IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v22y2016ipap111-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?

Author

Listed:
  • Larson, Lincoln R.
  • Keith, Samuel J.
  • Fernandez, Mariela
  • Hallo, Jeffrey C.
  • Shafer, C. Scott
  • Jennings, Viniece

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) are an important tool for quantifying the value of nature, yet there are often disconnects between services defined and measured by scientists and those that are realized and appreciated by the general public. Our study explored public perceptions of urban ES by examining benefits associated with greenways in two U.S. cities. Respondents (n =460) recognized all types of ES, though environmental benefits (e.g., air and water quality regulation; acknowledged by 74% of respondents) were less widely recognized than cultural benefits (e.g., economic impacts, social connectivity; 90%) or experiential benefits (e.g., attractive scenery, recreation; 98%). The distinction between these last two categories is rarely made in conventional ES frameworks, but it may be practically significant from the public's perspective. Benefit perceptions varied across geographic and socio-demographic contexts. Enhanced integration of cultural and experiential benefits into urban ES frameworks could lead to more equitable and informed decisions about the provision, management, and valuation of urban green space across diverse settings and populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Larson, Lincoln R. & Keith, Samuel J. & Fernandez, Mariela & Hallo, Jeffrey C. & Shafer, C. Scott & Jennings, Viniece, 2016. "Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 111-116.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pa:p:111-116
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616301425
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    2. Nahlik, Amanda M. & Kentula, Mary E. & Fennessy, M. Siobhan & Landers, Dixon H., 2012. "Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 27-35.
    3. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & A, 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    4. Kreuter, Urs P. & Harris, Heather G. & Matlock, Marty D. & Lacey, Ronald E., 2001. "Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 333-346, December.
    5. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O. , 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    6. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    7. Lincoln R Larson & Viniece Jennings & Scott A Cloutier, 2016. "Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    9. Cuni-Sanchez, Aida & Pfeifer, Marion & Marchant, Rob & Burgess, Neil D., 2016. "Ethnic and locational differences in ecosystem service values: Insights from the communities in forest islands in the desert," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 42-50.
    10. Cohen, D.A. & McKenzie, T.L. & Sehgal, A. & Williamson, S. & Golinelli, D. & Lurie, N., 2007. "Contribution of public parks to physical activity," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(3), pages 509-514.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francesco Pinna & Valeria Saiu, 2021. "Greenways as Integrated Systems: A Proposal for Planning and Design Guidelines Based on Case Studies Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Peng Zeng & Zongyao Sun & Yuqi Chen & Zhi Qiao & Liangwa Cai, 2021. "COVID-19: A Comparative Study of Population Aggregation Patterns in the Central Urban Area of Tianjin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Immerzeel, Bart & Vermaat, Jan E. & Juutinen, Artti & Pouta, Eija & Artell, Janne, 2022. "Appreciation of Nordic landscapes and how the bioeconomy might change that: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    5. Tao Liu & Le Yu & Xin Chen & Yunmiao Chen & Xiaomeng Li & Xinyi Liu & Yue Cao & Fan Zhang & Chenggang Zhang & Peng Gong, 2024. "Identifying Potential Urban Greenways by Considering Green Space Exposure Levels and Maximizing Recreational Flows: A Case Study in Beijing’s Built-Up Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Peichao Dai & Shaoliang Zhang & Zanxu Chen & Yunlong Gong & Huping Hou, 2019. "Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks Based on Social Network Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Clara García-Mayor & Almudena Nolasco-Cirugeda, 2023. "New Approach to Landscape-Based Spatial Planning Using Meaningful Geolocated Digital Traces," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, April.
    8. Zhicheng Zhang & Hongjuan Zhang & Juan Feng & Yirong Wang & Kang Liu, 2021. "Evaluation of Social Values for Ecosystem Services in Urban Riverfront Space Based on the SolVES Model: A Case Study of the Fenghe River, Xi’an, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-26, March.
    9. Vera Ferreira & Ana Paula Barreira & Luís Loures & Dulce Antunes & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    10. Cengiz, Serhat & Görmüş, Sevgi & Oğuz, Dicle, 2022. "Analysis of the urban growth pattern through spatial metrics; Ankara City," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Weiying Gu & Yiyong Chen & Muye Dai, 2019. "Measuring Community Greening Merging Multi-Source Geo-Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Junga Lee & Hyung-Sook Lee & Daeyoung Jeong & C. Scott Shafer & Jinhyung Chon, 2019. "The Relationship between User Perception and Preference of Greenway Trail Characteristics in Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-16, August.
    13. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    14. Wenxiu Chi & Guangsi Lin, 2019. "The Use of Community Greenways: A Case Study on A Linear Greenway Space in High Dense Residential Areas, Guangzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    15. Abramowicz Dawid & Stępniewska Małgorzata, 2020. "Public Investment Policy as a Driver of Changes in the Ecosystem Services Delivery by an Urban Green Infrastructure," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 39(1), pages 5-18, March.
    16. Stępniewska, Małgorzata, 2021. "The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. Bin Xu & Qingxia Shi & Yaping Zhang, 2022. "Evaluation of the Health Promotion Capabilities of Greenway Trails: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    18. Yawen Sun & Shaohua Tan & Qixiao He & Jize Shen, 2022. "Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-22, January.
    19. Clara García-Mayor & Pablo Martí & Manuel Castaño & Álvaro Bernabeu-Bautista, 2020. "The Unexploited Potential of Converting Rail Tracks to Greenways: The Spanish Vías Verdes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Jason P. Julian & Graham S. Daly & Russell C. Weaver, 2018. "University Students’ Social Demand of a Blue Space and the Influence of Life Experiences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-30, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    4. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    5. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    6. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O. , 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    7. Tadaki, Marc & Allen, Will & Sinner, Jim, 2015. "Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 168-176.
    8. Booth, Eric G. & Zipper, Samuel C. & Loheide, Steven P. & Kucharik, Christopher J., 2016. "Is groundwater recharge always serving us well? Water supply provisioning, crop production, and flood attenuation in conflict in Wisconsin, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 153-165.
    9. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    10. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    11. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    12. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    13. Wilker, Jost & Rusche, Karsten & Benning, Alexander & MacDonald, Michael A. & Blaen, Phillip, 2016. "Applying ecosystem benefit valuation to inform quarry restoration planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 44-55.
    14. Viniece Jennings & Lincoln Larson & Jessica Yun, 2016. "Advancing Sustainability through Urban Green Space: Cultural Ecosystem Services, Equity, and Social Determinants of Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    16. Jae-hyuck Lee & HaeOk Choi, 2020. "An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, February.
    17. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    18. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    19. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François & V, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    20. Martin, Jean-Christophe & Mongruel, Rémi & Levrel, Harold, 2018. "Integrating Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Ecosystem Satellite Account: A Case Study in the Gulf of Saint-Malo (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 141-152.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pa:p:111-116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.