IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v58y2022ics2212041622000766.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social inequality deeply affects people’s perception of ecosystem services and disservices provided by street trees

Author

Listed:
  • Pistón, Nuria
  • Silva Filho, Dario S.E.
  • Dias, André T.C.

Abstract

To ensure that changes in the landscape do not reinforce existing inequalities or create new ones, it is vital to continuously monitor the urban landscape. This is especially important in situations of poverty and economic and environmental inequality. However, little is known about the influence of socioeconomic factors on peoples’ perception of Ecosystem Services (ES) in Latin American cities, where a weak environmental governance, deep social inequality and high biodiversity and degree of endemism will differently determine the supply and demand of ESs. In this study, we investigated the social perception of a range of ESs and Ecosystem Disservices (i.e., negative impacts of ecosystems on people; ED) delivered by the street trees of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), a city marked by a strong socioeconomic inequality. For this, we used a questionnaire investigating how the perceptions about the provision of ESs and EDs by street trees is modulated by sociodemographic (e.g., age and gender), urban (e.g., population density), socioeconomic (e.g., Social Development Index; SDI) and ecological factors (e.g., street trees density). For that, we used bi- and multi-variate analysis, including principal component analysis. We found that in neighborhoods with lower SDI, lower population density, lower species richness and higher arboreal deficit, respondents identified more ESs related to food provision, air quality, noise, and flood regulation while in neighborhoods with opposite characteristics, residents tend to affirm the esthetic identity of their neighborhoods, which are usually better maintained in terms of both green and grey infrastructures. Female respondents identified more safety EDs regarding negative aspects of street trees (e.g., risk of crime). Also, younger respondents identified for more regulatingservices (e.g., climate regulation and habitat support). We demonstrate that local assessment of ESs and EDs is necessary to adequately instruct suitable strategies for increase people's engagement, identify potential conflicts, as well as planning, designing, and managing the green infrastructures.

Suggested Citation

  • Pistón, Nuria & Silva Filho, Dario S.E. & Dias, André T.C., 2022. "Social inequality deeply affects people’s perception of ecosystem services and disservices provided by street trees," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:58:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000766
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000766
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101480?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. Jinhyun Hong & Cynthia Chen, 2014. "The role of the built environment on perceived safety from crime and walking: examining direct and indirect impacts," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1171-1185, November.
    2. Jing Shi & Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2016. "Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(8), pages 759-762, August.
    3. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    4. Douglas J. McCauley, 2006. "Selling out on nature," Nature, Nature, vol. 443(7107), pages 27-28, September.
    5. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    6. Baltar, Fabiola & Brunet Icart, Ignasi, 2012. "Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1875, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    7. Schafer, Joseph A. & Huebner, Beth M. & Bynum, Timothy S., 2006. "Fear of crime and criminal victimization: Gender-based contrasts," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 285-301.
    8. Vaz, Ana S. & Kueffer, Christoph & Kull, Christian A. & Richardson, David M. & Vicente, Joana R. & Kühn, Ingolf & Schröter, Matthias & Hauck, Jennifer & Bonn, Aletta & Honrado, João P., 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 94-107.
    9. Isabelle Anguelovski & James Connolly & Anna Livia Brand, 2018. "From landscapes of utopia to the margins of the green urban life," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 417-436, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Andersson, Erik & Tengö, Maria & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 165-168.
    12. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    13. Laterra, Pedro & Nahuelhual, Laura & Vallejos, María & Berrouet, Lina & Arroyo Pérez, Erika & Enrico, Lucas & Jiménez-Sierra, Cecilia & Mejía, Kathya & Meli, Paula & Rincón-Ruíz, Alexander & Sal, 2019. "Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Lucy E. Keniger & Kevin J. Gaston & Katherine N. Irvine & Richard A. Fuller, 2013. "What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Bertrand F. Nero & Nana Afranaa Kwapong & Raymond Jatta & Oluwole Fatunbi, 2018. "Tree Species Diversity and Socioeconomic Perspectives of the Urban (Food) Forest of Accra, Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, September.
    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. 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).
    2. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    3. Yixin Chen & Xinchuan Liu, 2021. "How Do Environmental News and the Under the Dome Documentary Influence Air-Pollution Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Beijing Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    4. Nicholaus Mwageni & Gabriel Kassenga, 2022. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Green Space Investment in Residential Areas of Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(3), pages 157-157, May.
    5. Charles A. Ogunbode & Rouven Doran & Gisela Böhm, 2020. "Exposure to the IPCC special report on 1.5 °C global warming is linked to perceived threat and increased concern about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 361-375, February.
    6. Vieira, Felipe A.S. & Bragagnolo, Chiara & Correia, Ricardo A. & Malhado, Ana C.M. & Ladle, Richard J., 2018. "A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 182-192.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    8. Muradian, Roldan & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Beyond ecosystem services and nature's contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    9. Paul C. Sutton & Sophia L. Duncan & Sharolyn J. Anderson, 2019. "Valuing Our National Parks: An Ecological Economics Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Jagadish Thaker & Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2020. "Global Warming Risk Perceptions in India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2481-2497, December.
    11. Wells, Jasmine J. & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Woodhead, Anna J. & Wandrag, Elizabeth M., 2023. "Towards a holistic understanding of non-native tree impacts on ecosystem services: A review of Acacia, Eucalyptus and Pinus in Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Vivianne H. M. Visschers, 2018. "Public Perception of Uncertainties Within Climate Change Science," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 43-55, January.
    13. Élia Pires-Marques & Cristina Chaves & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Biophysical and monetary quantification of ecosystem services in a mountain region: the case of avoided soil erosion," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11382-11405, August.
    14. Saner, Marc A. & Bordt, Michael, 2016. "Building the consensus: The moral space of earth measurement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 74-81.
    15. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    16. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    17. Yawen Sun & Shaohua Tan & Qixiao He & Jize Shen, 2022. "Influence Mechanisms of Community Sports Parks to Enhance Social Interaction: A Bayesian Belief Network Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-22, January.
    18. Rachel Dryden & M. Granger Morgan & Ann Bostrom & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2018. "Public Perceptions of How Long Air Pollution and Carbon Dioxide Remain in the Atmosphere," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 525-534, March.
    19. Adrian Brügger & Moritz Gubler & Katharine Steentjes & Stuart B. Capstick, 2020. "Social Identity and Risk Perception Explain Participation in the Swiss Youth Climate Strikes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Shah Md Atiqul Haq & Khandaker Jafor Ahmed, 2020. "Perceptions about climate change among university students in Bangladesh," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(3), pages 3683-3713, September.

    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:58:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000766. 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.