IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1499-d736135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a “City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Fan Koh

    (Humanities and Social Studies Education, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616, Singapore)

  • Ho Huu Loc

    (Water Engineering and Management, School of Engineering and Technology (SET), Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand
    Department of Environment Management, Faculty of Food and Environment Management, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh 70000, Vietnam)

  • Edward Park

    (Humanities and Social Studies Education, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 637616, Singapore
    Earth Observatory of Singapore (EOS), Asian School of the Environment (ASE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore)

Abstract

The concept of cultural ecosystem services has been increasingly influential in both environmental research and policy decision making, such as for urban green spaces. However, its popular definitions tend to conflate “services” with “benefits”, making it challenging for planners to employ them directly to manage urban green spaces. Thus, attempts have been made to redefine cultural ecosystem services as the function of cultural activities in environmental spaces which result in people’s enjoyment of cultural ecosystem benefits. The operability of such a redefinition needs to be evaluated, which this study seeks to achieve with Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park in Singapore presenting itself as a prime case study research area. Transdisciplinary mixed methods of a public participation geographic information system, which leverages on spatial data from public park users, and social media text mining analysis via Google reviews were used. A wealth of cultural ecosystem services and benefits were reported in the park, especially the recreational and aesthetic services and experiential benefits. Policy and methodological implications for future research and urban park developments were considered. Overall, this paper would recommend the employment of the redefined cultural ecosystem services approach to generate relational, data-driven and actionable insights to better support future urban green space management.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Fan Koh & Ho Huu Loc & Edward Park, 2022. "Towards a “City in Nature”: Evaluating the Cultural Ecosystem Services Approach Using Online Public Participation GIS to Support Urban Green Space Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1499-:d:736135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1499/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1499/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Jie Ying Yee & Ho Huu Loc & Yi Le Poh & Tan Vo-Thanh & Edward Park, 2021. "Socio-geographical evaluation of ecosystem services in an ecotourism destination: PGIS application in Tram Chim National Park, Vietnam," Post-Print hal-03403865, HAL.
    3. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    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. Ruxing Wang & Yechen Zhang & Hongmei Zhang & Hu Yu, 2022. "Social Value Assessment and Spatial Expression of National Park Ecosystems Based on Residents’ Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Wenbin Luo & Mingming Su, 2018. "A Spatial-Temporal Analysis of Urban Parkland Expansion in China and Practical Implications to Enhance Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Nguyet Anh Dang & Rubianca Benavidez & Stephanie Anne Tomscha & Ho Nguyen & Dung Duc Tran & Diep Thi Hong Nguyen & Ho Huu Loc & Bethanna Marie Jackson, 2021. "Ecosystem Service Modelling to Support Nature-Based Flood Water Management in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-28, December.
    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. Yilun Zhao & Yan Rong & Yiyi Liu & Tianshu Lin & Liangji Kong & Qinqin Dai & Runzi Wang, 2023. "Investigating Urban Flooding and Nutrient Export under Different Urban Development Scenarios in the Rouge River Watershed in Michigan, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Krzysztof Herman & Madalina Sbarcea & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2018. "Creating Green Space Sustainability through Low-Budget and Upcycling Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    8. 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).
    9. Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz & Jagienka Rześny-Cieplińska & Andrzej Jezierski, 2020. "Assessing Resources Management for Sharing Economy in Urban Logistics," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-30, September.
    10. Jiku Lee & Jinhyung Chon & Yujin Park & Junga Lee, 2023. "The Perceptions and Use of Urban Neighborhood Parks Since the Outbreak of COVID-19: A Case Study in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Pragya Pradhan & Trang Thi Huyen Pham & Sangam Shrestha & Ho Huu Loc & Edward Park, 2022. "Projecting the impact of human activities and climate change on water resources in the transboundary Sre Pok River Basin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Ghasemi, Mitra & Charrahy, Zabih & González-García, Alberto, 2023. "Mapping cultural ecosystem services provision: An integrated model of recreation and ecotourism opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    13. Xiaotao Huang & Yongsheng Yang & Chunbo Chen & Hongfei Zhao & Buqing Yao & Zhen Ma & Li Ma & Huakun Zhou, 2022. "Quantifying and Mapping Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity in Qinghai Grasslands in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Viniece Jennings & Omoshalewa Bamkole, 2019. "The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Bohuslav Binka & Martin Čech & Jan Činčera, 2022. "The Oasis of Peace? Social Perception of Urban Parks from the City-Dwellers’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-15, September.
    17. Xin Cheng, 2023. "A Review of Empirical Studies of Cultural Ecosystem Services in National Parks: Current Status and Future Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, October.
    18. Jisoo Sim & Patrick Miller, 2019. "Understanding an Urban Park through Big Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-16, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Peichao Dai & Shaoliang Zhang & Zanxu Chen & Yunlong Gong & Huping Hou, 2019. "Perceptions of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks Based on Social Network Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-14, September.

    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:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1499-:d:736135. 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.