Bottom-up thinking-Identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue-green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland

Land Use Policy

Volumn 50, Issue , 2016, Pages 537-547

  Kati, Vierikko ^a   Jari, Niemelä ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Integrated value mapping; Place identity; Socio ecological; Urban streams; Value plurality

Indexed keywords

BOTTOM-UP APPROACH; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EUROPEAN UNION; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; STORMWATER; STREAM; SUSTAINABILITY; URBAN ECOSYSTEM;

FINLAND; HELSINKI; VARSINAIS-SUOMI;

EID: 84946423174     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ahern J., Cilliers S., Niemelä J. The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a framework for supporting innovation. Landscape Urban Plann. 2014, 125:254-259.
2. Alberti M. Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems 2008, Springer Science, United States.
3. Place Attachment 1992, 314. Plenum, New York. I.A. Altman, S.M. Low (Eds.).
4. Andersson E., Barthel S., Ahrné K. Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17:1267-1278.
5. Brauman K.A., Daily G.C., Duarte T.K., Mooney H.A. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlights hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32:67-98.
6. Boone C.G., Modarres A. City and Environment 2006, Temple University Press, New Delhi.
7. Brown G. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc. Nat. Resour.: Int. J. 2004, 18(1):17-39. 10.1080/08941920590881853.
8. Bryan B.A., Raymond C.M., Crossman N.D., Macdonald D.H. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what and how?. Landscape Urban Plann. 2010, 97:111-122.
9. Chan K.M.A., Guerry A.D., Balvanera P., Klain S., Satterfield T., Basurto X., Bostrom A., Chuenpagdee R., Gould R., Halpern B.S., Hannahs N., Levine J., Norton B., Ruchelshaus M., Tam J., Woodside U. Where are cultural and social ecosystem services: a framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 2012, 62:744-756.
10. Chiesura A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape Urban Plann. 2004, 68:129-138.
11. CICES 2013. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Web site: / (accessed 31.3.14). http://cices.eu.
12. Chess C., Purcell K. Public participation and the environment: do we know what works?. Environ. Sci.Technol. 1999, 33(16):2685-2692.
13. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41(3):393-408.
14. Dinnie E., Brown K.M., Morris S. Community, cooperation and conflict: negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban green space experiences. Landscape Urban Plann. 2013, 112:1-9.
15. Engle N.L. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environ. Change 2011, 21:647-656.
16. Everard M., Moggridge H.L. Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15:293-314. 10.1007/s11252-011-0174-7.
17. Faehnle M., Bäcklund P., Tyrväinen L. Looking the role of nature experiences in the urban planning and decision-making: a perspective from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Sustain.: Sci. Practice Policy 2011, 7(1):45-55.
18. Faehnle M., Tyrväinen L. A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 2013, 34:332-341.
19. Farnum, J., Hall, T., Kruger, L.E., (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: An evaluation and assessment of research findings. Recreation and Tourism Initiative, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-660. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USA, 59 pp.
20. Flick U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research 1998, 76-95. SAGE Publications Ltd.
21. Gallopin G.C. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environ. Change 2006, 16:293-303.
22. Gieryn T.F. A space for place in sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000, 26:463-496.
23. Gómez-Baggethun E., Barton D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86:235-245. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
24. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., van den Bergh, J., Arias, P., Berry, R., Dunford, L., Potschin, M., Keune, H., Schröter-Schlaack, C. and Harrison, P., (2014). State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1. European Commission FP7, 33 pp.
25. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis 2010, 110-139. Cambridge University Press. D.G. Raffaelli, C.L.J. Frid (Eds.).
26. Hein L., van Koppen K., de Groot R.S., van Ierland E.C. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57:209-228.
27. Helsinki Public Works Department Helsingin Pienvesiohjelma 2007, vol. 3. Publications of the Public Works Department, 167 pp. (In Finnish).
28. Helsinki Public Works Department Helsingin Kaupungin Hulevesistrategia 2008, vol. 9. Publications of the Public Works Department, 61 pp. (In Finnish).
29. Hunter S., Leyden K.M. Beyond NIMBY: explaining opposition to hazardous waste facilities. Policy Stud. J. 1995, 23(4):601-619.
30. Ioris A.A.R. The positioned construction of water values: pluralism, positionality and praxis. Environ. Values 2012, 21:143-162.
31. Innes J.E., Booher D. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 1999, 65(4):412-423.
32. Justus J., Colyvan M., Regan H., Maguire L. Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24(4):187-191.
