IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v120y2022ics0264837722003362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Tandarić, Neven
  • Ives, Christopher D.
  • Watkins, Charles

Abstract

The paper examines the links between the cultural ecosystem services concept, political ideologies and urban planning. In particular, it investigates the extent to which cultural ecosystem services were considered in urban planning in socialist and post-socialist Zagreb. We conducted a content analysis of three socialist and two post-socialist plans of Zagreb and interview transcripts with urban planners and academics. To take account of the relational character of cultural ecosystem services, we assessed the extent to which urban planning facilitated opportunities for human–ecosystem interactions rather than individual cultural ecosystem services themselves. This revealed planning factors that helped promote and discourage conditions for CES to arise. The findings indicated that socialist planning facilitated interaction opportunities to a wider extent than post-socialist planning, mainly by providing abundant, fair-sized, well-distributed green spaces with clearly outlined functions. The proposed assessment approach could be implemented in the planning process to evaluate how conditions for CES generation are provided by the current planning cycle and inform the process in the following cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:120:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003362
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722003362
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106309?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. Oxana Klimanova & Olga Illarionova & Karsten Grunewald & Elena Bukvareva, 2021. "Green Infrastructure, Urbanization, and Ecosystem Services: The Main Challenges for Russia’s Largest Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Di Marino, Mina & Tiitu, Maija & Lapintie, Kimmo & Viinikka, Arto & Kopperoinen, Leena, 2019. "Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Finnish case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 643-656.
    3. 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.
    4. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Smithers, Richard J. & Hedblom, Marcus & Hedenås, Henrik & Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Pedersen, Eja & Sandström, Per & Svensson, Johan, 2017. "Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-70.
    5. Sharifi, Farahnaz & Nygaard, Andi & Stone, Wendy M. & Levin, Iris, 2021. "Green gentrification or gentrified greening: Metropolitan Melbourne," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    6. Ho Huu, Loc & Ballatore, Thomas J. & Irvine, Kim N. & Nguyen, Thi Hong Diep & Truong, Thi Cam Tien & Yoshihisa, Shimizu, 2018. "Socio-geographic indicators to evaluate landscape Cultural Ecosystem Services: A case of Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 527-542.
    7. Vladan Djokić & Jelena Ristić Trajković & Verica Krstić, 2016. "An Environmental Critique: Impact of Socialist Ideology on the Ecological and Cultural Sensitivity of Belgrade’s Large-Scale Residential Settlements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-23, September.
    8. Martin, Jean-Christophe & Mongruel, Rémi & Levrel, Harold, 2018. "Integrating Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Ecosystem Satellite Account: A Case Study in the Gulf of Saint-Malo (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 141-152.
    9. 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.
    10. Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O. & Louda, J. & Arcidiacono, A. & Brzoska, P. & Bue, M. & Cetin, N.I. & Dworczyk, C. & Dubova, L. & Fitch, A. & Jones, L. & La Rosa, D. & Mascarenhas, A. & Ronchi, S. & Schla, 2021. "Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2018. "Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 298-312.
    12. 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.
    13. Raymond, Christopher M. & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo, 2017. "A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 15-24.
    14. 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).
    15. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    16. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    17. Rall, Emily Lorance & Kabisch, Nadja & Hansen, Rieke, 2015. "A comparative exploration of uptake and potential application of ecosystem services in urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 230-242.
    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. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Ľuboš Slovák & Jan Daněk & Tomáš Daněk, 2023. "The use of focus groups in cultural ecosystem services research: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    7. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Willis, Cheryl & Winter, Michael & Tratalos, Jamie A. & Haines-Young, Roy & Potschin, Marion, 2016. "Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 329-343.
    8. Kenter, Jasper O. & Jobstvogt, Niels & Watson, Verity & Irvine, Katherine N. & Christie, Michael & Bryce, Ros, 2016. "The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 270-290.
    9. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    10. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröte, 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    11. Vera Ferreira & Ana Paula Barreira & Luís Loures & Dulce Antunes & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    12. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    13. Rüdisser, Johannes & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2019. "Symbolic entities in the European Alps: Perception and use of a cultural ecosystem service," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    14. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    15. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Chowdhury, Koushik & Behera, Bhagirath, 2021. "Traditional water bodies and cultural ecosystem services: Experiences from rural West Bengal, India," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Shi, Qinqin & Chen, Hai & Liang, Xiaoying & Zhang, Hang & Liu, Di, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services valuation and its multilevel drivers: A case study of Gaoqu Township in Shaanxi Province, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Flood, Kate & Mahon, Marie & McDonagh, John, 2021. "Assigning value to cultural ecosystem services: The significance of memory and imagination in the conservation of Irish peatlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(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:lauspo:v:120:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003362. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.