首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: A review of European studies
Institution:1. Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland;2. Alterra/Cultural Geography, Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;3. Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, BOKU ? University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Peter-Jordan-Straße 56, 1180 Vienna, Austria;4. Department of Landscape Architecture, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 56/3, 51014 Tartu, Estonia;5. UCD School of Geography, E004 Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland;6. School of Architecture, Tampere University of Technology, PO Box 527, 33101 Tampere, Finland;7. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;8. Department of Geography and Regional Studies, Alpen Adria University of Klagenfurt, Universitätsstrasse 65-67, 9020 Klagenfurt, Austria;1. Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, North 10 West 5, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0810, Japan;2. Tomakomai Research Station, Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Hokkaido University, Takaoka, Tomakomai, Hokkaido 053-0035, Japan;1. Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7016, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden;2. Natural Resources and Sustainable Development, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, 75 236 Uppsala, Sweden;3. Ricardo Energy & Environment, Gemini Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Didcot OX11 0QR, UK;4. Department of Forest Resources Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden;5. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7044, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden;6. Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden;7. School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 43, 739 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden;8. Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and the Built Environment, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden;9. Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden;1. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark;2. Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Museumsflügel Ost, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany;3. Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland;4. Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, United Kingdom;5. Department of Environmental Studies, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Calea Turzii No. 4, 400193 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;6. Department of Environmental Studies, Ursinus College, P.O. Box 1000, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA;7. Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco s/n, 28049 Madrid, Spain;8. Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University (UNU-INWEH), 175 Longwood Road, Hamilton, ON L8P 0A1, Canada;9. Barbara Hardy Institute and School of Commerce, University of South Australia, P.O. Box 190, Stirling, SA 5152, Australia;10. School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, United Kingdom;11. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, 130 Mulford Hall MC 3110, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA;1. Social and Economic Research Group, Centre for Ecosystems, Society and Biosecurity, Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey, GU10 4LH, United Kingdom;2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Department of Public Health, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium;3. Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, Forestry, Switzerland;4. Natural Resources Institute Finland, PL Box 18 01301, Vantaa, Finland;5. JP Parkovi i zelenilo, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia;6. Bartin University, Faculty of Forestry, Department of Forest Engineering, 74100 Bartin, Turkey;1. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain;2. Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm University, Sweden;3. Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Department of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, Portugal;4. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Oslo, Norway;1. Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada;2. Department of Wood Science, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada;3. B. A. Blackwell and Associates, Suite 270-18 Gostick Place, North Vancouver, BC V7 M 3G3, Canada
Abstract:Urban green infrastructure provides a number of cultural ecosystem services that are greatly appreciated by the public. In order to benefit from these services, actual contact with the respective ecosystem is often required. Furthermore, the type of services offered depend on the physical characteristics of the ecosystem. We conducted a review of publications dealing with demand or social factors such as user needs, preferences and values as well as spatially explicit supply or physical factors such as amount of green space, (bio)diversity, recreational infrastructure, etc. and linking demand and supply factors together. The aim was to provide an overview of this highly interdisciplinary research, to describe how these linkages are being made and to identify which factors significantly influence dependent variables such as levels of use, activities or health and well-being benefits. Commonly used methods were the combination of questionnaires with either on-site visual recording of elements or GIS data. Links between social and physical data were usually established either by using statistical tools or by overlaying different thematic maps. Compared to the large number of variables assessed in most studies, the significant effects in the end were relatively few, not consistent across the studies and largely dependent on the context they were seen in. Studies focused on aesthetic and recreational services, while spiritual, educational and inspirational services were not considered when creating links to spatially explicit ecological structures. We conclude that an improvement and harmonization of methodologies, cross-country studies and an expansion of this line of research to a wider range of services and more user groups could help clarify relationships and thereby increase applicability for urban management and planning.
Keywords:Factors influencing well-being benefits  Linkage of social and physical data  Spatially explicit  Urban forestry  Urban green space
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号