Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Spatial datasets used in this study.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Work-flow for the land-cover classification used in this study combining 3 m satellite imagery (Planet, 2017), tree canopy data (City of Trees 2011 and Ordnance Survey Open Map Local, 2018) and buildings data (OS Open Map Local, 2018).

Contains OS data Crown copyright and database right 2019 Ordnance Survey (100025252).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Workflow of analytical steps carried out within this study.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Example of areas classified as land-sharing, land-sparing and neither sharing nor sparing (contains City of Trees, 2011 data, Planet, 2017 data and OS Open Rivers data, 2018).

Contains OS data Crown copyright and database right 2019 Ordnance Survey (100025252).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

Descriptions of landscape metrics computed for use in linear regression analyses within this study.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 4.

Study area characterised by land-cover (contains Planet 2017, City of Trees 2011 and OS data Crown copyright and database right 2019 Ordnance Survey (100025252)).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Vegetation cover within major land-uses (those comprising > 1% of the study area) A) all areas; B) low-urban areas; C) high-urban areas.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 3.

Correlations between land-use and urban indicators (at 1 km2).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 6.

Relative extent of public, domestic and peri-urban green-space at units of 1 km2 across a gradient of land sharing-sparing for A) all areas; B) low-urban areas and C) high urban areas. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Mean Total Core Area for three levels of land-sharing-sparing controlling for overall green cover.

A) all areas; B) low-urban areas and C) high urban areas. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Mean SHDI for three levels of land-sharing-sparing controlling for overall green cover.

A) all areas; B) low-urban areas and C) high-urban areas. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Effective mesh size for three levels of land-sharing-sparing controlling for overall green cover.

A) all areas; B) low-urban areas and C) high-urban areas. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 4.

Significance levels (p values) for all general linear model analyses carried out in this study.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 10.

Mean ambient nitrogen dioxide concentration for three levels of land-sharing-sparing controlling for overall green cover.

A) all areas; B) low-urban areas and C) high-urban areas. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 5.

Results of regressing land-use-land-cover attributes on landscape metrics used in this study.

All tests carried out at 1 km2 units.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Results of regressing land-use-land-cover attributes on socio-environmental metrics used in this study.

All tests carried out at 1 km2 units.

More »

Table 6 Expand