Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services of India: Comparison of budget allocations to improve the use value of recreational open spaces

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 38, Issue , 2019, Pages

  Subramanian, Divya ^a   Jana, Arnab ^a  

^a INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY   (India)

Author keywords

Cultural ecosystem services; Developing nations; Empirical survey; Financial evaluation; Recreational open spaces; Use value

Indexed keywords

EID: 85067603001     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100960     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. BBMP, 2018. BBMP Budget Estimate 2018–19. Bangalore.
2. BBMP, 2017. BBMP Budget Estimate 2017–18. Bangalore.
3. BBMP, 2016. BBMP Budget Estimate 2016–17. Bangalore.
4. BBMP, 2015. BBMP Budget Estimates 2015–16. Bangalore.
5. 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 (2011), 2763–2773, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.019.
6. 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, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006.
7. Census of India, 2011. Population composition. Census of India 11–28.
8. Chaudhry, P., Bagra, K., Singh, B., Urban greenery status of some Indian cities: a short communication. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2 (2011), 98–101.
9. COC, 2018. COC Budget Estimate 2018–19. Chennai.
10. COC, 2017. COC Budget Estimate 2017–18. Chennai.
11. COC, 2016. COC Budget Estimate 2016–17. Chennai.
12. COC, 2015. COC Budget Estimate 2015–16. Chennai.
13. Dai, D., Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to intervene?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 102 (2011), 234–244, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002.
14. del Saz Salazar, S., García Menéndez, L., Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter?. Land Use Policy 24 (2007), 296–305, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011.
15. Dony, C.C., Delmelle, E.M., Delmelle, E.C., Landscape and urban planning re-conceptualizing accessibility to parks in multi-modal cities: A variable-width floating catchment area (VFCA) method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 143 (2015), 90–99, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.011.
16. Fan, P., Xu, L., Yue, W., Chen, J., Accessibility of public urban green space in an urban periphery: the case of Shanghai. Landsc. Urban Plan. 165 (2017), 177–192, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.007.
17. Gallagher, D.J., Payan, R., 2014. Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation. Seattle.
18. Gatto, M., De Leo, G.A., Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 51 (2001), 270–271.
19. Gidlow, C., van Kempen, E., Smith, G., Triguero-Mas, M., Kruize, H., Gražulevičienė, R., Ellis, N., Hurst, G., Masterson, D., Cirach, M., van den Berg, M., Smart, W., Dėdelė, A., Maas, J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Development of the natural environment scoring tool (NEST). Urban For. Urban Green. 29 (2018), 322–333, 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.007.
20. HABITAT, 2015. Issue Papers and Policy Units of the Habitat III Conference. Issue Pap. Urban-Rural Linkages.
21. Harrington, R., Anton, C., Dawson, T.P., de Bello, F., Feld, C.K., Haslett, J.R., Kluvánkova-Oravská, T., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Luck, G.W., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Samways, M.J., Settele, J., Skourtos, M., Spangenberg, J.H., Vandewalle, M., Zobel, M., Harrison, P.A., Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary. Biodivers. Conserv. 19 (2010), 2773–2790, 10.1007/s10531-010-9834-9.
22. Heagney, E.C., Rose, J.M., Ardeshiri, A., Kovač, M., Optimising recreation services from protected areas – understanding the role of natural values, built infrastructure and contextual factors. Ecosyst. Serv., 2018, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.007.
23. 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, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.010.
24. Jacobs, J., The death and life of great American cities. Death Life Gt. Am. Cities, 14, 1961, 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
25. Jagori, 2016. Understanding Women's Safety in Malviya Nagar: Safety Audit Report.
26. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. 1989, Cambridge Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1037/030621.
27. Kati, V., Jari, N., Bottom-up thinking-Identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue-green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land Use Policy 50 (2016), 537–547, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031.
28. Krawchenko, T., Stoney, C., 2011. Public Private Partnerships and the Public Interest: A Case Study of Ottawa's Lansdowne Park Development. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2011v2n2a92.
29. Kuchelmeister, G., 2010. By The Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study is being undertaken under the auspices of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission.
30. Kumar, M., Kumar, P., Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2008), 808–819, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008.
31. Land Use Consultants, 2004. Making the Links: Green Space and Quality of Life, Commissioned Report number 60.
32. Lee, G., Hong, I., Measuring spatial accessibility in the context of spatial disparity between demand and supply of urban park service. Landsc. Urban Plan. 119 (2013), 85–90, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.001.
