyk, P.T., 2012. Impact of Physical Inactivity on the World’s Major Non-Communicable Diseases. Lancet 380, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9

Leeuwen, E. van, Nijkamp, P., Vaz, T. de N., 2010. The multifunctional use of urban greenspace. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8, 20–25. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0466

Littke, H., 2015. Planning the Green Walkable City: Conceptualizing Values and Conflicts for Urban Green Space Strategies in Stockholm. Sustainability 7, 11306–11320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70811306

Luymes, D.T., Tamminga, K., 1995. Integrating public safety and use into planning urban greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 33, 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)02030-J

Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Vries, S. de, Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 60, 587– 592. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125

Mackenbach, J.P., Bos, V., Andersen, O., Cardano, M., Costa, G., Harding, S., Reid, A., Hemström, Ö., Valkonen, T., Kunst, A.E., 2003. Widening socioeconomic inequalities in mortality in six Western European countries. Int J Epidemiol 32, 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyg209 Miljöförvaltningen, Lantmäteriet, 2012. Stockholm stads biotoper: Reviderad databas för Stockholms biotopkarta och övergripande analys av förändringar mellan 1998 och 2009 (No. 2012–4608). Stockholm Stad, Stockholm.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Mitchell, R., 2013. What is equigenesis and how might it help narrow health inequalities? CRESH - Center forResearch on Environment, Society and Health. URL https://cresh.org.uk/2013/11/08/what-is-equigenesis-and-how-might-it-help-narrow-health- inequalities/ (accessed 3.12.20).

Mitchell, R., Popham, F., 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet 372, 1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(08)61689-X

Mitchell, R., Popham, F., 2007. Greenspace, urbanity and health: relationships in England. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 61, 681–683. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.053553

Mitchell, R.J., Richardson, E.A., Shortt, N.K., Pearce, J.R., 2015. Neighborhood Environments and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mental Well-Being. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 49, 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.017

Morancho, A.B., 2003. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 66, 35– 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00093-8

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., 2016. Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature News 534, 320. https://doi.org/10.1038/534320a

Nutsford, D., Pearson, A.L., Kingham, S., 2013. An ecological study investigating the association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public Health 127, 1005–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.08.016

Pauleit, S., Zölch, T., Hansen, R., Randrup, T.B., van den Bosch, C.K., 2017. Nature-Based Solutions and Climate Change – Four Shades of Green, in: Nature‐based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice, Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 29–49.

Richardson, E.A., Mitchell, R., Hartig, T., Vries, S. de, Astell-Burt, T., Frumkin, H., 2012. Green cities and health: a question of scale? J Epidemiol Community Health 66, 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2011.137240

Richardson, E.A., Pearce, J., Mitchell, R., Kingham, S., 2013. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 127, 318–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.01.004

Rusche, K. (Ed.), 2011. The Value of Green Infrastructure in Urban Quality of Life, in: REAL CORP 2011. Presented at the REAL CORP 2011: CHANGE FOR STABILITY: Lifecycles of Cities and Regions, CORP, Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning, Essen, Germany.

Sallis, J.F., Cerin, E., Conway, T.L., Adams, M.A., Frank, L.D., Pratt, M., Salvo, D., Schipperijn, J., Smith, G., Cain, K.L., Davey, R., Kerr, J., Lai, P.-C., Mitáš, J., Reis, R., Sarmiento, O.L., Schofield, G., Troelsen, J., Van Dyck, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Owen, N., 2016. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet 387, 2207–2217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01284-2

Seto, K.C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., Reilly, M.K., 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion. PLoS ONE 6, e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777

Sister, C., Wolch, J., Wilson, J., 2010. Got green? addressing environmental justice in park provision. GeoJournal 75, 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9303-8

Skånes, H., 2019. BIOTOP Stockholm Del B Klassificeringssystem och databasstrukturMetadata till BIOTOP Stockholm 3.0 (No. REMISS-version:Lst Dnr 500-15181-2019). Länsstyrelsen, Stockholms Universitet.

Smith, J.P., 2004. Unraveling the SES: Health Connection. Population and Development Review 30, 108– 132.

Ståhle, A., Nordström, T., Kleberg, H.L., Wezelius, I., Kummel, L., Swartz, S., Hernbäck, J., 2002. Stockholms sociotopkarta.

