IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i2p299-d750479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Role of Urban Green Infrastructure in Providing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being

Author

Listed:
  • Mojca Nastran

    (Department for Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Večna Pot 83, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Marina Pintar

    (Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Špela Železnikar

    (Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Rozalija Cvejić

    (Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

The perception of linkages between ecosystem services (ES) and the urban green infrastructure (UGI) is evaluated, and their impact on human well-being (WB) is defined. Using a theoretical approach, the UGI’s specific contribution to WB is calculated as the sum of the products of (a) the number of perceived ES per ES group and the WB weight factor divided by the product of (b) the number of respondents and (c) the sum of the products of ES and the WB weight factor. Stakeholders demand more ES than the perceived ES supply from all types of UGI, especially for the social relations component of WB. The highest number of perceived ES and greatest impact on all WB components is provided by urban forests. This method could be helpful in acknowledging ES and involving stakeholders not previously familiar with the ES concept with the aim of introducing ES into UGI governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Mojca Nastran & Marina Pintar & Špela Železnikar & Rozalija Cvejić, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Role of Urban Green Infrastructure in Providing Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:299-:d:750479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/299/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/299/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anđelina Svirčić Gotovac & Boštjan Kerbler, 2019. "From Post-Socialist to Sustainable: The City of Ljubljana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Larondelle, Neele & Lauf, Steffen, 2016. "Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem services on different spatial scales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 18-31.
    3. Langemeyer, Johannes & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Scheuer, Sebastian & Elmqvist, Thomas, 2016. "Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 45-56.
    4. Hansen, Rieke & Frantzeskaki, Niki & McPhearson, Timon & Rall, Emily & Kabisch, Nadja & Kaczorowska, Anna & Kain, Jaan-Henrik & Artmann, Martina & Pauleit, Stephan, 2015. "The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 228-246.
    5. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    6. Mascarenhas, André & Ramos, Tomás B. & Haase, Dagmar & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 87-99.
    7. Juanita, Aldana-Domínguez & Ignacio, Palomo & Jorgelina, Gutiérrez-Angonese & Cecilia, Arnaiz-Schmitz & Carlos, Montes & Francisco, Narvaez, 2019. "Assessing the effects of past and future land cover changes in ecosystem services, disservices and biodiversity: A case study in Barranquilla Metropolitan Area (BMA), Colombia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Kir Kuščer & Tanja Mihalič, 2019. "Residents’ Attitudes towards Overtourism from the Perspective of Tourism Impacts and Cooperation—The Case of Ljubljana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Zwierzchowska, Iwona & Fagiewicz, Katarzyna & Poniży, Lidia & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2019. "Introducing nature-based solutions into urban policy – facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 161-175.
    10. Nastran, Mojca & Regina, Helena, 2016. "Advancing urban ecosystem governance in Ljubljana," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 123-126.
    11. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Andersson, Erik & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar & Tuvendal, Magnus & Wurster, Daniel, 2015. "Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service providing units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 157-164.
    14. 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.
    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. Mara Ottoboni & Salvatore Eugenio Pappalardo & Massimo De Marchi & Fabrizio Ungaro, 2023. "Characterization and Mapping of Public and Private Green Areas in the Municipality of Forlì (NE Italy) Using High-Resolution Images," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Mariana Oliveira & Remo Santagata & Serena Kaiser & Yanxin Liu & Chiara Vassillo & Patrizia Ghisellini & Gengyuan Liu & Sergio Ulgiati, 2022. "Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits of Expanding Urban Green Areas: A Joint Application of i-Tree and LCA Approaches," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Adéla Brázdová & Jiří Kupka, 2023. "The Objectivization of the Living Green Walls Concept as a Tool for Urban Greening (Case Study: LIKO-S a.s., Slavkov u Brna, Czech Republic)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Hoai-Anh Nguyen Dang & Rupert Legg & Aila Khan & Sara Wilkinson & Nicole Ibbett & Anh-Tuan Doan, 2023. "Users’ Perceptions of the Contribution of a University Green Roof to Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-11, April.
