Citizens' voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 12, Issue , 2015, Pages 169-177

  Buchel, Sophie ^a,b   Frantzeskaki, Niki ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Perception; Q methodology; Rotterdam; Sense of place; Urban parks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939936514     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Addams H., Proops J. Social Discourses and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology 2000, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton.
2. Andersson E., Barthel S., Borgstrom S., Colding J., Elmqvist T., Folke C., Gren A. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. AMBIO 2014, 43(4):445-453.
3. Andersson E., Tengo M., McPhearson T., Kremer P. Cultural ecosystem services as gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, (Article in Press).
4. Balram S., Dragićević S. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plann 2005, 7(2-4):147-162.
5. Barry J., Proops J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 28:337-345.
6. Barthel S., Folke C., Colding J. Social-ecological memory in gardening: retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 2010, 20:255-265.
7. Baur J.W.R., Tynon J.F., Gomez E. Attitudes about urban nature parks: a case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plann 2013, 117:100-111.
8. Berman M.G., Jonides J., et al. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19(12):1207-1212.
9. Bolund P., Hunhammar S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29(2):293-301.
10. Brown S. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
11. Brown S. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 1996, 6(4):561-567.
12. Bulkens M. Ruimtelijke kwaliteit? Literatuuronderzoek naar ruimtelijke kwaliteit, normeringsystemen en stedelijk groen vanaf de jaren 2006, 60. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
13. Byrne J., Wolch J., Zhang J. Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2009, 52(3):365-392.
14. Centrum voor Onderzoek en Statistiek, 2013. Feitenkaart Bevolkingsmonitor: januari 2013.
15. Chan K.M.A., Satterfield T., Goldstein J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74:8-18.
16. Chen B., Adimo O.A., Bao Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users' perspective: the case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landsc. Urban Plann 2009, 93:76-82.
17. Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plann 2004, 68(1):129-138.
18. Colding J., Barthel S. The potential of "Urban Green Commons" in the resilience building of cities. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:156-166.
19. Cuppen E. Putting Perspectives into Participation: Constructive Conflict Methodology for Problem Structuring in Stakeholder Dialogues 2009, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
20. Cuppen E., Breukers S., Hisschemöller M., Bergsma E. Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(3):579-591.
21. Daniel T.C., et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 2012, 109(23):8812-8819.
22. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complexity 2010, 7:260-272.
23. Dijkstra, H., Klijn, J.A., 1992. Kwaliteit en waardering van landschappen. Staring Centrum Instituut voor Onderzoek van het Landelijk Gebied, Wageningen.
24. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P., McDonald, R., Parnell, S., et al. (Eds.), 2013. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. A global assessment. Springer, Dordrecht.
25. Ernstson H., Sörlin S., Elmqvist T. Social movements and ecosystem services-the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13:39.
26. Ernstson H., Van der Leeuw S., Redman C.L., Meffert D.J., Davis G., Alfsen G., Elmqvist T. Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems. AMBIO 2010, 39(8):531-545.
27. Fagerholm N., K.yhk N., Ndumbaro F., Khamis M. Community stakeholders' knowledge in landscape assessments-mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18:421-433.
28. Jansson Å. Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:285-291.
29. Jim C.Y., Chen W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manage 2006, 38(3):338-349.
30. Kabisch N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning-the case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 42:557-567.
31. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, UK.
32. Martín-López B., Iniesta-Arandia I., García-Llorente M., Palomo I., Casado-Arzuaga I., et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 2012, 7(6):e38970.
33. McKeown B., Thomas D. Q methodology 1988, SAGE Publications Inc, Newbury Park, CA.
34. McPhearson T., Hamstead Z., Kremer P. Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York City. AMBIO 2014, 43:502-515.
35. Norton B.G. Why Preserve Natural Variety? 1987, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
36. Paasman J., et al. Natuur als leefomgeving 1999, IKC Natuurbeheer, Wageningen.
37. Peschardt K.K., Schipperijn J., Stigsdotter U.K. Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green 2012, 11:235-244.
38. Plieninger T., Dijks S., Oteros-Rozas E., Bieling C. Assessing, mapping and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33:118-129.
39. RARO, 1990. Naar ruimtelijke kwaliteit. Den Haag.
40. Reneman, D.D., 1999. Mensenwensen: de wensen van Nederlanders ten aanzien van natuur en groen in de leefomgeving. Intomart, Den Haag.
41. Rosenerger R.S., Bergerson T.R., Kline J.D. Macro-linkages between health and outdoor recreation: the role of parks and recreation providers. J. Park Recreation Adm 2009, 27(3):8-20.
42. Stephenson W. Definition of opinion, attitude and belief. Psychol. Rec 1965, 15:281-288.
43. Van Exel, J., De Graaf, G., 2005. Q Methodology: A Sneak Preview. [Available from ]. http://www.jobvanexel.nl.
44. Van Zoest, J.G.A., 1994. Landschapskwaliteit: uitwerking van de kwaliteitscriteria in de Nota Landschap. Wageningen.
45. Vugteveen P., Lenders H.J.R., Devilee J.L.A., Leuven R.S.E., Van der Veeren R.J.H.M., Wiering M.A., Hendriks A.J. Stakeholder value orientations in water management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23(9):805-821.
46. Webler T., Danielson S., Tuler S. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research 2009, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Greenfield.