IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i5p692-d96966.html

A Preliminary Study on Connectivity and Perceived Values of Community Green Spaces

Author

Listed:
  • Sohyun Park

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Texas Tech University, 2907 15th Street, Lubbock, TX 79409-2121, USA)

Abstract

Green spaces in residential communities are important yet understudied features of the urban ecological system. While large urban parks and remnant wildlands in urban areas tend to receive public attention from conservation and management perspectives, less is known about the importance of spatial and ecological characteristics of the community-scale green space. This study investigates natural elements in four planned communities in the Phoenix metropolitan area, Arizona; two of which represent conventional types of neighborhoods and two which exemplify community development type with a proclaimed vision of sustainability. These distinct types of communities, which illustrate variations in age, location, open space type, and a cross-section of housing density, are compared with regard to landscape connectivity as a means of gauging the ecological condition for community sustainability. Using Geographical Information Systems and landscape connectivity indices, a community’s green space features were examined including size, physical connectedness, and ecological potential. Furthermore, a questionnaire survey was designed and implemented to examine the perceptional differences between the two types of community residents. The findings demonstrate that the green spaces in conventional communities are more physically connected than their counterparts, but the naturalness and ecological qualities manifested in the amount of the land that may serve as potential urban desert habitats were higher in the sustainable communities. The results of the survey indicated that the respondents inhabiting sustainable communities possess a higher level of satisfaction than the people in conventional types of communities. This is due mainly to the amount of easy access to, and the perceived ecological values of the green spaces in their neighborhoods and surrounding areas. The study concludes that careful community design with ecological consideration can help create sustainable communities which can benefit both site-scale ecosystems and perceived human well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Sohyun Park, 2017. "A Preliminary Study on Connectivity and Perceived Values of Community Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:5:p:692-:d:96966
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/692/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/692/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joachim Michael Espina & Suguru Mori & Rie Nomura, 2018. "An Analysis of Environment Behavior Relationships towards the Design of a Local Mixed-used Street: Based on Behavior Settings of Belgium Street in Cebu City, Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Yuping Dong & Helin Liu & Tianming Zheng, 2020. "Does the Connectivity of Urban Public Green Space Promote Its Use? An Empirical Study of Wuhan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Ning Xu & Yuning Cheng & Xiaodong Xu, 2018. "Using Location Quotients to Determine Public–Natural Space Spatial Patterns: A Zurich Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Jun Li & Melasutra Md. Dali & Nikmatul Adha Nordin, 2023. "Connectedness among Urban Parks from the Users’ Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Duy Thinh Do & Suguru Mori & Rie Nomura, 2018. "An Analysis of Relationship between the Environment and User’s Behavior on Unimproved Streets: A Case Study of Da Nang City, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Syed Amir Manzoor & Aisha Malik & Muhammad Zubair & Geoffrey Griffiths & Martin Lukac, 2019. "Linking Social Perception and Provision of Ecosystem Services in a Sprawling Urban Landscape: A Case Study of Multan, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Shiva Gharibi & Kamran Shayesteh, 2024. "Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(6), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Leon Yan-Feng Gaw & Alex Thiam Koon Yee & Daniel Rex Richards, 2019. "A High-Resolution Map of Singapore’s Terrestrial Ecosystems," Data, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-10, August.
    20. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:9:y:2017:i:5:p:692-:d:96966. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.