Urban residents' beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 56-64

  Madureira, Helena ^a   Nunes, Fernando ^b   Oliveira, José Vidal ^c   Cormier, Laure ^d   Madureira, Teresa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

^b INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO DE VIANA DO CASTELO   (Portugal)

^c INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^d UNIVERSITÉ PARIS EST CRÉTEIL   (France)

Author keywords

Beliefs; Benefits; Green infrastructure; Survey; Urban green spaces

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; GREENSPACE; HEALTH IMPACT; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RESIDENT POPULATION; URBAN PLANNING; URBAN POPULATION;

ANGERS; FRANCE; ILE DE FRANCE; LISBOA [PORTUGAL]; LISBON; MAINE ET LOIRE; PARIS; PAYS DE LA LOIRE; PORTO [PORTO (DST)]; PORTO [PORTUGAL]; PORTUGAL; VILLE DE PARIS;

EID: 84927595377     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Ahern J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecol. 2013, 28:1203-1212.
2. Burke P.F., Schuck S., Aubusson P., Buchanan J., Louviere J.J., Prescott A. Why do early career teachers choose to remain in the profession? The use of best-worst scaling to quantify key factors. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 62:259-268.
3. Cohen D., McKenzie T., Sehgal A., Williamson S., Golinelli D., Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97:509-514.
4. Cohen E. Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2009, 21:8-23.
5. Cohen S., Neira L. Measuring preference for product benefits across countries: overcoming scale usage bias with maximum difference scaling. Excellence in International Research 2004 2004, 1-22. ESOMAR, Amsterdam.
6. Couper M.P., Kapteyn A., Schonlau M., Winter J. Noncoverage and nonresponse in an Internet survey. Soc. Sci. Res. 2007, 36(1):131-148.
7. Dekhili S., Sirieix L., Cohen E. How consumers choose olive oil: the importance of origin cues. Food Qual. Preference 2011, 22:757-762.
8. Efron B., Tibshirani R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat. Sci. 1986, 1:54-75.
9. Erdem S., Rigby D., Wossink A. Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy 2012, 37:661-670.
10. Eriksson L., Nordlund A., Olsson O., Westin K. Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11:321-328.
11. European Environment Agency Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion. The Concept of Green Infrastructure and its Integration Into Policies Using Monitoring Systems 2012, European Environment Agency, Brussels.
12. Faehnle M., Bäcklund P., Tyrväinen L. Looking for the role of nature experiences in planning and decision making: a perspective from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Sustainability: Sci. Pract. Policy 2011, 7:45-55.
13. Fan W., Yan Z. Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26(2):132-139.
14. Finn A., Louviere J.J. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J. Public Policy Mark. 1992, 11:12-25.
15. Flynn T.N., Louviere J.J., Peters T.J., Coast J. Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Variance-scale heterogeneity matters. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70:1957-1965.
16. Gill S.E., Handley J.F., Ennos A.R., Pauleit S. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ. 2007, 33:115-133.
17. Horwood K. Green infrastructure: reconciling urban green space and regional economic development: lessons learnt from experience in England's north-west region. Local Environ.: Int. J. Justice Sustainability 2011, 16:37-41.
18. INE Censos 2011 2011, http://censos.ine.pt.
19. Insee Les résultats des recensements de la population 2011, http://www.insee.fr/fr/bases-de-donnees/.
20. James P., Tzoulas K., Adams M.D., Barber A., Box J., Breuste J., Elmqvist T., Frith M., Gordon C., Greening K.L., Handley J., Haworth S., Kazmierczak A.E., Johnston M., Korpela K., Moretti M., Niemelä J., Pauleit S., Roe M.H., Sadler J.P., Ward Thompson C. Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8:65-75.
21. Janse G., Konijnendijk C.C. Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry - experiences from the Neighbourwoods project. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6:23-40.
22. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). J. Environ. Manage. 2008, 88:665-676.
23. Jim C.Y., Shan X. Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities 2013, 31:123-131.
24. Jones A.K., Jones D.L., Edwards-Jones G., Cross P. Informing decision making in agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation policy: a best-worst scaling survey of expert and farmer opinion in the sheep industry. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 29:46-56.
25. Kamierczak A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape Urban Plann. 2013, 109:31-44.
26. Kattwinkel M., Biedermann R., Kleyer M. Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:2335-2343.
27. Konijnendijk C.C. Adapting forestry to urban demands - role of communication in urban forestry in Europe. Landscape Urban Plann. 2000, 52:89-100.
28. Liu C., Li X. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban forests in Shenyang, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11:121-128.
29. Lo A.Y.H., Jim C.Y. Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:577-586.
30. Lohr V.I., Pearson-Mims C.H., Tarnai J., Dillman D.A. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J. Arboric. 2004, 30:28-35.
31. Louviere J.J., Islam T. A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 903-911.
32. Madureira H., Andresen T. Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: promises and challenges. Urban Des. Int. 2014, 19:38-49.
33. Marti J. A best worst scaling survey of adolescents' level of concern for health and non-health consequences of smoking. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75:87-97.
34. Newell J.P., Seymour M., Yee T., Renteria J., Longcore T., Wolch J.R., Shishkovsky A. Green Alley Programs: planning for a sustainable urban infrastructure?. Cities 2013, 31:144-155.
35. Nielsen J.S. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: a comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33(1):119-129.
36. Pathak, Tripathi, Mishra Evaluation of anticipated performance index of some tree species for green belt development to mitigate traffic generated noise. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10:6.
37. Peckham S.C., Duinker P.N., Ordóñez C. Urban forest values in Canada: views of citizens in Calgary and Halifax. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12:154-162.
38. Roe M., Mell I. Negotiating value and priorities: evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2013, 56:650-673.
39. Sanesi G., Chiarello F. Residents and urban green spaces: the case of Bari. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4:125-134.
40. Sawtooth Software Inc. Sawtooth Software: the MaxDiff SystemTechnical Paper 2013, Sawtooth Software, Inc., Orem, UT.
41. Schwarz N., Bauer A., Haase D. Assessing climate impacts of planning policies - an estimation for the urban region of Leipzig (Germany). Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2011, 31:97-111.
42. Science for Environment Policy The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure 2012, Science for Environment Policy, Brussels.
43. Sirieix L., Remaud H., Lockshin L., Thach L., Lease T. Determinants of restaurant's owners/managers selection of wines to be offered on the wine list. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 2011, 18:500-508.
44. Tyrväinen L. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. J. Environ. Manage. 2001, 62:75-92.
45. Tyrväinen L., Mäkinen K., Schipperijn J. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape Urban Plann. 2007, 79:5-19.
46. Tyrväinen L., Ojala A., Korpela K., Lanki T., Tsunetsugu Y., Kagawa T. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: a field experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 38:1-9.
47. Tzoulas K., James P. Peoples use of, and concerns about, green space networks: a case study of Birchwood, Warrington New Town, UK. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9:8.
48. Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemela J., James P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape Urban Plann. 2007, 81:167-178.
49. Vandermeulen V., Verspecht A., Vermeire B., Van Huylenbroeck G., Gellynck X. The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landscape Urban Plann. 2011, 103:198-206.
50. Vesely É.-T. Green for green: the perceived value of a quantitative change in the urban tree estate of New Zealand. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63:605-615.
51. Wright H. Understanding green infrastructure: the development of a contested concept in England. Local Environ. 2011, 16:1003-1019.