IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p154-d492501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Jörg Priess

    (Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Luis Valença Pinto

    (CERNAS, Agrarian Technical School, 3045-601 Coimbra, Portugal
    Environmental Management Laboratory, Mykolas Romeris University, 08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Ieva Misiune

    (Environmental Management Laboratory, Mykolas Romeris University, 08303 Vilnius, Lithuania)

  • Julia Palliwoda

    (Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

The majority of Europeans live in cities, where parks as components of Urban Green Spaces (UGSs) play an important role in well-being and the provision of ecosystem services (ES). UGSs are especially relevant for the implementation of the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals “Good health and wellbeing” (Goal 3) and “Sustainable cities and communities” (Goal 11). This study focused on ES use and users’ motives, which were surveyed during visits at central parks in the cities Leipzig, Coimbra and Vilnius. Park visitors used 17 different ES, dominated by physical interactions such as walking or biking, followed by experiential and aesthetical ES and ES linked to social relations. Age of visitors, cultural setting and distance to homes influenced ES use in the parks differently in each city, limiting the transferability of park—user behaviour or motivations across different spatial and cultural contexts. Results also indicate that aligning sustainability objectives and usability, good accessibility of urban parks plays a central role and encourages the use of non-motorized or public transport for park visits. Concrete information about UGS user motivation and behaviour generated in this and similar studies contributes to convert the UN Agenda 2030 strategies at the municipal level into sustainability and user-oriented design and management of UGS.

Suggested Citation

  • Jörg Priess & Luis Valença Pinto & Ieva Misiune & Julia Palliwoda, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:154-:d:492501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/154/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/154/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Xiaohu Zhang & Scott Melbourne & Chinmoy Sarkar & Alain Chiaradia & Chris Webster, 2020. "Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3402-3420, December.
    3. Cortinovis, Chiara & Geneletti, Davide, 2019. "A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Jackie Parker & Greg D. Simpson, 2020. "A Theoretical Framework for Bolstering Human-Nature Connections and Urban Resilience via Green Infrastructure," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, July.
    5. McPhearson, Timon & Andersson, Erik & Elmqvist, Thomas & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 152-156.
    6. Campbell, Lindsay K. & Svendsen, Erika S. & Sonti, Nancy F. & Johnson, Michelle L., 2016. "A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 34-44.
    7. Kaczynski, A.T. & Potwarka, L.R. & Saelens P, B.E., 2008. "Association of park size, distance, and features with physical activity in neighborhood parks," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(8), pages 1451-1456.
    8. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J., 2020. "The self-(in)sufficiency of the Caribbean: Ecosystem services potential Index (ESPI) as a measure for sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    11. 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 Jag, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    12. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    13. Johan Colding & Åsa Gren & Stephan Barthel, 2020. "The Incremental Demise of Urban Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.
    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. Jun Li & Melasutra Md. Dali & Nikmatul Adha Nordin, 2023. "Connectedness among Urban Parks from the Users’ Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Gabriele Zabelskyte & Nadja Kabisch & Zaneta Stasiskiene, 2022. "Patterns of Urban Green Space Use Applying Social Media Data: A Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Zhiqiao Li & Qin Liu & Yuxin Zhang & Kun Yan & Yangyang Yan & Pei Xu, 2022. "Characteristics of Urban Parks in Chengdu and Their Relation to Public Behaviour and Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Richard Smardon, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-10, October.

    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. 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).
    2. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2021. "Urban Ecosystem Services: New Findings for Landscape Architects, Urban Planners, and Policymakers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-5, January.
    3. Kathryn Rodgman, Mary & Anguelovski, Isabelle & Pérez-del-Pulgar, Carmen & Shokry, Galia & Garcia-Lamarca, Melissa & Connolly, James J.T. & Baró, Francesc & Triguero-Mas, Margarita, 2024. "Perceived urban ecosystem services and disservices in gentrifying neighborhoods: Contrasting views between community members and state informants," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Yongchi Ma & Yong Jiang, 2023. "Mainstreaming the framework of ecosystem services to enhance China's policy implementation for sponge city development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 2291-2306, August.
    5. Nazmul Haque, Md. & Sharifi, Ayyoob, 2024. "Justice in access to urban ecosystem services: A critical review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Francesca Vignoli & Claudia de Luca & Simona Tondelli, 2021. "A Spatial Ecosystem Services Assessment to Support Decision and Policy Making: The Case of the City of Bologna," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    9. Dongwoo Lee & Kyushik Oh & Jungeun Suh, 2022. "Diagnosis and Prioritization of Vulnerable Areas of Urban Ecosystem Regulation Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, October.
    10. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2021. "Applying the Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Landscape Architecture Design: Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, June.
    11. 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).
    12. Gallez, Elsa & Canters, Frank & Gadeyne, Sylvie & Baró, Francesc, 2024. "A multi-indicator distributive justice approach to assess school-related green infrastructure benefits in Brussels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    13. Heather L Reynolds & Leslie Brandt & Burnell C Fischer & Brady S Hardiman & Donovan J Moxley & Eric Sandweiss & James H Speer & Songlin Fei, 2020. "Implications of climate change for managing urban green infrastructure: an Indiana, US case study," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 1967-1984, December.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Ramos, Alya & Jujnovsky, Julieta & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía, 2018. "The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 85-95.
    17. Weixuan Wei & Yiqi Wang & Qi Yan & Guanpeng Liu & Nannan Dong, 2024. "Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-33, November.
    18. Xinghua Feng & Chunliang Xiu & Jianxin Li & Yexi Zhong, 2021. "Measuring the Evolution of Urban Resilience Based on the Exposure–Connectedness–Potential (ECP) Approach: A Case Study of Shenyang City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    19. Calderón-Contreras, Rafael & Quiroz-Rosas, Laura Elisa, 2017. "Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: A case from Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 127-137.
    20. 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.

    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:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:154-:d:492501. 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.