Urban green space perception and its contribution to well-being

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 14, Issue 7, 2017, Pages

  Kothencz, Gyula ^a   Kolcsár, Ronald ^b   Cabrera Barona, Pablo ^a   Szilassi, Péter ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SZEGED   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Crowd sourced geo tagged data; Perceived green space characteristics; Perceived well being benefits; Quality of life; Questionnaire survey; Urban green spaces

Indexed keywords

ESTHETICS; GREENSPACE; PERCEPTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RECREATIONAL FACILITY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; URBAN AREA;

DEPENDENT VARIABLE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; ECOSYSTEM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUNGARY; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RUNNING; SATISFACTION; WELLBEING; CITY; ESTHETICS; PERCEPTION; RECREATION; RECREATIONAL PARK; SELF REPORT;

FEJER; HUNGARY; SZEGED;

CITIES; ECOSYSTEM; ESTHETICS; HUMANS; HUNGARY; PARKS, RECREATIONAL; PERCEPTION; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECREATION; SELF REPORT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85024117708     PISSN: 16617827     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14070766     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212-222.
2. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 587-592.
3. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147-155.
4. Lin, W.; Yu, T.; Chang, X.; Wu, W.; Zhang, Y. Calculating cooling extents of green parks using remote sensing: Method and test. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 66-75.
5. Cohen, P.; Potchter, O.; Schnell, I. The impact of an urban park on air pollution and noise levels in the mediterranean city of Tel-Aviv, Israel. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 195, 73-83.
6. Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078-2087.
7. Arnberger, A.; Eder, R. Are urban visitors’ general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief? Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 872-882.
8. Irvine, K.; Warber, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Gaston, K. Understanding urban green space as a health resource: A qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 417-442.
9. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167-178.
10. Germann-Chiari, C.; Seeland, K. Are urban green spaces optimally distributed to act as places for social integration? Results of a geographical information system (GIS) approach for urban forestry research. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6, 3-13.
11. Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31-44.
12. Barthel, S.; Colding, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Folke, C. History and local management of a biodiversity-rich, urban cultural landscape. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10.
13. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Kain, J.H.; Haase, D.; Baró, F.; Kaczorowska, A. Urban self-sufficiency through optimised ecosystem service demand. A utopian perspective from European cities. Futures 2015, 70, 13-23.
14. Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 264-275.
15. Nordh, H.; Østby, K. Pocket parks for people-A study of park design and use. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 12-17.
16. Baur, J.W.R.; Tynon, J.F.; Gómez, E. Attitudes about urban nature parks: A case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 117, 100-111.
17. Hernández-Morcillo, M.; Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 29, 434-444.
18. Langemeyer, J.; Baró, F.; Roebeling, P.; Gómez-Baggethun, E. Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park montjuïc in Barcelona. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 178-186.
19. Ma, L.; Dill, J. Associations between the objective and perceived built environment and bicycling for transportation. J. Transp. Health 2015, 2, 248-255.
20. Agapito, D.; Mendes, J.; Valle, P. Exploring the conceptualization of the sensory dimension of tourist experiences. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2013, 2, 62-73.
21. Mansor, M.; Said, I.; Mohamad, I. Experiential contacts with green infrastructure’s diversity and well-being of urban community. Procedia.-Social. Behav. Sci. 2012, 49, 257-267.
22. Moro, M.; Brereton, F.; Ferreira, S.; Clinch, J.P. Ranking quality of life using subjective well-being data. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 448-460.
23. Ambrey, C.; Fleming, C. Public greenspace and life satisfaction in urban Australia. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 1290-1321.
24. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338-349.
25. Nasution, A.D.; Zahrah, W. Community perception on public open space and quality of life in Medan, Indonesia. Procedia-Social. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 585-594.
26. Oliveira, S.; Vaz, T.; Andrade, H. Perception of thermal comfort by users of urban green areas in Lisbon. Finiste.-Rev. Port. Geogr. 2014, 113-131.
27. Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 390-394.
28. Tyrväinen, L.; Mäkinen, K.; Schipperijn, J. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79, 5-19.
29. Weber, F.; Kowarik, I.; Säumel, I. A walk on the wild side: Perceptions of roadside vegetation beyond trees. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 205-212.
30. Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221-228.
31. Marselle, M.R.; Irvine, K.N.; Lorenzo-Arribas, A.; Warber, S.L. Does perceived restorativeness mediate the effects of perceived biodiversity and perceived naturalness on emotional well-being following group walks in nature? J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 46, 217-232.
32. Kitchin, R. Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data Soc. 2014, doi:10.1177/2053951714528481
33. Eby, J.; Kitchen, P.; Williams, A. Perceptions of quality life in Hamilton’s neighbourhood hubs: A qualitative analysis. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 108, 299-315.
34. 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.
35. Miller, H.J.; Goodchild, M.F. Data-driven geography. GeoJournal 2015, 80, 449-461.
36. Goodchild, M. Neogeography and the nature of geographic expertise. J. Locat. Based Serv. 2009, 3, 82-96.
