IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i13p3620-d244764.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area

Author

Listed:
  • Irina Iulia Năstase

    (Faculty of Geography, Doctoral School Simion Mehedinți, University of Bucharest, Bd. N. Bălcescu, no.1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Ileana Pătru-Stupariu

    (Institute of Research of the University of Bucharest, ICUB; Transdisciplinary Research Centre Landscape-Territory-Information Systems, CELTIS, 050095 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Felix Kienast

    (Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland)

Abstract

Green infrastructure plays an important role in recreation and human well-being, especially in urban and peri-urban areas. Our study aimed to evaluate and map the recreational potential of an urban area (Brașov, Romania) using two data sets: (a) people’s preferred landscape features and (b) preferred locations where outdoor activities and recreation take place. The latter was gathered through participatory mapping techniques. For each location, we computed explanatory variables, e.g., the distance to 19 landscape elements known to be important for recreation. Based on (b), we determined the recreational activity profiles for each participant and evaluated how well these profiles matched the participant’s preferences for landscape features (dataset a). Finally, recreational potential was mapped by computing a recreational index using dataset b. Two preference profiles (P1: urban, infrastructure-oriented; P2: nature-oriented) were identified based on people’s preferred landscape features, and three recreational activity profiles were identified based on the preferred locations, i.e., an “urban”, a “nature”, and an “ubiquist” type. The importance of green infrastructures for recreation in both preference profiles was striking. Many persons belonging to the urban and infrastructure-oriented group indicated that they recreate in locations with a high amount of green infrastructure and nature. The map of the recreational potential shows hotspots for recreation but also areas lacking recreational provisions, giving useful insight for future urban planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Irina Iulia Năstase & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Felix Kienast, 2019. "Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:13:p:3620-:d:244764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3620/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/13/3620/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van den Berg, Agnes E. & Maas, Jolanda & Verheij, Robert A. & Groenewegen, Peter P., 2010. "Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1203-1210, April.
    2. Hermes, Johannes & Van Berkel, Derek & Burkhard, Benjamin & Plieninger, Tobias & Fagerholm, Nora & von Haaren, Christina & Albert, Christian, 2018. "Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 289-295.
    3. Lynne C. Manzo & Rachel G. Kleit & Dawn Couch, 2008. "“Moving Three Times Is Like Having Your House on Fire Once†: The Experience of Place and Impending Displacement among Public Housing Residents," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(9), pages 1855-1878, August.
    4. Jackie Parker & Maria Elena Zingoni de Baro, 2019. "Green Infrastructure in the Urban Environment: A Systematic Quantitative Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Cheng, Chia-Kuen & Kuo, Huei-Yu, 2015. "Bonding to a new place never visited: Exploring the relationship between landscape elements and place bonding," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 546-560.
    6. DE VALCK, Jeremy & BROEKX, Steven & LIEKENS, Inge & DE NOCKER, Leo & VAN ORSHOVEN, Jos & VRANKEN, Liesbet, 2015. "Contrasting the collective social value of outdoor recreation and the substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping," Working Papers 208359, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Japelj, Anže & Mavsar, Robert & Hodges, Donald & Kovač, Marko & Juvančič, Luka, 2016. "Latent preferences of residents regarding an urban forest recreation setting in Ljubljana, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 71-79.
    8. 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.
    9. Stålhammar, Sanna & Pedersen, Eja, 2017. "Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 1-9.
    10. Termansen, Mette & McClean, Colin J. & Jensen, Frank Søndergaard, 2013. "Modelling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 48-57.
    11. Davies, Clive & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2017. "Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 93-101.
    12. Raheleh Rostami & Hasanuddin Lamit & Seyed Meysam Khoshnava & Rasoul Rostami & Muhamad Solehin Fitry Rosley, 2015. "Sustainable Cities and the Contribution of Historical Urban Green Spaces: A Case Study of Historical Persian Gardens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-27, September.
    13. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    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. Xueling Zhang & Ruoxuan Huang & Yixuan Yang, 2022. "On the Landscape Activity Measure Coupling Ecological Index and Public Vitality Index of UGI: The Case Study of Zhongshan, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-32, October.
    2. Zhanqiang Zhu & Wei Lang & Xiaofang Tao & Jiali Feng & Kai Liu, 2019. "Exploring the Quality of Urban Green Spaces Based on Urban Neighborhood Green Index—A Case Study of Guangzhou City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Fuer Ning & Sheng-Jung Ou, 2021. "Analyzing Residents’ Landscape Preferences after Changes of Landscape Characteristics: A Qualitative Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Jing Wu & Xirui Chen & Shulin Chen, 2019. "Temporal Characteristics of Waterfronts in Wuhan City and People’s Behavioral Preferences Based on Social Media Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-37, November.

    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. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    2. José C. Ferreira & Renato Monteiro & Vasco R. Silva, 2021. "Planning a Green Infrastructure Network from Theory to Practice: The Case Study of Setúbal, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Zhengxin Ji & Yueqing Xu & Hejie Wei, 2020. "Identifying Dynamic Changes in Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand for Urban Sustainability: Insights from a Rapidly Urbanizing City in Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, April.
    4. Qunyue Liu & Weicong Fu & Cecil C. Konijnendijk Van den Bosch & Yiheng Xiao & Zhipeng Zhu & Da You & Nanyan Zhu & Qitang Huang & Siren Lan, 2018. "Do Local Landscape Elements Enhance Individuals’ Place Attachment to New Environments? A Cross-Regional Comparative Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Hee Jeong Yun & Dong Jin Kang & Dong-Kap Kim & Youngeun Kang, 2019. "A GIS-Assisted Assessment and Attribute-Based Clustering of Forest Wetland Utility in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Huamei Shao & Gunwoo Kim & Qing Li & Galen Newman, 2021. "Web of Science-Based Green Infrastructure: A Bibliometric Analysis in CiteSpace," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Zhifang Wang & Yuqing Jian & Zhibin Huang & Salman Qureshi & Kexin Cheng & Zhuhui Bai & Qingwen Zhang, 2023. "Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Chowdhury, Koushik & Behera, Bhagirath, 2021. "Traditional water bodies and cultural ecosystem services: Experiences from rural West Bengal, India," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    11. Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & María F. Schmitz, 2021. "Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe & Helen Susannah Moat & Tobias Preis, 2018. "Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 45(3), pages 567-582, May.
    14. Karasov, Oleksandr & Heremans, Stien & Külvik, Mart & Domnich, Artem & Burdun, Iuliia & Kull, Ain & Helm, Aveliina & Uuemaa, Evelyn, 2022. "Beyond land cover: How integrated remote sensing and social media data analysis facilitates assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    15. Fuer Ning & Sheng-Jung Ou, 2021. "Analyzing Residents’ Landscape Preferences after Changes of Landscape Characteristics: A Qualitative Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, October.
    16. Methorst, Joel & Rehdanz, Katrin & Mueller, Thomas & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Bonn, Aletta & Böhning-Gaese, Katrin, 2021. "The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Zhang, Yingjie & Zhang, Tianzheng & Zeng, Yingxiang & Cheng, Baodong & Li, Hongxun, 2021. "Designating National Forest Cities in China: Does the policy improve the urban living environment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    18. Conway, Tenley M. & Khan, Aliza & Esak, Nasra, 2020. "An analysis of green infrastructure in municipal policy: Divergent meaning and terminology in the Greater Toronto Area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Kay Fretwell & Alison Greig, 2019. "Towards a Better Understanding of the Relationship between Individual’s Self-Reported Connection to Nature, Personal Well-Being and Environmental Awareness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, March.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:13:p:3620-:d:244764. 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.