Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 22, Issue , 2016, Pages 111-116

  Larson, Lincoln R ^a   Keith, Samuel J ^a   Fernandez, Mariela ^a   Hallo, Jeffrey C ^a   Shafer, C Scott ^b   Jennings, Viniece ^c  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c USDA FOREST SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Greenways; Public perceptions; Recreation; Trails; Urban parks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84994876704     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Arneberger, A., Eder, R., The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (2012), 41–49, 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003.
2. Baur, J.W.R., Tynon, J.F., Ries, P., Rosenberger, R.S., Urban parks and attitudes about ecosystem services: does park use matter?. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 32:4 (2014), 19–34.
3. Baur, J.W.R., Tynon, J.F., Ries, P., Rosenberger, R.S., Public attitudes about urban forest ecosystem services management: a case study in Oregon cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 17:1 (2016), 42–53, 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.012.
4. Benedict, M.A., McMahon, E.T., Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities, 2006, Island Press.
5. Boyd, J.W., Banzhaf, S., What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63 (2007), 616–626.
6. Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and ecoics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (2012), 4–15, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011.
7. Bratman, G.N., Hamilton, J.P., Daily, G.C., The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann. New Y. Acad. Sci. 1249:1 (2012), 118–136, 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x.
8. Brown, G., Raymond, C., The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 27:2 (2007), 89–111.
9. Bull, J., Jobstvogt, N., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Mascarenhas, A., Sitas, N., Baulcomb, C., Lambini, C.K., Rawlins, M., Barai, H., Zähringer, J., Carter-Silk, E., Balzan, M.V., Kenter, J.O., Hayha, T., Petz, K., Koss, R., Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats: a SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 99–111.
10. 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., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62:8 (2012), 744–756, 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7.
11. Chavez, D.J., Serving the needs of Latino recreation visitors to urban-proximate natural resource recreation areas. Recreat. Visit. Res.: Stud. Divers., 2008, 53.
12. Chiesura, A., The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68 (2004), 129–138, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003.
13. Chon, J., Shafer, C.S., Aesthetic responses to urban greenway trail environments. Landsc. Res. 34:1 (2009), 83–104.
14. Clark, N.E., Lovell, R., Wheeler, B.W., Higgins, S.L., Depledge, M.H., Norris, K., Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29:4 (2014), 198–204, 10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.009.
15. Cohen, D.A., McKenzie, T.L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., Lurie, N., Contribution of parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health, 97(509–514), 2007, 10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447.
16. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Structure of CICES; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. Available online: http://cices.eu (accessed on 3 February 2016).
17. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, R.K., Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26 (2014), 152–158, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
18. Costello, A.B., Osborne, J.W., Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess., Res. Eval. 10:7 (2005), 1–9.
19. Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E.G., Martin-Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4 (2013), 4–14.
20. Cuni-Sanchez, A., Pfeifer, M., Marchant, R., Burgess, N.D., Ethnic and locational differences in ecosystem service values: insights from the communities in forest islands in the desert. Ecosyst. Serv. 19 (2016), 42–50, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.004.
21. Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109:23 (2012), 8812–8819, 10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
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. Complex. 7 (2010), 260–272, 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
23. Elmqvist, T., Setala, H., Handel, S.N., van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J.N., Gomez-Baggehun, E., Nowak, D.J., Kronenberg, J., de Groot, R., Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (2015), 101–108, 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001.
24. Fabos, J.G., Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68:2 (2004), 321–342.
25. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68:3 (2009), 643–653, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014.
26. Gobster, P.H., Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33:1 (1995), 401–413.
27. Gobster, P.H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C., Fry, G., The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 22 (2007), 959–972, 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x.
28. Godbey, G., Mowen, A., The Benefits of Physical Activity Provided by Park and Recreation Services: The Scientific Evidence. 2010, National Recreation and Park Association, Ashburn, VA.
29. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, A., Barton, D.N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O'Farrell, P., Andersson, E., Hamstead, Z., Kremer, P., Urban ecosystem services. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Guneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Parnell, S., Haase, D., Sendstad, M., Seto, K.C., Wilkinson, C., (eds.) Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and opportunities, 2013, Springer, London, 175–251.
30. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgstrom, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, A., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabish, N., et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43 (2014), 413–433, 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0.
31. Haines-YoungR., & PotschinM., 2008. England's terrestrial ecosystem services and the rationale for an ecosystem approach. Report to Defra (Project Code NR0101). Available online: 〈http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/CEM/pdf/NR107_FTR_080108.pdf〉 (accessed on 3 February 2016).
32. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., Frumkin, H., Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35 (2014), 207–228.
33. Jennings, V.L., Larson, C.K., Larson, L.R., Ecosystem services and preventive medicine: a natural connection. Am. J. Prev. Med. 50:5 (2016), 642–645, 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.11.001.
34. Jennings, V., Larson, L., Yun, J., Advancing sustainability through urban green space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 13(2), 2016, 196, 10.3390/ijerph13020196.
35. Kabisch, N., Haase, D., Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122 (2014), 129–139, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016.
36. Kazmierczak, A., The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (2013), 31–44, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007.
37. Kremen, C., Ostfeld, R.S., A call to ecologists: measuring, analyzing, and managing ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:10 (2005), 540–548.
38. Kreuter, U.P., Harris, H.G., Matlock, M.D., Lacey, R.E., Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecol. Econ., 39, 2001, 333–346 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00250-6〉.
39. Landers, D.H., & Nahlik, A.M., 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) (EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914). Retrieved from Washington, DC.
40. Larson, L.R., Jennings, V., Cloutier, S.A., Public parks and wellbeing in urban areas of the United States. PLosOne, 11(4), 2016, e0153211, 10.1371/journal.pone.0153211.
41. Lee, B., Shafer, C.S., The dynamic nature of leisure experience: an application of affect control theory. J. Leis. Res., 34(3), 2002, 290.
42. Low, S., Public space and diversity: distributive, procedural and interactional justice for parks. Young, G., Stevenson, D., (eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture, 2013, Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, UK, 295–310.
43. Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., St. Leger, L., Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot. Int. 21:1 (2006), 45–54.
44. Manfredo, M.J., Driver, B.L., Tarrant, M.A., Measuring leisure motivation: a meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. J. Leis. Res. 28:3 (1996), 188–213.
45. Martin-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D.G., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., et al. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLos One, 7(6), 2012, e38970, 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
46. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being, 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
47. Moskell, C., Allred, S.B., Integrating human and natural systems in community psychology: an ecological model of stewardship behavior. Am. J. Community Psychol. 51:1–2 (2013), 1–14.
48. Nahlik, A.M., Kentula, M.E., Fennessy, M.S., Landers, D.H., Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. Ecol. Econ. 77 (2012), 27–35.
49. Reed, J. A. (2014). Greenville Health System Swamp Rabbit Trail: Year 3 Findings. Available online: http://greenvillerec.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SRT-Impact-Study-Year-3-Final.pdf (accessed on 20 March 20 2015).
50. Russell, R., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R.K., Basurto, X., Chan, K.M.A., Klain, S., Levine, J., Tam, J., Humans and nature: how knowing and experiencing nature affect well-being. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 38 (2013), 473–502 (doi:.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838).
51. Shafer, C.S., Lee, B.K., Turner, S., A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landsc. Urban Plan. 48:3–4 (2000), 163–178, 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00057-8.
52. Shinew, K.J., Floyd, M.F., Parry, D., Understanding the relationship between race and leisure activities and constraints: exploring an alternative framework. Leis. Sci. 26:2 (2004), 181–199.
53. Stedman, R.C., Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc. Nat. Resour. 16:8 (2003), 671–685.
54. TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiverity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature - a Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB, 2010, Progress Press, Malta.
55. White, M.P., Alcock, I., Wheeler, B.W., Depledge, M.H., Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol. Sci. 24:6 (2013), 920–928, 10.1177/0956797612464659.
56. Zelenski, J.M., Dopko, R.L., Capaldi, C.A., Cooperation is in our nature: nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 42 (2015), 24–31.