IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i6p523-d71103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Assessment of the Knowledge and Demand of Young Residents regarding the Ecological Services of Urban Green Spaces in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Author

Listed:
  • Yat Yen

    (School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430073, China
    School of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Zhanqi Wang

    (School of Public Administration, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430073, China)

  • Yumin Shi

    (School of Public Affairs, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China)

  • Bunly Soeung

    (Faculty of Social Sciences, Svay Rieng University, Svay Rieng 20251, Cambodia)

Abstract

The fast and steady economic growth and social changes in recent years in Cambodia have brought rapid expansion and restructuring to its cities. These phenomena have brought numerous challenges including threats to urban green spaces (UGS’s). This study addresses problems of UGS’s by investigating the knowledge and perceptions of young residents of Phnom Penh (YRPPs) toward UGS’s in relation to the following: (1) basic knowledge of YRPPs on ecological services (KES) of UGS’s; (2) perceptions of YRPPs on the current state of UGS’s (PUGS’s) in Phnom Penh; (3) demand of YRPPs for UGS’s in the city (DUGS); and (4) associations between KES, PUGS’s, social profiles (SoPs), and DUGS. A questionnaire was designed to solicit knowledge from 554 respondents randomly selected from the study area. The findings revealed that 83.1% of total respondents strongly recognized ecological services of UGS’s. Four subgroups of ecological services, namely microclimate (89.7%), environmental quality and functions (83.8%), recreational and public health services (88.5%), and economic benefits (70.4%) were all rated highly. Because the current state of UGS’s was very poor (68.4%), demand for UGS’s was high (94.43%). Public toilets (84.7%) and rubbish bins (75.6%) were both rated the poorest. The PUGS’s were significantly associated with KES (r = 0.307, F (3, 543) = 18.83, p < 0.001). This study offers a deep understanding about knowledge and demand of YRPPs for UGS’s.

Suggested Citation

  • Yat Yen & Zhanqi Wang & Yumin Shi & Bunly Soeung, 2016. "An Assessment of the Knowledge and Demand of Young Residents regarding the Ecological Services of Urban Green Spaces in Phnom Penh, Cambodia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:6:p:523-:d:71103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/523/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/523/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krekel, Christian & Kolbe, Jens & Wüstemann, Henry, 2016. "The greener, the happier? The effect of urban land use on residential well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-127.
    2. Hussain, A.M. Tanvir & Tschirhart, John, 2013. "Economic/ecological tradeoffs among ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 116-127.
    3. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    4. He, Jialin & Yi, Hongmei & Liu, Jian, 2016. "Urban green space recreational service assessment and management: A conceptual model based on the service generation process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 59-68.
    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. Moreira, Fernanda Deister & Rezende, Sonaly & Passos, Fabiana, 2021. "On-street toilets for sanitation access in urban public spaces: A systematic review," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Rembrandt Koppelaar & Antonino Marvuglia & Lisanne Havinga & Jelena Brajković & Benedetto Rugani, 2021. "Is Agent-Based Simulation a Valid Tool for Studying the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions on Local Economy? A Case Study of Four European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, July.
    3. 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.

    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. Krekel, Christian & Rechlitz, Julia & Rode, Johannes & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2020. "Quantifying the Externalities of Renewable Energy Plants Using Wellbeing Data: The Case of Biogas," IZA Discussion Papers 13959, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Christine Bertram & Jan Goebel & Christian Krekel & Katrin Rehdanz, 2022. "Urban Land Use Fragmentation and Human Well-Being," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 399-420.
    3. de Vries, S.P. & Garcia Alvarez, G. & Botzen, W.J.W. & Bockarjova, M., 2023. "Valuing urban nature through life satisfaction: The consistency of GIS and survey indicators of nature," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Takuya Takahashi & Yukiko Uchida & Hiroyuki Ishibashi & Noboru Okuda, 2021. "Subjective Well-Being as a Potential Policy Indicator in the Context of Urbanization and Forest Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    5. Ben Ma & Tiantian Zhou & Shuo Lei & Yali Wen & Theint Theint Htun, 2019. "Effects of urban green spaces on residents’ well-being," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2793-2809, December.
    6. Wang, Jingjing & Chermak, Janie M., 2021. "Is less always more? Conservation, efficiency and water education programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Shuai Zhang & Binbin Liu & Dajian Zhu & Mingwang Cheng, 2018. "Explaining Individual Subjective Well-Being of Urban China Based on the Four-Capital Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, September.
    8. Christopher Tirri & Hunter Swanson & Mahbubur Meenar, 2021. "Finding the “Heart” in the Green: Conducting a Bibliometric Analysis to Emphasize the Need for Connecting Emotions with Biophilic Urban Planning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Elli Papastergiou & Dionysis Latinopoulos & Myrto Evdou & Athanasios Kalogeresis, 2023. "Exploring Associations between Subjective Well-Being and Non-Market Values When Used in the Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces: A Scoping Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-31, March.
    10. Marina Bravi & Marta Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna, 2024. "An Application of the Life Satisfaction Approach (LSA) to Value the Land Consumption and Ecosystem Services," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2988-3013, March.
    11. Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson & Sarah Kelly & Marion Kennedy & John W. Cherrie, 2019. "A Scoping Review Mapping Research on Green Space and Associated Mental Health Benefits," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-49, June.
    12. Stefanie Kley & Tetiana Dovbishchuk, 2021. "How a Lack of Green in the Residential Environment Lowers the Life Satisfaction of City Dwellers and Increases Their Willingness to Relocate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, April.
    13. Brown, Zachary S. & Oueslati, Walid & Silva, Jérôme, 2016. "Links between urban structure and life satisfaction in a cross-section of OECD metro areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 112-121.
    14. Methorst, Joel & Rehdanz, Katrin & Mueller, Thomas & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Bonn, Aletta & Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, 2021. "The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    16. Otrachshenko, Vladimir & Tyurina, Elena & Nagapetyan, Artur, 2022. "The economic value of the Glass Beach: Contingent valuation and life satisfaction approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    17. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    18. 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).
    19. Jaloliddin Rustamov & Zahiriddin Rustamov & Nazar Zaki, 2023. "Green Space Quality Analysis Using Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, May.
    20. Jake M. Robinson & Martin F. Breed, 2019. "Green Prescriptions and Their Co-Benefits: Integrative Strategies for Public and Environmental Health," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.

    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:8:y:2016:i:6:p:523-:d:71103. 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.