33. Luo, W., Wang, F., Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 30 (2003), 865–884, 10.1068/b29120.
34. Lynch, K., 1990. Chapter Two Kevin Lynch Mapping Method: Physical & Spatial Characteristic Of Environment.
35. Mark-viverito, H.M., Ferreras, H.J., Toth, N., Levine, H.M.D., Service, U.P., 2015. The Council of the City of New York Department of Parks and Recreation. New York.
36. Matsuoka, R.H., Kaplan, R., People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 84 (2008), 7–19, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009.
37. MCGM, 2018. MCGM Budget Estimate 2018–19. Mumbai.
38. MCGM, 2017. MCGM Budget Estimate 2017–18. Mumbai.
39. MCGM, 2016. MCGM BUDGET ESTIMATES 2016–17. Mumbai.
40. MCGM, 2015. MCGM Budget Estimate 2015–16. Mumbai.
41. MCGM, 2014. PREPARATORY STUDIES 1. Mumbai.
42. McGrail, M.R., Humphreys, J.S., Measuring spatial accessibility to primary care in rural areas: improving the effectiveness of the two-step floating catchment area method. Appl. Geogr. 29 (2009), 533–541, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.12.003.
43. Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., Fischer, J., Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 18 (2013), 44–88, 10.5751/ES-05790-180344.
44. Miller, K.F., Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York Public Spaces. 2007, University of Minnesota Press.
45. Ministry of Urban Development India, 2014. Urban Greening Guidelines.
46. MMR-EIS, 2012. Inventorisation of Open Spaces and Water Bodies in Greater Mumbai.
47. More, T.A., 1999. A Functionalist Approach to User Fees 31, 227–244.
48. More, T.A., Averill, J.R., Stevens, T.H., Values and economics in environmental management: a perspective and critique. J. Environ. Manage. 48 (1996), 397–409, 10.1006/jema.1996.0086.
49. Mowen, A.J., Kyle, G.T., Borrie, W.T., Grefe, A.R., Public response to park and recreation funding and cost- saving strategies: the role of organizational trust and commitment. J. Park Recreat. Admi. 24 (2006), 72–95.
50. National Parks, 2015. Singapore Green Report 2015-16, World Trade: WT100.
51. Neal, Z., Seeking common ground: three perspectives on public space design principles. Urban Des. Plan. 000 (2010), 1–8.
52. Neutens, T., Daniels, S., Minnen, J., Glorieux, I., De Maeyer, P., Van de Weghe, N., Spatial and temporal fluctuations in individual accessibility: a comparative analysis among subgroups of the population. Geogr. Tidsskr. J. Geogr. 114 (2014), 119–131, 10.1080/21662282.2013.863547.
53. Neutens, T., Delafontaine, M., Scott, D.M., De Maeyer, P., An analysis of day-to-day variations in individual space-time accessibility. J. Transp. Geogr. 23 (2012), 81–91, 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.001.
54. Nigel, D., Carys, S., Helen, W., 2002. Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas and Green Spaces, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
55. Noradila, Rusli, Ahmad Nazri, Muhamad Ludin, 2010. Evaluation of Open Space and Recreation Area in Johor Bahru Tengah Municipal Council. MRSS 2010, Putrajaya Wolrd Trade Center, Malaysia 28–29th April 1–13.
56. Pinkston, B., Identifying and Evaluating Revenue Strategies for Parks and Recreation Departments across the Western United States. 2015, San Jose State University.
57. Rainey, R.M., Miller, J.C., Modern Public Gardens: Robert Royston and the Suburban Park. 2006, William Stout Publishers.
58. Reyes, M., Páez, A., Morency, C., Walking accessibility to urban parks by children: a case study of Montreal. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125 (2014), 38–47, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.002.
59. Rigolon, A., Landscape and urban planning parks and young people: an environmental justice study of park proximity, acreage, and quality in Denver, Colorado. Landsc. Urban Plan. 165 (2017), 73–83, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.007.
60. Rutledge, A.J., A Visual Approach to Park Design. 1991, Krieger Pub Co.
61. Saaty, R.W., The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 9 (1987), 161–176, 10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8.
62. Scholte, S.S.K., van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Verburg, P.H., Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 67–78, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007.
63. Shaheer, M., Landscape Architecture in India: A Reader. 2013, Landscape, New Delhi.
64. Smith, V.K., Kaoru, Y., What have we learned since hotelling's letter? A meta-analysis. Econ. Lett. 32 (1990), 277–281, 10.1016/0165-1765(90)90112-E.
65. Tampieri, L., Performance evaluation indexes in public administration. Gov. An Int. J. Policy Adm., 2013, 59–82.
66. Teeb, TEEB manual for cities: ecosystem services in urban management. Econ. Ecosyst. Biodivers., 2011, 48.
67. Town and Country Planning Organisation, 2015. Urban and regional development plans formulation and implementation (URDPFI) guidelines.
68. UN-HABITAT, State of the World's Cites 2012/2013: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. 2012, United Nations Hum. Settlements Program, 152.
69. Wu, J., Plantinga, A.J., The influence of public open space on urban spatial structure. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 46 (2003), 288–309, 10.1016/S0095-0696(03)00023-8.
70. Wu, K., Song, L., A case for inclusive design: analyzing the needs of those who frequent Taiwan's urban parks. Appl. Ergon. 58 (2017), 254–264, 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.015.