IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-326192.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Amy Phillips
  • Ahmed Z. Khan
  • Frank Canters

Abstract

This paper explores use-related and socio-demographic variations in the valuation of urban green space (UGS) characteristics in the Brussels Capital Region (BCR), lending insights into the valuation of the cultural ecosystem services provided by UGS. Mismatches in the supply of and demand for UGS characteristics are also identified. Knowledge on the ways in which valuation of UGS characteristics vary and on an inadequate supply of UGS characteristics should guide and inspire planning and management of UGS to ensure that UGS provision meets the unique needs of communities. Online surveys were conducted in the BCR to determine how people use UGS, how they experience these spaces, and whether these spaces fulfil their needs for urban green Our findings indicate that socio-demographic characteristics (namely age and household composition) correspond with distinct patterns of use and valuation. Two subgroupings of users are identified: nature-oriented users and social users. Our accessibility analysis shows that, compared to social users, nature-oriented users tend to travel farther to reach their most frequently used UGS but are more often satisfied with the supply of UGS characteristics. Our findings point to an inadequate supply of nature and overcrowding of UGS in the city centre of Brussels. We recommend that planners not only consider size and distance in UGS standards but also consider the demand for UGS characteristics as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/326192
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/326192/1/doi_309836.pdf
    File Function: Full text for the whole work, or for a work part
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    3. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Jag, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    4. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    5. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Marijke Huysmans & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298795, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Stessens, Philip & Canters, Frank & Huysmans, Marijke & Khan, Ahmed Z., 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Jennifer Dykema & John Stevenson & Lisa Klein & Yujin Kim & Brendan Day, "undated". "Effects of E-Mailed Versus Mailed Invitations and Incentives on Response Rates, Data Quality, and Costs in a Web Survey of University Faculty," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d3e2eb6640e040ee943fd8b80, Mathematica Policy Research.
    9. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    10. Philip Stessens & Ahmed Z. Khan & Marijke Huysmans & Frank Canters, 2017. "Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: A GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/284472, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    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. Yonggeng Xiong & Min Xu & Yan Zhao, 2024. "Resident Preferences for Urban Green Spaces in Response to Pandemic Public Health Emergency: A Case Study of Shanghai," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Huai, Songyao & Chen, Fen & Liu, Song & Canters, Frank & Van de Voorde, Tim, 2022. "Using social media photos and computer vision to assess cultural ecosystem services and landscape features in urban parks," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    3. Tianrong Xu & Nikmatul Adha Nordin & Ainoriza Mohd Aini, 2022. "Urban Green Space and Subjective Well-Being of Older People: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-29, October.
    4. Argyro Anna Kanelli & Margarita Kokkinaki & Marios-Dimitrios Sinvare & Chrisovalantis Malesios & Panayiotis G. Dimitrakopoulos & Olga-Ioanna Kalantzi, 2023. "Keep Calm and Go Out: Urban Nature Exposure, Mental Health, and Perceived Value during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Giuseppe Salvia & Irene Pluchinotta & Ioanna Tsoulou & Gemma Moore & Nici Zimmermann, 2022. "Understanding Urban Green Space Usage through Systems Thinking: A Case Study in Thamesmead, London," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Angie Campbell & Victoria Chanse & Mirjam Schindler, 2024. "Developing a Conceptual Framework for Characterizing and Measuring Social Resilience in Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-32, May.
    7. Zhengkai Zhang & Manyuan Hao & Yuyang Mao & Siwei Chen, 2024. "The Role of Campus Green Space for Residents: Based on Supply–Demand of Recreation Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-16, August.

    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. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Amy Phillips & Dimitra Plastara & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2023. "Integrating public perceptions of proximity and quality in the modelling of urban green space access," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/371425, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Antonella Pietta & Marco Tononi, 2021. "Re-Naturing the City: Linking Urban Political Ecology and Cultural Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2021. "Exploring Options for Public Green Space Development: Research by Design and GIS-Based Scenario Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-52, July.
    11. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    12. Bohong Zheng & Rui Guo & Komi Bernard Bedra & Yanfen Xiang, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of Urban Style at Street Level: A Case Study of Hengyang County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-28, March.
    13. 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).
    14. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Jaloliddin Rustamov & Zahiriddin Rustamov & Nazar Zaki, 2023. "Green Space Quality Analysis Using Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, May.
    16. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Marijke Huysmans & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298795, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    18. Selda İnançoğlu & Havva Arslangazi Uzunahmet & Özge Özden, 2023. "The Effect of Green Spaces on User Satisfaction in Historical City of Nicosia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-18, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Tindale, Sophie & Vicario-Modroño, Victoria & Gallardo-Cobos, Rosa & Hunter, Erik & Miškolci, Simona & Price, Paul Newell & Sánchez-Zamora, Pedro & Sonnevelt, Martijn & Ojo, Mercy & McInnes, Kirsty & , 2023. "Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cultural ecosystem services; Ecosystem service demand; Ecosystem service mismatch; Ecosystem service supply; Green space use; Urban green space;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/326192. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    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.