Stahre, U., 2004. City in Change: Globalization, Local Politics and Urban Movements in Contemporary Stockholm. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28, 68–85. 40

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00503.x

Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2020. Befolkningstäthet i Sverige [WWW Document]. Statistiska Centralbyrån. URL http://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/manniskorna-i-sverige/befolkningstathet-i- sverige/ (accessed 2.4.20).

Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., Ludwig, C., 2015. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

Stockholm Läns Landsting, 2018. Regional Utvecklingsplan för Stockholmsregionen. RUFS 2050: Europas mest attraktiva storstadsregion (No. RAPPORT 2018:10). Stockholm.

Stockholm Stad, 2020. Statistik årsbok för Stockholm 2020. Stockholm.

Stren, R., Polèse, M., 2000. Understanding the new sociocultural dynamics of cities: comparative urban policy in a global context, in: The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Sundquist, K., Frank, G., Sundquist, J., 2004. Urbanisation and incidence of psychosis and depression: Follow-up study of 4.4 million women and men in Sweden. The British Journal of Psychiatry 184, 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.184.4.293

Tandogan, O., Ilhan, B.S., 2016. Fear of Crime in Public Spaces: From the View of Women Living in Cities. Procedia Engineering 161, 2011–2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.795

Tyrväinen, L., 1997. The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning 37, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80005-9

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001

United Nations, 2019. World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision (No. ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United Nations, New York, NY.

United Nations, 2015. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (No. A/RES/70/1). United Nations, New York, NY. van den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., van Mechelen, W., Maas, J., 2015. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14, 806–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008

Villeneuve, P.J., Jerrett, M., G. Su, J., Burnett, R.T., Chen, H., Wheeler, A.J., Goldberg, M.S., 2012. A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Research 115, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.003

Woc-Colburn, L., Hotchandani, A., 2020. How Infectious Diseases Have Influenced Our Culture, in: Hidalgo, J., Woc-Colburn, L. (Eds.), Highly Infectious Diseases in Critical Care: A Comprehensive Clinical Guide. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33803-9_1

Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., 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. 41

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

Wong, D.W.S., 2004. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP), in: Janelle, D.G., Warf, B., Hansen, K. (Eds.), WorldMinds: Geographical Perspectives on 100 Problems: Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Association of American Geographers 1904–2004. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 571–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2352-1_93

World Health Organization, 1993. The Urban Health Crisis: Strategies for health for all in the face of rapid urbanization. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Zhang, Y., Van den Berg, A., Van Dijk, T., Weitkamp, G., 2017. Quality over Quantity: Contribution of Urban Green Space to Neighborhood Satisfaction. IJERPH 14, 535. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14050535

Appendix A – Base Map (Biotope/Land-Cover)

The base layer of the biotope/land-cover dataset as discussed in section 3 is shown here to help compare the results with the input data. The data in the following map is not processed in any way and displays the main land cover types (huvudklassytor). The data was obtained from Stockholms Stad, Miljöförvaltningen.

Fig. A1: Biotope Map of Stockholm (main land cover types shown here).

Appendix B – Base Map (Income and Education)

The base layer of the income and education (referred to as socioeconomic map) dataset as discussed in section 3 is shown here to help compare the results with the input data. The data in the following map is not processed in any way and displays the three main income and educations groups (low, medium, high).

Fig. B1: Socioeconomic map of Stockholm based on income and education groups.

Appendix C – Base Maps (Health/Healthcare Consumption)

The base layer of the health and healthcare consumption dataset as discussed in section 3 is shown here to help compare the results with the input data. The data in the following map is not processed in any way and each map displays one health indicator. For data source see section 3.2.

Fig. C1: Map of Stockholm showing the distribution of sick days per person per year in the city.

Fig. C2: Map of Stockholm showing the distribution of the median age of people at their first hospitalized hearth attack.

Fig. C3: Map of Stockholm showing the distribution of hospitalized suicide attempts (per 100 000).

Fig. C4: Map of Stockholm showing the distribution of children in open psychiatric treatment (per 1000).

Fig. C5: Map of Stockholm showing the distribution of young adults in open psychiatric treatment (per 1000).

Fig. C6: Map of Stockholm showing the distribution of infection rates in children aged 0 to 17 years (per 10 000).