IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-298795.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception

Author

Listed:
  • Philip Stessens
  • Frank Canters
  • Marijke Huysmans
  • Ahmed Z. Khan

Abstract

For city dwellers urban green space is the primary source of contact with nature. Qualitative green space is increasingly perceived as an important factor for quality of life in urban areas and a key component of sustainable urban design and planning. In this study, the relation between different features of urban green spaces and perception of green space qualities was analyzed by combining the outcome of a survey on green space perception with GIS-based spatial metrics. A survey has been conducted among residents of the Brussels Capital Region and surroundings to assess the relative importance residents assign to different qualities of urban green spaces and how they value these qualities within visited spaces. Quietness, spaciousness, cleanliness and maintenance, facilities and feeling of safety are identified as important qualities of public green spaces, while naturalness, historical and cultural value are perceived as less important qualities. A GIS-based model was developed to infer naturalness, quietness and spaciousness as perceived by users of public green spaces from green space properties. Using variables describing biological value, land-cover composition, green space area and shape, good correlations were obtained between GIS-based assessment of naturalness and spaciousness and how green space users perceive these qualities. The model proposed may be useful for simulating green space development and improvement scenarios and assess their impact on perceived quality. Thus it may serve as a spatial decision support tool for improving the quality of urban green spaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Marijke Huysmans & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298795, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/298795
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/298795/3/1-s2.0-S0264837718304253-main.pdf
    File Function: Œuvre complète ou partie de l'œuvre
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 187-199.
    2. Germann-Chiari, Christina & Seeland, Klaus, 2004. "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," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 3-13, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    5. Philip Stessens & Ahmed Z. Khan & Marijke Huysmans & Frank Canters, 2017. "Analysing urban green space accessibility and quality: A GIS-based model as spatial decision support for urban ecosystem services in Brussels," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/284472, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Voigt, Annette & Wurster, Daniel, 2015. "Does diversity matter? The experience of urban nature’s diversity: Case study and cultural concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 200-208.
    7. Craig Bullock, 2008. "Valuing Urban Green Space: Hypothetical Alternatives and the Status Quo," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 15-35.
    8. Camps-Calvet, Marta & Langemeyer, Johannes & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2016. "Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 14-23.
    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. Mouratidis, Kostas & Yiannakou, Athena, 2022. "What makes cities livable? Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood happiness in different contexts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Bohong Zheng & Rui Guo & Komi Bernard Bedra & Yanfen Xiang, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation of Urban Style at Street Level: A Case Study of Hengyang County, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-28, March.
    3. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Emilio Ramírez-Juidías & José-Lázaro Amaro-Mellado & Jorge Luis Leiva-Piedra, 2022. "Influence of the Urban Green Spaces of Seville (Spain) on Housing Prices through the Hedonic Assessment Methodology and Geospatial Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Yiyang Guo & Guoping Lei & Luyang Zhang, 2023. "Quality Evaluation of Park Green Space Based on Multi-Source Spatial Data in Shenyang," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Yuheng Tao & Po-Hsien Lin, 2023. "Analyses of Sustainable Development of Cultural and Creative Parks: A Pilot Study Based on the Approach of CiteSpace Knowledge Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-28, July.
    7. Jaloliddin Rustamov & Zahiriddin Rustamov & Nazar Zaki, 2023. "Green Space Quality Analysis Using Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, May.
    8. Wu, Chao & Du, Yihao & Li, Sheng & Liu, Pengyu & Ye, Xinyue, 2022. "Does visual contact with green space impact housing pricesʔ An integrated approach of machine learning and hedonic modeling based on the perception of green space," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    9. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Zhiming Li & Xiyang Chen & Zhou Shen & Zhengxi Fan, 2022. "Evaluating Neighborhood Green-Space Quality Using a Building Blue–Green Index (BBGI) in Nanjing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Peng Chen & Wei Wang & Chong Qian & Mengqiu Cao & Tianren Yang, 2024. "Gravity-based models for evaluating urban park accessibility: Why does localized selection of attractiveness factors and travel modes matter?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(4), pages 904-922, May.
    12. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Yuanyuan Chen & Xinli Ke & Min Min & Yue Zhang & Yaqiang Dai & Lanping Tang, 2022. "Do We Need More Urban Green Space to Alleviate PM 2.5 Pollution? A Case Study in Wuhan, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, May.
    14. Amy Phillips & Dimitra Plastara & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2023. "Integrating public perceptions of proximity and quality in the modelling of urban green space access," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/371425, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Jun Zhang & Jinghua Jin & Yimeng Liang, 2024. "The Impact of Green Space on University Students’ Mental Health: The Mediating Roles of Solitude Competence and Perceptual Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, January.
    16. Selda İnançoğlu & Havva Arslangazi Uzunahmet & Özge Özden, 2023. "The Effect of Green Spaces on User Satisfaction in Historical City of Nicosia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Kourtit, Karima & Nijkamp, Peter & Türk, Umut & Wahlstrom, Mia, 2022. "City love and place quality assessment of liveable and loveable neighbourhoods in Rotterdam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    18. Shuhui Yu & Xin Guan & Junfan Zhu & Zeyu Wang & Youting Jian & Weijia Wang & Ya Yang, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and Urban Green Space Facilities Optimization Using the LSTM Model: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, June.
    19. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2021. "Exploring Options for Public Green Space Development: Research by Design and GIS-Based Scenario Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-52, July.
    20. Małgorzata Sztubecka & Alicja Maciejko & Marta Skiba, 2022. "The Landscape of the Spa Parks Creation through Components Influencing Environmental Perception Using Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, May.

