Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of tree-based green infrastructure: A focus group participatory mapping in Zagreb,Croatia |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department for International Scientific Cooperation in Southeast Europe – EFISEE, Croatian Forest Research Institute, Cvjetno naselje 41, 10450 Jastrebarsko, Croatia;2. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Rudower Chaussee 16, 12489 Berlin, Germany;3. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;1. School of Public Policy and Government, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Distrito Federal, Brasília, Brazil;2. University of Brasilia, School of Public Health, Distrito Federal, Brasília, Brazil;3. University of Brasilia, Geoscience Institute, Distrito Federal, Brasília, Brazil;4. University of Brasilia, Planaltina, Distrito Federal, Brasília, Brazil;5. University of Brasilia, Ceilândia, Distrito Federal, Brasília, Brazil;1. Faculty of Design and Environment, Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, 133 Shing Tai Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China;2. Landscape Division, Highways Department, Spectrum Tower, 53 Hung To Road, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China;3. Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section, Development Bureau, 2 Tim Mei Avenue, Tamar, Hong Kong, China;1. Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, 79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya, Yokohama, Kanagawa 240-8501, Japan;2. Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.;3. Department of Earth System Science, Faculty of Science, Fukuoka University, 8-19-1, Nanakuma, Jonan-ku, Fukuoka 814-0180, Japan;1. Key Laboratory of Wetland Ecology and Management, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agroecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun 130102, China;2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China;3. College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481, USA;4. Department of Human Resources Management, School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China;5. Environment and Resources College, Dalian Minzu University, Dalian 116600, China;1. Geography Department, Landscape Ecology Lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;2. Croatian Forest Research Institute, Division for International Scientific Cooperation in Southeast Europe, Cvjetno naselje 41, 10450 Jastrebarsko, Croatia;3. UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;4. UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Urban green infrastructure provides city dwellers numerous benefits. Among them, cultural ecosystem services (CES) are distinguished by being easily perceived and essential for people and their well-being. However, not all CES are equally easy to perceive, resulting with some of the CES categories being weakly explored. Research on CES also rarely considers elements of urban green infrastructure other than parks and forests. Therefore, there is a lack of research on different components of urban green infrastructure, especially tree-based, perceived in relation to CES. This paper presents the results of focus group participatory mapping implemented with citizens in the city districts of Zagreb on the perception of five selected CES categories in various types of urban green infrastructure. Our results show that participants perceived 13 different types of tree-based urban green infrastructure as providers of CES. We also distinguish patterns in the perception of CES categories and their connection with types of tree-based urban green infrastructure. Tree lines are perceived as providers of aesthetical experiences. Furthermore, forests and park forests are perceived in relation to place attachment and recreational activities, while parks are versatile and provide all explored CES. Other types that emerged as important were greenways, greenery around residential buildings and educational institutions, which provokes rethinking of a careful planning of the entire repertoire of urban green infrastructure. |
| |
| Keywords: | Aesthetics Correspondence analysis Cultural identity Educational services Place attachment Recreation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
