IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v38y2019ic8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Subramanian, Divya
  • Jana, Arnab

Abstract

Recreational open spaces (ROS) like parks and playgrounds are vital cultural ecosystem services. Provision of universally accessible, safe and inclusive green public spaces is one of the SDGs. There is a gap in the identification of the qualitative and quantitative aspects that impact the ‘Use Value’ of cultural ecosystem service like ROS. Comparative analysis of the budget allocation of ROS in Mumbai, Bangalore, and Chennai was conducted and further corroborated with the use value of the select ROS derived with an empirical study of sample open spaces from the three cities. The evaluation criteria were identified and weighted using an expert survey. To assess the impact of the budget expenditure on the use value of ROS, the budget cost per square meter for the three Indian cities was computed. Furthermore, an evaluation tool was derived using the ROS use value and the derived budget provision for the respective ROS. The study highlighted the need to incorporate a comprehensive goal-based financial planning structure for ROS management along with incorporating ‘use value’ as a parameter of assessment to ensure holistic policy design and implementation. The study concludes with various policy recommendations to improve the use value of Indian ROS.

Suggested Citation

  • Subramanian, Divya & Jana, Arnab, 2019. "Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services of India: Comparison of budget allocations to improve the use value of recreational open spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:38:y:2019:i:c:8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100960
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618302493
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100960?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. Heagney, E.C. & Rose, J.M. & Ardeshiri, A. & KovaÄ , M., 2018. "Optimising recreation services from protected areas – Understanding the role of natural values, built infrastructure and contextual factors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 358-370.
    2. Wei Luo & Fahui Wang, 2003. "Measures of Spatial Accessibility to Health Care in a GIS Environment: Synthesis and a Case Study in the Chicago Region," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 30(6), pages 865-884, December.
    3. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    4. Smith, V. Kerry & Kaoru, Yoshiaki, 1990. "What have we learned since hotelling's letter? : A meta-analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 277-281, March.
    5. Wu, JunJie & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2003. "The influence of public open space on urban spatial structure," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 288-309, September.
    6. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    7. Neutens, Tijs & Delafontaine, Matthias & Scott, Darren M. & De Maeyer, Philippe, 2012. "An analysis of day-to-day variations in individual space–time accessibility," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 81-91.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Maria Elena Menconi & Ambra Sipone & David Grohmann, 2021. "Complex Systems Thinking Approach to Urban Greenery to Provide Community-Tailored Solutions and Enhance the Provision of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    3. Giulio Senes & Chiara Parretta & Natalia Fumagalli & Patrizia Tassinari & Daniele Torreggiani, 2023. "Soft Mobility Network for the Enhancement and Discovery of the Rural Landscape: Definition of a Masterplan for Alto Ferrarese (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, February.

    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. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    2. Ishfaq Ahmad Sheergojri & Irfan Rashid & Ishfaq ul Rehman, 2024. "Systematic review of wetland ecosystem services valuation in India: assessing economic approaches, knowledge gaps, and management implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 167-179, March.
    3. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    4. 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).
    5. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    6. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Negev, Maya & Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Hassan, Yousef & Amasha, Hani & Raviv, Orna & Fares, Nasrin & Lotan, Alon & Peled, Yoav & Wittenberg, Lea & Izhaki, Ido, 2019. "Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    8. Dengyue Zhao & Mingzhu Xiao & Chunbo Huang & Yuan Liang & Ziyue An, 2021. "Landscape Dynamics Improved Recreation Service of the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.
    9. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    10. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Caruso, Geoffrey & Peeters, Dominique & Cavailhes, Jean & Rounsevell, Mark, 2007. "Spatial configurations in a periurban city. A cellular automata-based microeconomic model," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 542-567, September.
    12. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Shrestha, Ram K. & Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre S., 2002. "Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 289-299, August.
    14. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Shih-Lung Shaw, 2023. "Time geography in a hybrid physical–virtual world," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 339-356, July.
    18. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Stanley, Tom D., 2006. "Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 372-378, December.
    19. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    20. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.

    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:38:y:2019:i:c:8. 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.