IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v12y2015icp169-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Buchel, Sophie
  • Frantzeskaki, Niki

Abstract

To create a city in which green space is designed to address not only ecological priorities but also user perception, it is essential for planners and policy makers to explore the experiences of urban green space users. This study developed a method to a guide the translation of the concept of ecosystem services to citizens. Through a three-step process urban ecosystem services were re-categorized into a subset of directly perceivable services, fine-grained and formed into understandable statements. These statements were presented to urban park users in Rotterdam using Q methodology. Three main user profiles emerged around ‘love of nature’, ‘recreation and connection’ and ‘social setting and relaxation’. Overall the most valued ecosystem subservice was aesthetic appreciation. Other ecosystem subservices that scored highly were recreation, air quality control and social setting. Awareness of types of users in terms of park perception could aid urban planners in designing user-focused urban green spaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:12:y:2015:i:c:p:169-177
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001533
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason Byrne & Jennifer Wolch & Jin Zhang, 2009. "Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(3), pages 365-392.
    2. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    3. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    4. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    5. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    6. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    7. Colding, Johan & Barthel, Stephan, 2013. "The potential of ‘Urban Green Commons’ in the resilience building of cities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 156-166.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Schäffler, Alexis & Swilling, Mark, 2013. "Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 246-257.
    3. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    4. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    5. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    6. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    7. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    8. Barthel, Stephan & Isendahl, Christian, 2013. "Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 224-234.
    9. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    10. Luederitz, Christopher & Brink, Ebba & Gralla, Fabienne & Hermelingmeier, Verena & Meyer, Moritz & Niven, Lisa & Panzer, Lars & Partelow, Stefan & Rau, Anna-Lena & Sasaki, Ryuei & Abson, David J. & La, 2015. "A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 98-112.
    11. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2015. "Bewertung kultureller Ökosystemleistungen von Berliner Stadtgrün entlang eines urbanen-periurbanen Gradienten," DARE Discussion Papers 1507, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    13. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Chen, Wendy Y. & Hua, Junyi, 2017. "Heterogeneity in resident perceptions of a bio-cultural heritage in Hong Kong: A latent class factor analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 170-179.
    15. Dumenu, William Kwadwo, 2013. "What are we missing? Economic value of an urban forest in Ghana," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 137-142.
    16. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    17. Narducci, Jenna & Quintas-Soriano, Cristina & Castro, Antonio & Som-Castellano, Rebecca & Brandt, Jodi S., 2019. "Implications of urban growth and farmland loss for ecosystem services in the western United States," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-11.
    18. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    20. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:12:y:2015:i:c:p:169-177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.