IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i12p502-d458628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In the Search of an Assessment Method for Urban Landscape Objects (ULOs): Tangible and Intangible Values, Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS), and Ranking Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz

    (Department of Hydrobiology and Ecosystems Protections, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Dobrzańskiego 37, 20-262 Lublin, Poland)

  • Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek

    (Department of Grassland and Landscape Shaping, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, u. Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland)

  • Dawid Soszyński

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Konstantynów 1H, 20-708 Lublin, Poland)

  • Agnieszka Kułak

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Konstantynów 1H, 20-708 Lublin, Poland)

Abstract

The effective assessment of urban space must link subjective and objective approaches. The main aim of the paper was to develop and test such a method of assessment in relation to one of the elements of the urban landscape called urban landscape objects (ULOs). The tested method fulfils the following requirements: (1) merges social and expert opinions, (2) analyzes diverse characteristics of urban space, (3) quantitatively presents the results of values assessments, and (4) features the simplicity of structure and ease of public understanding. The method was tested in relation to 34 ULOs located in three different functional sites within Lublin city (Poland). The result enables authors to answer three research questions: (1) How do people perceive ULOs located in different sites? (2) What kinds of tangible values possess different ULOs and how can they be expressed? (3) How can intangible and tangible values be merged? The general finding of the study showed that the Old Town features the highest ranked position in terms of all the values (mean aggregation index (A) ULOs = 0.64), together with the higher share of the most appreciated ULOs, whereas the Lagoon features the lowest ranked position (mean AULOs = 0.35), also statistically comparable with the Campus (mean AULOs = 0.45).

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek & Dawid Soszyński & Agnieszka Kułak, 2020. "In the Search of an Assessment Method for Urban Landscape Objects (ULOs): Tangible and Intangible Values, Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS), and Ranking Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:12:p:502-:d:458628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/12/502/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/12/502/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edyta Bąkowska-Waldmann & Tomasz Kaczmarek, 2019. "The Use of Geo-Questionnaire in Spatial Planning: Experience From Poland," International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), IGI Global, vol. 8(2), pages 45-67, April.
    2. Ahmadreza Shirvani Dastgerdi & Giuseppe De Luca, 2019. "Joining Historic Cities to the Global World: Feasibility or Fantasy?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, May.
    3. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    4. Maraja Riechers & Micha Strack & Jan Barkmann & Teja Tscharntke, 2019. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Urban Green Change along an Urban-Periurban Gradient," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-10, January.
    5. Erda Wang & Nannan Kang & Yang Yu, 2017. "Valuing Urban Landscape Using Subjective Well-Being Data: Empirical Evidence from Dalian, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    6. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    7. Dou, Yuehan & Zhen, Lin & De Groot, Rudolf & Du, Bingzhen & Yu, Xiubo, 2017. "Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 79-90.
    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. Dennis, Matthew & James, Philip, 2017. "Ecosystem services of collectively managed urban gardens: Exploring factors affecting synergies and trade-offs at the site level," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 17-26.
    2. Berglihn, Elisabeth Cornelia & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2021. "Ecosystem services from urban forests: The case of Oslomarka, Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    3. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Chen, Wendy Y. & Hua, Junyi, 2017. "Heterogeneity in resident perceptions of a bio-cultural heritage in Hong Kong: A latent class factor analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 170-179.
    5. 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.
    6. Haiyun Xu & Guohan Zhao, 2021. "Assessing the Value of Urban Green Infrastructure Ecosystem Services for High-Density Urban Management and Development: Case from the Capital Core Area of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Daria Sikorska & Piotr Sikorski & Richard James Hopkins, 2017. "High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Tapio Riepponen & Mikko Moilanen & Jaakko Simonen, 2023. "Themes of resilience in the economics literature: A topic modeling approach," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 326-356, April.
    10. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Siân de Bell & Hilary Graham & Piran C. L. White, 2020. "Evaluating Dual Ecological and Well-Being Benefits from an Urban Restoration Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-28, January.
    12. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    13. Li-Pei Peng & Wei-Ming Wang, 2020. "Hybrid Decision-Making Evaluation for Future Scenarios of Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-20, August.
    14. 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).
    15. Yangang Xing & Phil Jones & Iain Donnison, 2017. "Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, January.
    16. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    17. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. Sirakaya, Aysegül & Cliquet, An & Harris, Jim, 2018. "Ecosystem services in cities: Towards the international legal protection of ecosystem services in urban environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 205-212.
    20. Zengzeng Fan & Yuanyang Wang & Yanchao Feng, 2021. "Ecological Livability Assessment of Urban Agglomerations in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-16, 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:9:y:2020:i:12:p:502-:d:458628. 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.