IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v123y2022ics0264837722004306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial scales and urban greenspace types influence public conservation preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Tomitaka, Mahoro
  • Iwachido, Yuki
  • Sasaki, Takehiro

Abstract

There are increasing concerns for urban greenspaces as critical sources for biodiversity. Urban greenspaces provide various ecosystem services essential for urban residents. The emergent task is to incorporate public opinion for implementing urban landscape management by increasing their preference for conservation of urban greenspaces. However, there is little available information about public conservation preferences. Here, we examined the public preference for conservation of urban greenspaces and their determinants through an online questionnaire using photographs taken across two spatial scales (landscape and community) and two greenspace types (satoyamas and urban parks). Participants were asked about their conservation preferences (measured by the extent of willingness to pay) in response to the photographs of grassland habitats under different management conditions across satoyamas and urban park sites. We showed that the public are willing to pay more for managed satoyama sites (on average 447.0 JPY) than abandoned ones (395.5 JPY) at landscape scales. Managed satoyama sites included more species richness than abandoned ones. However, conservation preference for satoyama sites was deemed scale-dependent since it remained unaffected by management conditions at community scales. We thus suggest the importance of conserving the satoyama landscapes as per public requirement. In urban parks, independent of spatial scales, we found greater conservation preference for intensively-managed lawns (on average 478.6 and 426.0 JPY at landscape and community scales, respectively) than moderately-managed meadows (447.5 and 380.7 JPY). Urban lawns had less species richness than meadows, suggesting that public conservation preference for urban greenspaces is not necessarily built on biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, participants with more ecological knowledge, richer natural experiences in their childhood, and a higher frequency of greenspace visits were more willing to pay for conservation of both satoyamas and urban park sites independent of spatial scales. Thus, public conservation preferences for urban greenspaces depend on spatial scales considered and greenspace types. We provided some realistic data to prove that the Japanese people are willing to pay for the conservation of satoyamas and urban park greenspaces. Environmental education efforts and ensuring nature experiences could prove to be crucial measures to increase the public acceptance of the societal costs for biodiversity conservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomitaka, Mahoro & Iwachido, Yuki & Sasaki, Takehiro, 2022. "Spatial scales and urban greenspace types influence public conservation preferences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:123:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722004306
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722004306
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106403?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. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Paulina Guerrero & Maja Steen Møller & Anton Stahl Olafsson & Bernhard Snizek, 2016. "Revealing Cultural Ecosystem Services through Instagram Images: The Potential of Social Media Volunteered Geographic Information for Urban Green Infrastructure Planning and Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 1-17.
    4. Bernadett Csurgó & Melanie K. Smith, 2022. "Cultural Heritage, Sense of Place and Tourism: An Analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Rural Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-24, June.
    5. Dou, Yuehan & Zhen, Lin & De Groot, Rudolf & Du, Bingzhen & Yu, Xiubo, 2017. "Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 79-90.
    6. Sanaz Memari & Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar & Patrik Grahn, 2021. "Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Green Areas: An Experimental Study on Stress Recovery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Zhang, Da & Huang, Qingxu & He, Chunyang & Wu, Jianguo, 2017. "Impacts of urban expansion on ecosystem services in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration, China: A scenario analysis based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 115-130.
    8. Ashfa Achmad & Noer Fadhly & Anwar Deli & Ichwana Ramli, 2022. "Urban growth and its impact on land surface temperature in an industrial city in Aceh, Indonesia," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 39-58, April.
    9. Silvia Ronchi & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2018. "Adopting an Ecosystem Services-Based Approach for Flood Resilient Strategies: The Case of Rocinha Favela (Brazil)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Cetin, Nuket Ipek & Bourget, Gulhan & Tezer, Azime, 2021. "Travel-cost method for assessing the monetary value of recreational services in the Ömerli Catchment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    11. Rúben Mendes & Teresa Fidélis & Peter Roebeling & Filipe Teles, 2020. "The Institutionalization of Nature-Based Solutions—A Discourse Analysis of Emergent Literature," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, January.
    12. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    13. 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).
    14. Claudia De Luca & Andrea Libetta & Elisa Conticelli & Simona Tondelli, 2021. "Accessibility to and Availability of Urban Green Spaces (UGS) to Support Health and Wellbeing during the COVID-19 Pandemic—The Case of Bologna," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    16. 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.
    17. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    18. Giulia Giacchè & Jean-Noël Consalès & Baptiste J-P. Grard & Anne-Cécile Daniel & Claire Chenu, 2021. "Toward an Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services Delivered by Urban Micro-Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Qi Zhang & Esther Hiu-Kwan Yung & Edwin Hon-Wan Chan, 2021. "Meshing Sustainability with Satisfaction: An Investigation of Residents’ Perceptions in Three Different Neighbourhoods in Chengdu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-32, November.
    20. 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).

    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:123:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722004306. 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.