    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. Stessens, Philip & Canters, Frank & Huysmans, Marijke & Khan, Ahmed Z., 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    4. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-related and socio-demographic variations in urban green space preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/326192, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Stępniewska, Małgorzata, 2021. "The capacity of urban parks for providing regulating and cultural ecosystem services versus their social perception," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Iwona Szumacher & Piotr Pabjanek, 2017. "Temporal Changes in Ecosystem Services in European Cities in the Continental Biogeographical Region in the Period from 1990–2012," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Evans, D.L. & Falagán, N. & Hardman, C.A. & Kourmpetli, S. & Liu, L. & Mead, B.R. & Davies, J.A.C., 2022. "Ecosystem service delivery by urban agriculture and green infrastructure – a systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    8. Elliot, Thomas & Bertrand, Alexandre & Babí Almenar, Javier & Petucco, Claudio & Proença, Vânia & Rugani, Benedetto, 2019. "Spatial optimisation of urban ecosystem services through integrated participatory and multi-objective integer linear programming," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 409(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Anna Petit-Boix & Defne Apul, 2018. "From Cascade to Bottom-Up Ecosystem Services Model: How Does Social Cohesion Emerge from Urban Agriculture?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Emily C. Hazell, 2020. "Disaggregating Ecosystem Benefits: An Integrated Environmental-Deprivation Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Henry Lippert & Ingo Kowarik & Tanja M. Straka, 2022. "People’s Attitudes and Emotions towards Different Urban Forest Types in the Berlin Region, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    12. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Evan Elderbrock & Chris Enright & Kathryn A. Lynch & Alexandra R. Rempel, 2020. "A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    15. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    16. Stepniewska, Malgorzata & Sobczak, Urszula, 2017. "Assessing the synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services provided by urban floodplains: The case of the Warta River Valley in Poznań, Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 238-246.
    17. Grzyb, Tomasz & Kulczyk, Sylwia & Derek, Marta & Woźniak, Edyta, 2021. "Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    18. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Ja, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    19. Thomas Elliot & Javier Babí Almenar & Samuel Niza & Vânia Proença & Benedetto Rugani, 2019. "Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    20. Zhang, Yingjie & Zhang, Tianzheng & Zeng, Yingxiang & Cheng, Baodong & Li, Hongxun, 2021. "Designating National Forest Cities in China: Does the policy improve the urban living environment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Brussels; Ecosystem services; Environmental quality; GIS; Urban green space;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/298795. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    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.