Is biodiversity attractive?-On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 119, Issue , 2013, Pages 136-146

  Qiu, Ling ^a,b   Lindberg, Stefan ^b   Nielsen, Anders Busse ^b  

^a NORTHWEST A F UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; On site perception of species richness; Recreational preferences; Visitor employed photography

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; ECOSYSTEMS; PHOTOGRAPHY;

BIODIVERSITY VALUES; ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE; HABITAT TYPE; HABITAT VARIATION; HUMAN INTERVENTION; RECREATIONAL PREFERENCES; SPECIES RICHNESS; URBAN GREEN SPACES;

URBAN GROWTH;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; BIODIVERSITY; GREENSPACE; HABITAT TYPE; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY; SPECIES RICHNESS; URBAN AREA; VEGETATION STRUCTURE;

EID: 84883816820     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Arnberger A. Urban densification and recreational quality of public urban green spaces-a Viennese case study. Sustainability 2012, 4(4):703-720.
2. Bell S., Blom D., Rautamäki M., Castel-Branco C., Simson A., Olsen I.A. Design of urban forests. Urban forests and trees 2005, 149-186. Springer, Berlin. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
3. Bidwell N.J., Browning D. Pursuing genius loci: interaction design and natural places. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2010, 14(1):15-30.
4. Cornelis J., Hermy M. Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69(4):385-401.
5. Dallimer M., Irvine K.N., Skinner A.M.J., Davies Z.G., Rouquette J.R., Maltby L.L., Warren P.H., Armsworth P.R., Gaston K.J. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience 2012, 62(1):47-55.
6. D'Antonio Monz C., Newman P., Taff D., Lawson S. The effects of local ecological knowledge, minimum-impact knowledge, and prior experience on visitor perceptions of the ecological impacts of backcountry recreation. Environmental Management 2012, 50(4):542-554.
7. Elander I., Alm E.L., Malbert B., Sandström U.G. Biodiversity in urban governance and planning: examples from Swedish cities. Planning Theory & Practice 2005, 6(3):283-301.
8. Fischer A., Young J.C. Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation 2007, 136(2):271-282.
9. Fuller R.A., Irvine K.N., Devine-Wright P., Warren P.H., Gaston K.J. Psychological benefits of green space increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters 2007, 3(4):390-394.
10. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22(7):959-972.
11. Gundersen V., Frivold L.H. Natually dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests: public preferences and the effect of information. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2011, 26(2):110-119.
12. Heyman E., Gunnarsson B., Stenseke M., Henningsson S., Tim G. Openness as a key-variable for analysis of management trade-offs in urban woodlands. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 2011, 10(4):281-293.
13. Højring K., Noe E., Busck A.G., Erichsen E.H. Landbrugslandet-skabelse og iaggtagelse 2005, Syddansk Universitets forlag, Odense.
14. Irvine K.N., Fuller R.A., Devine-Wright P., Tratalos J., Payne S.R., Warren P.H., Lomas K.J., Gaston K.J. Ecological and psychological values of urban green space. Dimensions of the sustainable city 2010, 215-237. Springer, London. M. Jenks, C. Jones (Eds.).
15. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Association between environmental value orientations and landscape preference. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 59(1):1-11.
16. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective 1989, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge. R. Kaplan, S. Kaplan (Eds.).
17. Urban natural conservation: landscape management in the urban countryside 1997, Taylor & Francis, London. A.D. Kendle, S.J. Forbes (Eds.).
18. Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 2004, 95(4):489-508.
19. Lindemann-Matthies P., Junge X., Matthies D. The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation 2010, 143(1):195-202.
20. Mitchell R., Popham F. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet 2008, 372(9650):1655-1660.
21. Montgomery C.A. Ranking the benefits of biodiversity: an exploration of relative values. Journal of Environmental Management 2002, 64(3):313-326.
22. Myers N. Two key challenges for biodiversity: discontinuities and synergisms. Biodiversity & Conservation 1996, 5(9):1025-1034.
23. Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Theory in landscape architecture: a reader 2002, 196-206. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. S. Swaffield (Ed.).
24. Nielsen A.B., Olsen S.B., Lundhede T. An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80(1-2):63-71.
25. Nielsen A.B., Heyman E., Richnau G. Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. Journal of Environmental Management 2012, 113(30):456-466.
26. Nielsen A.B., Van Den Bosch M., Maruthaveeran S., Konijnendijk van den Bosch C. Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosystems 2013, 10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1.
27. Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75(1-2):34-42.
28. Parsons R. Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995, 32(3):227-244.
29. Sax D.F., Gaines S.D. Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2003, 18(11):561-566.
30. Schipperijn J., Ekholm O., Stigsdotter U.K., Toftagen M., Bentsen P., Kamper-Jørgensen F., Randrup T.B. Factors influencing the use of green space: result from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 95(3):130-137.
31. Tyrväinen L., Pauleit S., Seeland K., De Vries S. Benefits and uses of urban forest and trees. Urban forests and trees 2005, 81-114. Springer, Berlin. C.C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsson, T.B. Randrup, J. Schipperijn (Eds.).
32. UNEP. (2012). Global partnership on cities and biodiversity. Retrieved from-〈〉. http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/issues/biodiversity.asp.
33. Young J., Watt A., Nowicki P., Alard D., Clitherow J., Henle K., Johnson R., Laczko E., McCracken D., Matouch S., Niemela J., Richards C. Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation 2005, 14(7):1641-1661.