33. Natural Capital. Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services 2011, 365. Oxford University Press. P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T.H. Ricketts, G.C. Daily, S. Polasky (Eds.).
34. Kontogianni A., Luck G.W., Skourtos M. Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: a potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1479-1487.
35. Kondrad C.P., Booth D.B. Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2005, 47:157-177.
36. Koschke L., Fürst C., Frank S., Makeschin F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision for planning support. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:54-66.
37. Kumar M., Kumar P. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64(4):808-819.
38. Lehtoranta, V., Sarvilinna, A., Hjerppe, T., (2012). Purojen merkitys helsinkiläisille. Helsingin pienvesiohjelman yhteiskunnallinen kannattavuus. Finnish Environment 5/2012, Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. 66 pp. (In Finnish with English abstract: Significance of streams for the residents of the city of Helsinki).
39. Lele S., Springate-Baginski O., Lakerveld R., Deb D., Dash P. Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11(4):343-358.
40. Ling Wong J. Culture, heritage and access to open spaces. Open Spaces-People Space 2007, 41-54. Taylor & Francis. C. Ward Thompson, P. Travlou (Eds.).
41. McIntyre N., Moore J., Yuan M. A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Soc. Nat. Resour.: Int. J. 2008, 21(8):657-670.
42. More T., Averill J.R., Stevens T.H. Values and economics in environmental management: a perspective and critique. J. Environ. Manage. 1996, 48:397-409.
43. Niemelä, J., Helle, I., Jormola, J., (2004). Purovesistöjen merkitys kaupunkiluonnon monimuotoisuudelle. Loppuraportti. Finnish Environment 724, Ministry of the Environment, 116 pp. (In Finnish with English abstract: Significance of small surface waters for natural diversity in urban environments).
44. Niemelä J.Y., oung J., Alard D., Askasibar M., Henle K., Johnson R., Kurttila M., Larsson T.-B., Matouch S., Nowicki P., Paiva R., Portoghesi L., Smulders R., Stevenson A., Tartes U., Watt A. Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7:87-890.
45. Niemelä J. Ecology of urban green spaces: the way forward in answering major research questions. Landscape Urban Plann. 2014, 125:298-303.
46. Norton B.G., Hannon B. Environmental values: a place based theory. Environ. Ethics 1997, 19:227-245.
47. Palomo I., Martín-López B., Zorrilla-Miras P., García Del Amo D., Montes C. Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Regional Environ. Change 2014, 14:237-251.
48. 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.
49. Raymond C.M., Fazey I., Reed M.S., Stringer L.C., Robinson G.M., Evely A.C. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J. Environ. Manage. 2010, 91(8):1766-1777.
50. Robards M.D., Schoon M.L., Meek C.L., Engle N. The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 2011, 21:522-529.
51. Ruth O., Tikkanen M. Kaupungistumisen vaikutus Helsingin Kumpulanpuroon ja sen valuma-alueeseen. TERRA 2007, 119(1):93-106. (in Finnish with English abstract: The effects of urbanization on the brook Kumpulanpuro and its drainage basin, city of Helsinki).
52. Saunders C.D., Brook A.T., Myers O.E. Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20(3):702-705.
53. Schroeder H.W. Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: combining quantitative and qualitative data. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11:231-248.
54. Smith E., Marquez M. The other side of the NIMBY syndrome. Soc. Nat. Resour.: Int. J. 2000, 13:273-280. 10.1080/089419200279108.
55. Stokols D., Shumaker S.A. People in places: a transactional view of settings. Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment 1981, 441-488. Hillsdale, N.J. J. Harvey (Ed.).
56. Tampereen kaupunki, (2012). Tampereen kantakaupungin hulevesiohjelma. Pdf -file, 30 pp. Available at: http://www.tampere.fi/material/attachments/h/6Aw930Whg/hulevesiohjelma_raportti.pdf.
57. Tarvainen, V., Koho, E., Kouki, A-M., Salo, A., (2005). Helsingin purot. Millaista vettä kaupungissamme virtaa? Helsingin kaupungin ympäristökeskuksen julkaisuja 7/2005. (In Finnish with English abstract: City streams in Helsinki), 103 pp.
58. Tuomi J., Sarajärvi A. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi 2002, Kustannusosakeyhtiö Tammi, Helsinki, 159 pp. (in Finnish).
59. Turun kaupunki, (2009). Turun kaupungin hulevesiohjelma. Pdf -file, 17 pp. Available at: http://https://www.turku.fi/Public/download.aspx%3FID=109749&GUID=%7BD977989C-9CF7-46C1-881C-5D69EDED4FE8%7D.
60. Walsh C.J., Fletcher T.D., Ladson A.R. Stream restoration in urban catchments through redesigning stormwater systems: Looking to the catchment to save the stream. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24:690-705.
61. Wright S.A. Citizens' information levels and grassroots opposition to new hazardous waste sites: Are NIMBYists informed?. Waste Manage. 1993, 13:235-259.
62. Wurster D., Artmann M. Development of a concept for non-monetary assessment of urban ecosystem services at the site level. AMBIO 2014, 43:454-465. 10.1007/s13280-014-0502-2.