IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i9p1628-d111799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aesthetic and Spiritual Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Sacred Sites

Author

Listed:
  • Peter De Lacy

    (Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa)

  • Charlie Shackleton

    (Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa)

Abstract

The range and use of ecosystem services provided by urban sacred sites has hardly been considered in studies of urban ecology, sustainability and human wellbeing. This paper examines the perceived ecosystem services supplied by green spaces or gardens associated with places of religious worship and appreciated by worshippers in a mid-sized town in South Africa. A questionnaire with open, closed and Likert scale questions was administered at 30 places of worship (25 with gardens and five without). Respondents identified a wide diversity of ecosystem services provided by gardens, with social ones being more recognized than ecological, and economic services the least. Approximately two-thirds of respondents visited a sacred site garden weekly or more often. The majority of respondents (96%) felt that a garden was necessary because it added to their feelings of connection with God, or helped them relax and so be better able to concentrate, and 54% stated that a garden enhanced their overall spiritual experience. Regression analysis revealed that aesthetic appreciation of a garden was significantly related to woody plant species richness, number and basal area in the garden. On the other hand, spiritual experience was positively related to woody plant basal area, but not species richness nor tree number. Neither size of the garden, nor number of years the respondents had been vising a particular sacred site had any influence on the rated spiritual or aesthetic experiences. These results reveal the widely appreciated ecosystem services provided by urban sacred spaces and their centrality in enhancing spiritual satisfaction for some.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter De Lacy & Charlie Shackleton, 2017. "Aesthetic and Spiritual Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Sacred Sites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1628-:d:111799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1628/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1628/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van den Berg, Agnes E. & Maas, Jolanda & Verheij, Robert A. & Groenewegen, Peter P., 2010. "Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1203-1210, April.
    2. Kiran Keswani, 2017. "The practice of tree worship and the territorial production of urban space in the Indian neighbourhood," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 370-387, May.
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    4. Stephen Mufutau Awoyemi & Amy Gambrill & Alison Ormsby & Dhaval Vyas, 2012. "Global Efforts to Bridge Religion and Conservation: Are They Really Working?," Chapters, in: Tony Povilitis (ed.), Topics in Conservation Biology, IntechOpen.
    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. Po-Ching Wang & Chi-Ying Yu, 2018. "Aesthetic Experience as an Essential Factor to Trigger Positive Environmental Consciousness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Fiona Nevzati & Mart Külvik & Joanna Storie & Liisa-Maria Tiidu & Simon Bell, 2023. "Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Well-Being: Testing a Method for Evaluating Natural Environment and Contact Types in the Harku Municipality, Estonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-24, June.
    3. Andrzej Długoński & Diana Dushkova & Dagmar Haase, 2022. "Urban Cemeteries—Places of Multiple Diversity and Challenges. A Case Study from Łódź (Poland) and Leipzig (Germany)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Nanamhla Gwedla & Susanna Francina A. Cornelius & Marié J. Du Toit & Sarel S. Cilliers, 2022. "Stakeholder Perceptions of the Ecosystem Services of Health Clinic Gardens in Settlements and Small- to Medium-Sized Cities in the North-West Province, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Grzyb, Tomasz, 2024. "Mapping cultural ecosystem services of the urban riverscapes: the case of the Vistula River in Warsaw, Poland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Tanja M. Straka & Maren Mischo & Konstantin J. S. Petrick & Ingo Kowarik, 2022. "Urban Cemeteries as Shared Habitats for People and Nature: Reasons for Visit, Comforting Experiences of Nature, and Preferences for Cultural and Natural Features," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Constant, Natasha Louise & Taylor, Peter John, 2020. "Restoring the forest revives our culture: Ecosystem services and values for ecological restoration across the rural-urban nexus in South Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    8. Louis Gerhardus Lategan & Zene Steynberg & Elizelle Juanee Cilliers & Sarel Stephanus Cilliers, 2022. "Economic Valuation of Urban Green Spaces across a Socioeconomic Gradient: A South African Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-23, March.

    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. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    2. 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.
    3. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    4. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    5. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    6. Kay Fretwell & Alison Greig, 2019. "Towards a Better Understanding of the Relationship between Individual’s Self-Reported Connection to Nature, Personal Well-Being and Environmental Awareness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    10. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Sirakaya, Aysegül & Cliquet, An & Harris, Jim, 2018. "Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 205-212.
    13. Zengzeng Fan & Yuanyang Wang & Yanchao Feng, 2021. "Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    15. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    16. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    17. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Shunqian Gao & Liu Yang & Hongzan Jiao, 2022. "Changes in and Patterns of the Tradeoffs and Synergies of Production-Living-Ecological Space: A Case Study of Longli County, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    20. Siqi Lai & Brian Deal, 2022. "Parks, Green Space, and Happiness: A Spatially Specific Sentiment Analysis Using Microblogs in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.

    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:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1628-:d:111799. 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.