37. Kitchin, R. Big data and human geography: Opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialog. Hum. Geogr. 2013, 3, 262-267.
38. Sui, D.; DeLyser, D. Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm I: Hybrid geographies, the spatial turn, and volunteered geographic information (VGI). Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 111-124.
39. Feick, R.; Robertson, C. A multi-scale approach to exploring urban places in geotagged photographs. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 2015, 53, 96-109.
40. Richards, D.R.; Friess, D.A. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale:Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 53, 187-195.
41. Santos, T.; Nogueira Mendes, R.; Vasco, A. Recreational activities in urban parks: Spatial interactions among users. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2016, 15, 1-9.
42. Milcu, A.I.; Hanspach, J.; Abson, D.; Fischer, J. Cultural ecosystem services: A literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 44.
43. García-Palomares, J.C.; Gutiérrez, J.; Mínguez, C. Identification of tourist hot spots based on social networks: A comparative analysis of European metropolises using photo-sharing services and GIS. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 63, 408-417.
44. Hirsch, J.; James, P.; Robinson, J.; Eastman, K.; Conley, K.; Evenson, K.; Laden, F. Using mapmyfitness to place physical activity into neighborhood context. Front. Public Health 2014, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00019
45. Casalegno, S.; Inger, R.; DeSilvey, C.; Gaston, K.J. Spatial covariance between aesthetic value & other ecosystem services. PLOS ONE 2013, 8, e68437.
46. Nahuelhual, L.; Carmona, A.; Lozada, P.; Jaramillo, A.; Aguayo, M. Mapping recreation and ecotourism as a cultural ecosystem service: An application at the local level in southern Chile. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 40, 71-82.
47. Wood, S.A.; Guerry, A.D.; Silver, J.M.; Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2976.
48. Sharp, R.; Tallis, H.T.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.D.; Wood, S.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Nelson, E.; Ennaanay, D.; Wolny, S.; Olwero, N.; et al. Invest.-Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs; Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2016.
49. Dunkel, A. Visualizing the perceived environment using crowdsourced photo geodata. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 142, 173-186.
50. National Geographic; Esri; DeLorme; HERE; UNEP-WCMC; USGS; NASA; ESA; METI; NRCAN, et al. National geographic world map. 2017.
51. OpenStreetMap (and) Contributors. Openstreetmap; OpenStreetMap Foundation: Sutton Coldfield, UK, 2017.
52. Thiry, C.J.J. Colorado School of Mines; Cartographia Kft. Hungary 150k; ESRI: Redlands, CA, USA, 2017.
53. Kothencz, G.; Blaschke, T. Urban parks: Visitors’ perceptions versus spatial indicators. Land Use Policy 2017, 64, 233-244.
54. Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Payne, S.R.; Fuller, R.A.; Painter, B.; Gaston, K.J. Green space, soundscape and urban sustainability: An interdisciplinary, empirical study. Local Environ. 2009, 14, 155-172.
55. Szeremeta, B.; Zannin, P.H.T. Analysis and evaluation of soundscapes in public parks through interviews and measurement of noise. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 6143-6149.
56. Qiu, L.; Lindberg, S.; Nielsen, A.B. Is biodiversity attractive?-On-Site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 136-146.
57. 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 Plan. 2009, 93, 76-82.
58. AppleWood Bt. Futótérkép user community. In Futótérkép-Útvonalak Futáshoz, Mozgáshoz; AppleWood Bt.: Budapest, Hungary, 2016.
59. DPGG. Szeged Ortofotó 2011; University of Szeged, Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics (DPGG): Szeged, Hungary, 2011.
60. Adlakha, D.; Budd, E.L.; Gernes, R.; Sequeira, S.; Hipp, J.A. Use of emerging technologies to assess differences in outdoor physical activity in St. Louis, Missouri. Front. Public Health 2014, doi:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00041
61. Google Inc. Panoramio user community. In Panoramio; Google Inc.: Mountain View, CA, USA, 2016.
62. Hao, X.; Wu, B.; Morrison, A.M.; Wang, F. Worth thousands of words? Visual content analysis and photo interpretation of an outdoor tourism spectacular performance in Yangshuo-Guilin, China. Anatolia 2016, 27, 201-213.
63. Jenkins, O. Photography and travel brochures: The circle of representation. Tour. Geogr. 2003, 5, 305-328.
64. Stepchenkova, S.; Kim, H.; Kirilenko, A. Cultural differences in pictorial destination images: Russia through the camera lenses of American and Korean tourists. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 758-773.
65. Garrod, B. Exploring place perception a photo-based analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35, 381-401.
66. Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Madariaga, I.; Onaindia, M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao metropolitan greenbelt. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 33-43.
67. Marselle, M.; Irvine, K.; Lorenzo-Arribas, A.; Warber, S. Moving beyond green: Exploring the relationship of environment type and indicators of perceived environmental quality on emotional well-being following group walks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 106.
68. Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 959-972.
69. Guerrero, P.; Møller, M.S.; Olafsson, A.S.; Snizek, B. Revealing cultural ecosystem services through instagram images: The potential of social media volunteered geographic information for urban green infrastructure planning and governance. Urban Plan. 2016, 1, 17.
70. Kopperoinen, L.; Luque, S.; Tenerelli, P.; Zulian, G.; Viinikka, A. Mapping cultural ecosystem services. In Mapping Ecosystem Services; Burkhard, B., Maes, J., Eds.; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017.
71. Binder, M.; Coad, A. From average Joe’s happiness to miserable jane and cheerful john: Using quantile regressions to analyze the full subjective well-being distribution. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2011, 79, 275-290.
72. Tomao, A.; Secondi, L.; Corona, P.; Carrus, G.; Agrimi, M. Exploring individuals’ well-being visiting urban and peri-urban green areas: A quantile regression approach. Agric. Agric. Sci. Proced. 2016, 8, 115-122.