Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Chair of Strategic Landscape Planning and Management, Technische Universität München, Emil-Ramann-Straße 6, 85354 Freising, Germany;2. Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Hohenheim 1C, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany;3. Chair of Terrestrial Ecology, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technische Universität München, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany;4. Institute of Geography, Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;5. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany;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. Department Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Italy;2. Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Opole University of Technology, Poland;3. Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany;4. Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Chile;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. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2b, SE-114 19 Stockholm, Sweden;2. Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, 66 West 12th Street, New York, NY 10011, USA;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. Conservação Internacional Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil;2. Coordenação Geral de Pesquisa e Monitoramento, Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, Brasília, DF, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | The dearth of socio-perceptual information on urban green spaces is not only limiting for ecosystem service research, but also for effective planning and management of these spaces. Previous studies have assessed perceived CES at single urban parks or across wider spans in rural areas but citywide coverage is missing. This paper explores perceptions of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and various uses of urban green spaces in the case study city of Berlin in relation to the values people place on these CES. Results indicate spatial differentiation of CES across an urban-rural gradient whereby: (1) the density of CES perceived decreased from the inner to the outer edges of the city and (2) recreational, social and cultural heritage and identity services were concentrated more heavily in the inner-city, while perceived biodiversity and spiritual, inspirational, and nature experience and educational services exhibited a more scattered pattern. We also uncovered two distinct clusters of CES—one that is more recreation and social-based and one that is more immaterial and nature-based. CES and their associated uses demonstrated complex relationships that should be explored in further research, though the study indicates that recreation as an indicator is too coarse for assessments at this level. Further research could more pointedly elaborate the potential of such mapping for planning, design and management. |
| |
| Keywords: | Cultural ecosystem services Green space use Soft GIS Perceptions Berlin Generalized linear model |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