    6. Maria Ignatieva & Duy Khiem Tran & Rosangela Tenorio, 2023. "Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    7. Tingting Zhang & Dan He & Tian Kuang & Ke Chen, 2022. "Effect of Rural Human Settlement Environment around Nature Reserves on Farmers’ Well-Being: A Field Survey Based on 1002 Farmer Households around Six Nature Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Emilia Janeczko & Jan Banaś & Małgorzata Woźnicka & Stanisław Zięba & Katarzyna Utnik Banaś & Krzysztof Janeczko & Jitka Fialova, 2023. "Sociocultural Profile as a Predictor of Perceived Importance of Forest Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Zheng Zang & Yuqing Zhang & Xu Xi, 2022. "Analysis of the Gross Ecosystem Product—Gross Domestic Product Synergistic States, Evolutionary Process, and Their Regional Contribution to the Chinese Mainland," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-14, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Linrun Qiu & Yuxiang Dong & Hai Liu, 2022. "Integrating Ecosystem Services into Planning Practice: Situation, Challenges and Inspirations," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Rémi Jaligot & Jérôme Chenal, 2019. "Integration of Ecosystem Services in Regional Spatial Plans in Western Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Bojie Wang & Haiping Tang & Qin Zhang & Fengqi Cui, 2020. "Exploring Connections among Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Human Well-Being in a Mountain-Basin System, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà , N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    7. Johnson, Daniel & Geisendorf, Sylvie, 2019. "Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of the Economic Value of Sustainable Urban Drainage System Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit Analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 194-205.
    8. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    10. Nina Schwarz & Annegret Haase & Dagmar Haase & Nadja Kabisch & Sigrun Kabisch & Veronika Liebelt & Dieter Rink & Michael W. Strohbach & Juliane Welz & Manuel Wolff, 2021. "How Are Urban Green Spaces and Residential Development Related? A Synopsis of Multi-Perspective Analyses for Leipzig, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Khoshkar, Sara & Hammer, Monica & Borgström, Sara & Dinnétz, Patrik & Balfors, Berit, 2020. "Moving from vision to action- integrating ecosystem services in the Swedish local planning context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Aitziber Egusquiza & Maider Arana-Bollar & Amaia Sopelana & Javier Babí Almenar, 2021. "Conceptual and Operational Integration of Governance, Financing, and Business Models for Urban Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-28, October.
    13. Qinqin Shi & Hai Chen & Di Liu & Tianwei Geng & Hang Zhang, 2022. "Identifying the Spatial Imbalance in the Supply and Demand of Cultural Ecosystem Services," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-20, May.
    14. Schetke, Sophie & Lee, Heera & Graf, Wanda & Lautenbach, Sven, 2018. "Application of the ecosystem service concept for climate protection in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 294-305.
    15. Venter, Zander S. & Barton, David N. & Martinez-Izquierdo, Laura & Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & McPhearson, Timon, 2021. "Interactive spatial planning of urban green infrastructure – Retrofitting green roofs where ecosystem services are most needed in Oslo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Charlène Kermagoret & Jérôme Dupras, 2018. "Coupling spatial analysis and economic valuation of ecosystem services to inform the management of an UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & H, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    18. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    19. Agathe Colléony & Assaf Shwartz, 2019. "Beyond Assuming Co-Benefits in Nature-Based Solutions: A Human-Centered Approach to Optimize Social and Ecological Outcomes for Advancing Sustainable Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Giulia Capotorti & Eva Del Vico & Ilaria Anzellotti & Laura Celesti-Grapow, 2016. "Combining the Conservation of Biodiversity with the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Urban Green Infrastructure Planning: Critical Features Arising from a Case Study in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, December.

    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:11:y:2022:i:2:p:299-:d:750479. 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.