IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i5p692-d96966.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    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. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    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. 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.
    9. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    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. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Donatella Valente & María Victoria Marinelli & Erica Maria Lovello & Cosimo Gaspare Giannuzzi & Irene Petrosillo, 2022. "Fostering the Resiliency of Urban Landscape through the Sustainable Spatial Planning of Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    16. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    18. J. Amy Belaire & Heather Bass & Heather Venhaus & Keri Barfield & Tim Pannkuk & Katherine Lieberknecht & Shalene Jha, 2023. "High-Performance Landscapes: Re-Thinking Design and Management Choices to Enhance Ecological Benefits in Urban Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, August.
    19. Ou Deng & Yiqiu Li & Ruoshuang Li & Guangbin Yang, 2022. "Estimation of Forest Ecosystem Climate Regulation Service Based on Actual Evapotranspiration of New Urban Areas in Guanshanhu District, Guiyang, Guizhou Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.

    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 (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.