What makes urban greenspace unique – Relationships between citizens’ perceptions on unique urban nature, biodiversity and environmental factors

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 42, Issue , 2019, Pages 1-9

  Wang, Yuan ^a   Kotze, David J ^a   Vierikko, Kati ^a   Niemelä, Jari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Canopy cover; Patch size; PPGIS; Structural equation modeling; Urban forest

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION STATUS; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; GIS; GREENSPACE; NATURE CONSERVATION; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; PATCH SIZE; PERCEPTION; POPULATION DENSITY; URBAN FORESTRY; URBAN PLANNING; VEGETATION STRUCTURE; VEGETATION TYPE;

FINLAND; HELSINKI; VARSINAIS-SUOMI;

EID: 85065782647     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Beninde, J., Veith, M., Hochkirch, A., Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol. Lett. 18:6 (2015), 581–592.
2. Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J. Environ. Manage. 92:10 (2011), 2763–2773.
3. Brown, G., Fagerholm, N., Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 13 (2015), 119–133.
4. Brown, G., Montag, J.M., Lyon, K., Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25:7 (2012), 633–651.
5. Brown, G., Schebella, M.F., Weber, D., Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 121 (2014), 34–44.
6. Buchel, S., Frantzeskaki, N., Citizens’ voice: a case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 169–177.
7. Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., et al. 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. 134 (2015), 221–228.
8. Celis-Diez, J., Muñoz, C., Abades, S., Marquet, P., Armesto, J., Biocultural homogenization in urban settings: public knowledge of birds in City Parks of Santiago, Chile. Sustainability, 9(4), 2017, 485.
9. City of Helsinki, Nature Information System. 2016.
10. City of Helsinki, Continued Population Growth in Helsinki – 70 000 More Residents in Ten Years. 2018.
11. Dallimer, M., Irvine, K.N.N., Skinner, A.M.J.M.J., Davies, Z.G., Armsworth, P.R.R., Rouquette, J.R.R., et al. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience. 62:1 (2012), 47–55.
12. Dearborn, D.C., Kark, S., Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 24:2 (2010), 432–440.
13. Deng, S., Yin, N., Guan, Q., Katoh, M., Dynamic response of the scenic beauty value of different forests to various thinning intensities in central eastern China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186:11 (2014), 7413–7429.
14. Edwards, D., Jay, M., Jensen, F.S., Lucas, B., Marzano, M., Montagné, C., et al. Preferences for structural attributes of forests: Towards a pan-European perspective. For. Policy Econ. 19 (2012), 12–19.
15. ESRI, ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. 2011, Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
16. Faehnle, M., Bäcklund, P., Tyrväinen, L., Niemelä, J., Yli-Pelkonen, V., How can residents’ experiences inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 130 (2014), 171–183.
17. Filyushkina, A., Agimass, F., Lundhede, T., Strange, N., Bredahl, J., Preferences for variation in forest characteristics: does diversity between stands matter?. Ecol. Econ. 140 (2017), 22–29.
18. Fuller, R.a, Irvine, K.N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P.H., Gaston, K.J., Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3:4 (2007), 390–394.
19. Haaland, C., van den Bosch, C.K., Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban For. Urban Green. 14:4 (2015), 760–771.
20. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:4 (2014), 413–433.
21. Hahs, A.K., McDonnell, M.J., Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne's urban-rural gradient. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006), 435–448.
22. Hanski, I., A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 63:1 (1994), 151–162.
23. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., Frumkin, H., Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 35:1 (2014), 207–228.
24. Hauru, K., Koskinen, S., Kotze, D.J., Lehvävirta, S., The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests - Implications for forest management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 123 (2014), 114–123.
25. Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council, SeutuCD’13. 2013.
26. Ives, C.D., Oke, C., Hehir, A., Gordon, A., Wang, Y., Bekessy, S.A., Capturing residents’ values for urban green space: mapping, analysis and guidance for practice. Landsc. Urban Plan. 161 (2017), 32–43.
27. Jackman, S., pscl}: Classes and Methods for {R} Developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory. 2015, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
28. Johansson, M., Gyllin, M., Witzell, J., Küller, M., Does biological quality matter? Direct and reflected appraisal of biodiversity in temperate deciduous broad-leaf forest. Urban For. Urban Green 13:1 (2014), 28–37.
29. Jonsson, B.G., Kruys, N., Ranius, T., Ecology of species living on dead wood - lessons for dead wood management. Silva Fennica 39:2 (2005), 289–309.
30. Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., Haase, D., Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces — a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50 (2015), 25–34.
31. Kahila-Tani, M., Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., Tyger, T., Let the citizens map—public participation GIS as a planning support system in the Helsinki master plan process. Plan. Pract. Res. 31:2 (2016), 195–214.
32. Kopomaa, T., “Hetki suunnittelijana” - Public comments on the map survey of future Helsinki. Helsinki, 2014, Helsingin kaupunkisuunnitteluvirasto (The planning department of the City of Helsinki).
33. Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z., Haase, D., Mcphearson, T., Frantzeskaki, N., Andersson, E., et al. Key insights for the future of urban ecosystem services research. Ecol. Soc., 21(2), 2016, 29.
34. Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Tzoulas, T., Snabb, K., Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 113 (2013), 30–46.
35. LaPoint, S., Balkenhol, N., Hale, J., Sadler, J., van der Ree, R., Ecological connectivity research in urban areas. Funct. Ecol. 29:7 (2015), 868–878.
36. Latta, S.C., Musher, L.J., Latta, K.N., Katzner, T.E., Influence of human population size and the built environment on avian assemblages in urban green spaces. Urban Ecosyst. 16:3 (2013), 463–479.
37. Lefcheck, J.S., piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7:5 (2016), 573–579.
38. Lehvävirta, S., Rita, H., Natural regeneration of trees in urban woodlands. J. Veg. Sci. 13:1 (2002), 57–66.
39. Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F., Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS One 9:1 (2014), 1–7.
40. Luck, G.W., Davidson, P., Boxall, D., Smallbone, L., Relations between urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conserv. Biol. 25:4 (2011), 816–826.
41. McGinlay, J., Parsons, D.J., Morris, J., Hubatova, M., Graves, A., Bradbury, R.B., Bullock, J.M., Do charismatic species groups generate more cultural ecosystem service benefits?. Ecosyst. Serv. 27 (2017), 15–24.
42. Miller, J.R., Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 20:8 (2005), 430–434.
43. Moilanen, A., Nieminen, M., Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:4 (2002), 1131–1145.
44. Morelli, F., Benedetti, Y., Su, T., Zhou, B., Moravec, D., Šímová, P., Liang, W., Taxonomic diversity, functional diversity and evolutionary uniqueness in bird communities of Beijing's urban parks: effects of land use and vegetation structure. Urban For. Urban Green. 23 (2017), 84–92.
45. Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S., Koskela, T., Access to green areas and the frequency of visits - a case study in Helsinki. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (2007), 235–247.
46. Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C.M., Fry, G., Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 8:4 (2009), 225–235.
47. Pett, T.J., Shwartz, A., Irvine, K.N., Dallimer, M., Davies, Z.G., Unpacking the people-biodiversity paradox: a conceptual framework. BioScience 66:7 (2016), 576–583.
48. Prugh, L.R., Hodges, K.E., Sinclair, A.R.E., Brashares, J.S., Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105:52 (2008), 20770–20775.
49. 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 119 (2013), 136–146.
50. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2016, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
51. Rall, E., Bieling, C., Zytynska, S., Haase, D., Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecol. Indic. 77 (2017), 80–95.
52. Saukkonen, T., Helsingin Kaupungin Luononhoidon Linjaus (Helsinki Nature Management Strategy). 2011, Public Works Department, Helsinki, Finland (in Finish).
53. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cities and Biodiversity Outlook — Action and Policy. Montreal, Canada, 2012.
54. Shanahan, D.F., Cox, D.T.C., Fuller, R.A., Hancock, S., Lin, B.B., Anderson, K., et al. Variation in experiences of nature across gradients of tree cover in compact and sprawling cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157 (2017), 231–238.
55. Shipley, B., Confirmatory path analysis in a generalized multilevel context. Ecology 90:2 (2009), 363–368.
56. Soga, M., Gaston, K.J., Extinction of experience: the loss of human–nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14:2 (2016), 94–101.
57. Soga, M., Yamaura, Y., Aikoh, T., Shoji, Y., Kubo, T., Gaston, K.J., Reducing the extinction of experience: association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 143 (2015), 69–75.
58. Suppakittpaisarn, P., Jiang, B., Slavenas, M., Sullivan, W.C., Does density of green infrastructure predict preference?. Urban For. Urban Green 40 (2019), 236–244.
59. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K., Merriam, G., Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:3 (1993), 571–573.
60. Tomao, A., Secondi, L., Carrus, G., Corona, P., Portoghesi, L., Agrimi, M., Restorative urban forests: Exploring the relationships between forest stand structure, perceived restorativeness and benefits gained by visitors to coastal Pinus pinea forests. Ecol. Indic. 90 (2018), 594–605.
61. Tonteri, T., Hotanen, J.P., Kuusipalo, J., The Finnish forest site type approach: ordination and classification studies of mesic forest sites in southern Finland. Vegetatio 87:1 (1990), 85–98.
62. Tratalos, J., Fuller, Ra., Warren, P.H., Davies, R.G., Gaston, K.J., Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83 (2007), 308–317.
63. Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 79 (2007), 5–19.
64. Unterweger, P., Schrode, N., Betz, O., Urban nature: perception and acceptance of alternative green space management and the change of awareness after provision of environmental information. A chance for biodiversity protection. Urban Sci., 1(3), 2017, 24.
65. Vierikko, K., Salminen, J., Niemelä, J., Jalkanen, J., Tamminen, N., Sustainable Green Infrastructure of Helsinki – Urban Ecological Research Report and Recommendations for the Helsinki Master Plan 2014. (in Finnish with English summary), 2014.
66. Vierikko, K., Fors, H., Saarinen, R.K., Helsinki, Finland—Case Study City Portrait. 2015.
67. Vierikko, K., Elands, B., Niemelä, J., Andersson, E., Buijs, A., Fischer, L.K., et al. Considering the ways biocultural diversity helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 22 (2016), 7–12.
68. Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun, Z., Bao, Z., Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 12:1 (2013), 44–52.
69. Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., Walker, N.J., Saveliev, A.A., Smith, G.M., Zero-truncated and zero-inflated models for count data. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology With R, 2009, Springer, 261–293.
70. Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N., Elphick, C.S., A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1:1 (2010), 3–14.