Greenways are multifunctional linear landscapes that provide a range of socio-ecological benefits. As a domain of landscape planning research, greenways gained traction in the late 20th century and today, there is substantial interest in greenway planning and design. This is especially true in urban areas, as noted at the sixth Fábos Conference on Landscape and Greenway Planning. Yet, cities encompass biophysical flows, sociopolitical relationships, and formal structures that are distinct from non-urban areas and urban greenways may reflect an evolving type of landscape planning and design that is related to but distinct from greenways writ large. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no previous review of scholarship on greenways in an urban context. We address the aforementioned gaps by reporting on a systematic assessment of peer-reviewed literature. The review encompasses 52 refereed articles using the term “urban greenway” or “urban greenways” in the title, abstract, or keywords drawn from three prominent academic databases. Our analysis covers seven research categories, and this undergirds a typology and definition of urban greenways. In so doing, we seek to illuminate typical traits of urban greenways to inform future landscape planning scholarship and practice.

Municipal leaders are pursuing ambitious goals to increase urban tree canopy (UTC), but there is little understanding of the pace and socioecological drivers of UTC change. We analyzed land cover change in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (United States) from 1970–2010 to examine the impacts of post-industrial processes on UTC. We interpreted land cover classes using aerial imagery and assessed historical context using archival newspapers, agency reports, and local historical scholarship. There was a citywide UTC increase of +4.3 percentage points. Substantial UTC gains occurred in protected open spaces related to both purposeful planting and unintentional forest emergence due to lack of maintenance, with the latter phenomenon well-documented in other cities located in forested biomes. Compared to developed lands, UTC was more persistent in protected open spaces. Some neighborhoods experienced substantial UTC gains, including quasi-suburban areas and depopulated low-income communities; the latter also experienced decreasing building cover. We identified key processes that drove UTC increases, and which imposed legacies on current UTC patterns: urban renewal, urban greening initiatives, quasi-suburban developments, and (dis)investments in parks. Our study demonstrates the socioecological dynamism of intra-city land cover changes at multi-decadal time scales and the crucial role of local historical context in the interpretation of UTC change.

Municipal leaders around the world are demonstrating significant interest in urban greening to realize a range of socioecological benefits. The urban greening toolkit often includes street trees, an essential component of urban design informed by historic legacies of both human and environmental factors. To date, there has been little comparative analysis of street tree density and distribution across international and intercontinental settings, and associated research has not been situated within the broader discussion of historical legacies. This study focuses on five capital cities (Ottawa, Stockholm, Buenos Aires, Paris, and Washington, DC) situated in two climate zones and it addresses two research questions: (1) What are the density and distribution of street trees across a given city and its street hierarchy? and (2) How do these metrics compare within and between cities by climate zone? The analysis draws upon up-to-date datasets from local authorities and includes geospatial analysis of street trees across hierarchical street classes within the central zones of each city. The results show clear differences in street tree density in cities within and between climate zones as well as differences in street tree distribution in cities within the same climate zone. Substantial differences within climate zones further suggest that cultural factors—including but not limited to urban form, aesthetic norms, and governance regimes—may play a pivotal role in the distribution and density of street trees. This illustrates the importance of place-specific cultural and environmental legacies as determinants of street tree density and distribution and supports further comparative research on the topic.