IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i9p1772-d1238722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges and Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementing Ecological Designs in Green Public Spaces: A Case Study of Hue City, Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Ignatieva

    (School of Design, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia)

  • Duy Khiem Tran

    (School of Design, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia)

  • Rosangela Tenorio

    (School of Design, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia)

Abstract

In recent years, ecological design has emerged as an innovative approach for landscape designs to address urban environmental issues such as biodiversity protection and the promotion of ecosystem services. However, in developing countries like Vietnam, an ecological approach is still in its early stages and requires more research and practical application. This study aims to explore stakeholder perspectives and identify suitable ecological landscape approaches through semi-structured interviews based on designed images. The findings reveal various challenges to implementing ecological designs in the public green spaces of Hue City, such as the prioritisation of short-term goals over ecosystem services, solely focusing on increasing green per capita, the lack of market interest, and the lack of motivation among different departments responsible for the design and management of public green spaces. In addition, the study also finds that stakeholders are willing to accept a hybrid ecological landscape approach in combination with ‘cues to care’ landscapes, such as buffer zones of well-managed vegetation or regularly cut lawns. Results highlight the necessity of prioritising ecosystem services in decision-making, policy, and planning development concerning urban green spaces in Vietnamese cities. In addition, education and awareness campaigns are needed for the public and stakeholders to increase acceptance of ecological design.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:9:p:1772-:d:1238722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/9/1772/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/9/1772/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Ignatieva & Dagmar Haase & Diana Dushkova & Annegret Haase, 2020. "Lawns in Cities: From a Globalised Urban Green Space Phenomenon to Sustainable Nature-Based Solutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-27, March.
    2. Virginia Harris & Dave Kendal & Amy K. Hahs & Caragh G. Threlfall, 2018. "Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 150-162, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Zuzana Drillet & Tze Kwan Fung & Rachel Ai Ting Leong & Uma Sachidhanandam & Peter Edwards & Daniel Richards, 2020. "Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    5. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    10. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    11. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Aggelos Tsaligopoulos & Stella Kyvelou & Nefta-Eleftheria Votsi & Aimilia Karapostoli & Chris Economou & Yiannis G. Matsinos, 2021. "Revisiting the Concept of Quietness in the Urban Environment—Towards Ecosystems’ Health and Human Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Jonas Smit Andersen & Sara Maria Lerer & Antje Backhaus & Marina Bergen Jensen & Hjalte Jomo Danielsen Sørup, 2017. "Characteristic Rain Events: A Methodology for Improving the Amenity Value of Stormwater Control Measures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, October.
    15. Jeroen Degerickx & Martin Hermy & Ben Somers, 2020. "Mapping Functional Urban Green Types Using High Resolution Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, March.
    16. Jacqueline Theis & Christopher K. Woolley & Philip J. Seddon & Danielle F. Shanahan & Claire Freeman & Maibritt Pedersen Zari & Yolanda van Heezik, 2025. "The New Zealand Biodiversity Factor—Residential (NZBF-R): A Tool to Rapidly Score the Relative Biodiversity Value of Urban Residential Developments," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-32, March.
    17. Holt, Alison R. & Mears, Meghann & Maltby, Lorraine & Warren, Philip, 2015. "Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-46.
    18. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    19. Qindong Fan & Xiaoyu Yang & Chenming Zhang, 2022. "A Review of Ecosystem Services Research Focusing on China against the Background of Urbanization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Célestin Adeito Mavunda & Madjouma Kanda & Fousséni Folega & Demirel Maza-esso Bawa & Bilouktime Badjare & John Katembo Mukirania & Marra Dourma & Koffi Akpagana, 2023. "Kinshasa Province (Democratic Republic of Congo): Typology of Peri-Urban Ecosystems Providing Edible Insects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-19, August.

    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:12:y:2023:i:9:p:1772-:d:1238722. 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.