IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v91y2020ics0264837718304253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

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

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718304253
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718304253
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104319?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. 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. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.

    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. 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.
    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).

    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:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718304253. 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.