IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i7p766-d104477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban Green Space Perception and Its Contribution to Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Gyula Kothencz

    (Department of Geoinformatics—Z_GIS, University of Salzburg, Schillerstrasse 30, 5020 Salzburg, Austria)

  • Ronald Kolcsár

    (Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem utca 2-6, 6722 Szeged, Hungary)

  • Pablo Cabrera-Barona

    (Department of Geoinformatics—Z_GIS, University of Salzburg, Schillerstrasse 30, 5020 Salzburg, Austria)

  • Péter Szilassi

    (Department of Physical Geography and Geoinformatics, University of Szeged, Egyetem utca 2-6, 6722 Szeged, Hungary)

Abstract

Individual perceptions are essential when evaluating the well-being benefits from urban green spaces. This study predicted the influence of perceived green space characteristics in the city of Szeged, Hungary, on two well-being variables: the green space visitors’ level of satisfaction and the self-reported quality of life. The applied logistic regression analysis used nine predictors: seven perceived green space characteristics from a questionnaire survey among visitors of five urban green spaces of Szeged; and the frequency of green space visitors’ crowd-sourced recreational running paths and photographs picturing green space aesthetics. Results revealed that perceived green space characteristics with direct well-being benefits were strong predictors of both dependent variables. Perceived green space characteristics with indirect, yet fundamental, well-being benefits, namely, regulating ecosystem services had minor influence on the dependent variables. The crowd-sourced geo-tagged data predicted only the perceived quality of life contributions; but revealed spatial patterns of recreational green space use and aesthetics. This study recommends that regulating ecosystem services should be planned with a focus on residents’ aesthetic and recreational needs. Further research on the combination of green space visitors´ perceptions and crowd-sourced geo-tagged data is suggested to promote planning for well-being and health benefits of urban green spaces.

Suggested Citation

  • Gyula Kothencz & Ronald Kolcsár & Pablo Cabrera-Barona & Péter Szilassi, 2017. "Urban Green Space Perception and Its Contribution to Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:7:p:766-:d:104477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/7/766/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/7/766/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming, 2014. "Public Greenspace and Life Satisfaction in Urban Australia," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(6), pages 1290-1321, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Moro, Mirko & Brereton, Finbarr & Ferreira, Susana & Clinch, J. Peter, 2008. "Ranking quality of life using subjective well-being data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 448-460, April.
    4. Katherine N. Irvine & Sara L. Warber & Patrick Devine-Wright & Kevin J. Gaston, 2013. "Understanding Urban Green Space as a Health Resource: A Qualitative Comparison of Visit Motivation and Derived Effects among Park Users in Sheffield, UK," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-26, January.
    5. Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & Roebeling, Peter & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2015. "Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 178-186.
    6. Binder, Martin & Coad, Alex, 2011. "From Average Joe's happiness to Miserable Jane and Cheerful John: using quantile regressions to analyze the full subjective well-being distribution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 275-290, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Jeanette Eby & Peter Kitchen & Allison Williams, 2012. "Perceptions of Quality Life in Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Hubs: A Qualitative Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 108(2), pages 299-315, 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. Karen Maguire & John V. Winters, 2017. "Energy Boom and Gloom? Local Effects of Oil and Natural Gas Drilling on Subjective Well†Being," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 590-610, December.
    2. John V Winters & Yu Li, 2017. "Urbanisation, natural amenities and subjective well-being: Evidence from US counties," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(8), pages 1956-1973, June.
    3. Karen Maguire & John V. Winters, 2016. "Energy Boom and Gloom? Local Effects of Oil and Natural Gas Drilling on Subjective Well-Being," Economics Working Paper Series 1607, Oklahoma State University, Department of Economics and Legal Studies in Business.
    4. Christopher L. Ambrey & Peter Daniels, 2017. "Happiness and footprints: assessing the relationship between individual well-being and carbon footprints," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 895-920, June.
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    8. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    10. Xiaoyu Yu & Xiaotong Meng & Laura Stanley & Franz W. Kellermanns, 2024. "Self-employment and life satisfaction: The contingent role of formal institutions," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 135-163, June.
    11. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    12. Heiko Rüger & Stefanie Hoherz & Norbert F. Schneider & Herbert Fliege & Maria M. Bellinger & Brenton M. Wiernik, 2023. "The Effects of Urban Living Conditions on Subjective Well-Being: The Case of German Foreign Service Employees," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1939-1963, August.
    13. Felix N. Fernando & Dennis R. Cooley, 2016. "An Oil Boom’s Effect on Quality of Life (QoL): Lessons from Western North Dakota," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 11(4), pages 1083-1115, December.
    14. Binder, Martin & Coad, Alex, 2013. "“I'm afraid I have bad news for you…” Estimating the impact of different health impairments on subjective well-being," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-167.
    15. Chien, Fengsheng & Anwar, Ahsan & Hsu, Ching-Chi & Sharif, Arshian & Razzaq, Asif & Sinha, Avik, 2021. "The role of information and communication technology in encountering environmental degradation: Proposing an SDG framework for the BRICS countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    16. Dusanee Kesavayuth & Robert E. Rosenman & Vasileios Zikos, 2016. "Retirement, Personality, And Well-Being," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 733-750, April.
    17. Welsch, Heinz & Ferreira, Susana, 2014. "Environment, Well-Being, and Experienced Preference," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 7(3-4), pages 205-239, December.
    18. Tyrvainen, Liisa & Gustavsson, Roland & Konijnendijk, Cecil & Ode, Asa, 2006. "Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 811-823, November.
    19. O’Leary, Nigel & Li, Ian W. & Gupta, Prashant & Blackaby, David, 2020. "Wellbeing trajectories around life events in Australia," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 499-509.
    20. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M., 2011. "Valuing scenic amenity using life satisfaction data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-115.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:7:p:766-:d:104477. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.