IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7586-d413625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Perceived Well-Being from Urban Parks: Insights from a Megacity in Latin America

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Parra-Saldívar

    (Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile)

  • Sebastián Abades

    (GEMA Center for Genomics, Ecology & Environment, Facultad de Estudios Interdisciplinarios, Universidad Mayor, Santiago 8580745, Chile)

  • Juan L. Celis-Diez

    (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Escuela de Agronomía, Quillota 2260000, Chile)

  • Stefan Gelcich

    (Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile
    Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES) & Center for the Socioeconomic Impact of Environmental Policies (CESIEP), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 8331150, Chile)

Abstract

Urbanization has impacted biodiversity and ecosystems at a global scale. At the same time, it has been recognized as a driver of the physical and emotional gap between humans and nature. The lack of direct contact with nature can have a negative impact on several aspects of human well-being and change knowledge and attitudes of people towards the environment. However, this phenomenon is still poorly understood in megacities outside developed countries. Here, we explore the relationship between ecological knowledge and self-reported well-being in an important urban park in Santiago, Chile. We conducted semi-structured surveys of park users to explore their beliefs, preferences, ecological knowledge of plants and birds, and self-reported well-being. Citizens associated urban parks mainly with “nature,” and particularly with the presence of trees and plants. Trees were recognized as the most relevant elements of urban parks; in turn, birds were ranked as the less relevant. Regarding formal ecological knowledge, respondents correctly identified an average of 2.01 plants and 2.44 birds out of a total of 10 for each taxon, and exotic species were more likely to be recognized. Park users also reported high scores for self-reported well-being. Interestingly, variance of self-reported well-being scores tended to increase at low levels of ecological knowledge of trees, but no significant relationship was detected with knowledge of birds, nor native species. Ecological knowledge of trees was positively related to self-reported well-being. Results suggest that parks can positively contribute to bring people closer to nature in middle-income countries. Improving ecological knowledge can be critical to restore the relationship between humans and nature in megacities.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Parra-Saldívar & Sebastián Abades & Juan L. Celis-Diez & Stefan Gelcich, 2020. "Exploring Perceived Well-Being from Urban Parks: Insights from a Megacity in Latin America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7586-:d:413625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7586/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7586/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norman Myers & Russell A. Mittermeier & Cristina G. Mittermeier & Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca & Jennifer Kent, 2000. "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities," Nature, Nature, vol. 403(6772), pages 853-858, February.
    2. Marzena Suchocka & Paweł Jankowski & Magdalena Błaszczyk, 2019. "Perception of Urban Trees by Polish Tree Professionals vs. Nonprofessionals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    3. Juan L. Celis-Diez & Cesar E. Muñoz & Sebastián Abades & Pablo A. Marquet & Juan J. Armesto, 2017. "Biocultural Homogenization in Urban Settings: Public Knowledge of Birds in City Parks of Santiago, Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, March.
    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. Pritam Ahirrao & Smita Khan, 2021. "Assessing Public Open Spaces: A Case of City Nagpur, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Maite Berasaluce & Pablo Díaz-Siefer & Paulina Rodríguez-Díaz & Marcelo Mena-Carrasco & José Tomás Ibarra & Juan L. Celis-Diez & Pedro Mondaca, 2021. "Social-Environmental Conflicts in Chile: Is There Any Potential for an Ecological Constitution?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-25, November.

    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. Alejandra Tauro & Jaime Ojeda & Terrance Caviness & Kelli P. Moses & René Moreno-Terrazas & T. Wright & Danqiong Zhu & Alexandria K. Poole & Francisca Massardo & Ricardo Rozzi, 2021. "Field Environmental Philosophy: A Biocultural Ethic Approach to Education and Ecotourism for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Matías Guerrero-Gatica & María Isabel Mujica & Matías Barceló & María Fernanda Vio-Garay & Stefan Gelcich & Juan J. Armesto, 2020. "Traditional and Local Knowledge in Chile: Review of Experiences and Insights for Management and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Laxmi D. Bhatta & Sunita Chaudhary & Anju Pandit & Himlal Baral & Partha J. Das & Nigel E. Stork, 2016. "Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-14, June.
    4. McLennan, D. & Sharma, R., 2012. "The Delivering Ecological Services Index (DESI)," Working papers 119, Rimisp Latin American Center for Rural Development.
    5. Caviedes, Julián & Ibarra, José Tomás & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Álvarez-Fernández, Santiago & Junqueira, André Braga, 2024. "Indigenous and local knowledge on social-ecological changes is positively associated with livelihood resilience in a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    6. Maeda, Eduardo Eiji & Clark, Barnaby J.F. & Pellikka, Petri & Siljander, Mika, 2010. "Modelling agricultural expansion in Kenya's Eastern Arc Mountains biodiversity hotspot," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 609-620, November.
    7. Jaiswal, Sreeja & Balietti, Anca & Schäffer, Daniel, 2023. "Environmental Protection and Labor Market Composition," Working Papers 0736, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Chomitz, Kenneth M. & Thomas, Timothy S. & Brandão, Antônio Salazar P., 2005. "The economic and environmental impact of trade in forest reserve obligations: a simulation analysis of options for dealing with habitat heterogeneity," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 43(4), January.
    9. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    10. Elisa Barbour & Lara Kueppers, 2012. "Conservation and management of ecological systems in a changing California," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(1), pages 135-163, March.
    11. Tyler M Harms & Kevin T Murphy & Xiaodan Lyu & Shane S Patterson & Karen E Kinkead & Stephen J Dinsmore & Paul W Frese, 2017. "Using landscape habitat associations to prioritize areas of conservation action for terrestrial birds," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, March.
    12. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    13. Brannstrom, Christian, 2001. "Conservation-with-Development Models in Brazil's Agro-Pastoral Landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 1345-1359, August.
    14. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    15. Pütz, S. & Groeneveld, J. & Alves, L.F. & Metzger, J.P. & Huth, A., 2011. "Fragmentation drives tropical forest fragments to early successional states: A modelling study for Brazilian Atlantic forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(12), pages 1986-1997.
    16. Paige, Sarah B. & Malavé, Carly & Mbabazi, Edith & Mayer, Jonathan & Goldberg, Tony L., 2015. "Uncovering zoonoses awareness in an emerging disease ‘hotspot’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 78-86.
    17. Stephanie D. Maier & Jan Paul Lindner & Javier Francisco, 2019. "Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Assessments in Global Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-34, March.
    18. Sehgal, Shaina & Babu, Suresh, 2021. "Economic Transformation of the Nicobar Islands Post-tsunami: A Material Import–Export Analysis," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 4(02), July.
    19. Poonam Tripathi & Mukund Dev Behera & Partha Sarathi Roy, 2017. "Optimized grid representation of plant species richness in India—Utility of an existing national database in integrated ecological analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-13, March.
    20. Davis, Katrina & Pannell, David J. & Kragt, Marit & Gelcich, Stefan & Schilizzi, Steven, 2014. "Accounting for enforcement is essential to improve the spatial allocation of marine restricted-use zoning systems," Working Papers 195718, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7586-:d:413625. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.