IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i9p3261-d354996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community

Author

Listed:
  • Junga Lee

    (Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Sanghuh College of Life Sciences, Konkuk University, 225 Life Sciences Building, Seoul 05029, Korea)

  • Byoung-Suk Kweon

    (Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, 2140 Plant Sciences Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA)

  • Christopher D. Ellis

    (Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, 2144 Plant Sciences Building, College Park, MD 20742, USA)

  • Sang-Woo Lee

    (Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Sanghuh College of Life Sciences, Konkuk University, 303-1 Life Sciences Building, Seoul 05029, Korea)

Abstract

Ecosystem services depend on the interrelation between people and the environment, and people are increasingly recognizing the social value of ecosystem services. Based on humans needs related to the values of ecosystem services, riparian greenways, properly planned and managed for resiliency, could provide great opportunities for social ecological change and transformation toward sustainability. We focus on the ecosystem service values of such greenways based on resilience in urban communities. The purpose of this study is to assess the social value of ecosystem services for resilient riparian greenway planning and management based on a survey of residents living near the Yangjaecheon riparian greenway in Gwacheon, South Korea. First, cluster analysis was performed with data from 485 completed surveys to identify different groups of respondents. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) was then applied to develop planning and management guidance for the riparian greenway based on group characteristics. Two distinct groups were identified: the Strong Social Value of Ecosystem Services group and the Neutral Social Value of Ecosystem Services group. Different distributions were found between the two groups based on gender and residency period, and significant differences were also found for age and familiarity with the riparian greenway. The results show what each group perceived to be important and how well the riparian greenway met their expectations regarding ecosystem services. These results indicate the perceived value of ecosystem services on the basis of the group characteristics, helping establish the direction for resilient riparian greenway planning and management approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Junga Lee & Byoung-Suk Kweon & Christopher D. Ellis & Sang-Woo Lee, 2020. "Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3261-:d:354996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3261/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3261/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    2. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    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. Patrick Reed & Gregory Brown, 2003. "Values Suitability Analysis: A Methodology for Identifying and Integrating Public Perceptions of Ecosystem Values in Forest Planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 643-658.
    5. St. Martin, Kevin & Hall-Arber, Madeleine, 2008. "The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 779-786, September.
    6. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    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. Zheng Zhao & Huimin Gan & Xin Qian & Jiahui Leng & Yanbin Wang & Peipei Wu, 2021. "Riverside Greenway in Urban Environment: Residents’ Perception and Use of Greenways along the Huangpu River in Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Haiyun Xu & Fan Fu & Meng Miao, 2022. "What Is the Effect of Cultural Greenway Projects in High-Density Urban Municipalities? Assessing the Public Living Desire near the Cultural Greenway in Central Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Shengnan Li & Baohang Hui & Cai Jin & Xuehan Liu & Fan Xu & Chong Su & Tan Li, 2022. "Considering Farmers’ Heterogeneity to Payment Ecosystem Services Participation: A Choice Experiment and Agent-Based Model Analysis in Xin’an River Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Abdulrahman A. Zawawi & Nicole Porter & Christopher D. Ives, 2023. "Influences on Greenways Usage for Active Transportation: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-37, July.
    5. Chenxi Li & Zhihong Zong & Haichao Qie & Yingying Fang & Qiao Liu, 2023. "CiteSpace and Bibliometric Analysis of Published Research on Forest Ecosystem Services for the Period 2018–2022," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Soon-Jin Hwang, 2020. "Eutrophication and the Ecological Health Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-6, August.

    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. 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.
    2. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    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. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    5. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    6. Brown, Greg, 2013. "The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 58-68.
    7. Shoyama, Kikuko & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2016. "Local perception of ecosystem service bundles in the Kushiro watershed, Northern Japan – Application of a public participation GIS tool," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 139-149.
    8. Sherrouse, Benson C. & Semmens, Darius J. & Ancona, Zachary H. & Brunner, Nicole M., 2017. "Analyzing land-use change scenarios for trade-offs among cultural ecosystem services in the Southern Rocky Mountains," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 431-444.
    9. García-Nieto, Ana P. & Quintas-Soriano, Cristina & García-Llorente, Marina & Palomo, Ignacio & Montes, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2015. "Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders׳ profiles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 141-152.
    10. Sherrouse, Benson C. & Semmens, Darius J., 2014. "Validating a method for transferring social values of ecosystem services between public lands in the Rocky Mountain region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 166-177.
    11. 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.
    12. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    15. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    16. Gould, Rachelle K. & Lincoln, Noa Kekuewa, 2017. "Expanding the suite of Cultural Ecosystem Services to include ingenuity, perspective, and life teaching," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 117-127.
    17. Wubante Fetene Admasu & Annelies Boerema & Jan Nyssen & Amare Sewnet Minale & Enyew Adgo Tsegaye & Steven Van Passel, 2020. "Uncovering Ecosystem Services of Expropriated Land: The Case of Urban Expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    18. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.
    19. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    20. 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.

    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:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3261-:d:354996. 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.