[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i11p1848-d1515001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai

Author

Listed:
  • Weixuan Wei

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
    Future Urban (Shanghai) Design Consulting Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Yiqi Wang

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Qi Yan

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Guanpeng Liu

    (School of Humanities, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
    Shanghai Yaoshun Architectural Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Nannan Dong

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

Abstract
Urban parks provide essential ecosystem services (ESs) that enhance human wellbeing. However, discrepancies often arise between objective assessments of these services and stakeholders’ subjective perceptions. This study addresses a research gap concerning the synergies and tradeoffs between objective evaluations and subjective perceptions of key ecosystem services across various spatial scales. We investigated six key ecosystem services in Century Park, Shanghai, across seven buffer radii (8–100 m). Objective data were obtained from park view images (PVIs) and spatial analysis, while subjective perceptions were gathered through a scoring survey of 33 stakeholders. The key finding is that a buffer radius of 35 m offers optimal synergy between objective and subjective assessments for most ESs, particularly in pollution mediation, temperature regulation, and cultural services. Professionals showed stronger alignment in regulatory services like pollution mediation and temperature regulation, while residents exhibited higher synergy in net primary production (NPP) beyond a 75 m radius. Notably, cultural services displayed nuanced differences, with professionals preferring simpler landscapes and residents demonstrating varied aesthetic preferences. These findings emphasize the importance of integrating objective data and human perceptions in urban green space planning and governance. By incorporating diverse stakeholders and identifying optimal buffer zones, planners and designers can effectively balance ESs with human experiences. This approach ultimately fosters more sustainable and wellbeing-centered urban environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Weixuan Wei & Yiqi Wang & Qi Yan & Guanpeng Liu & Nannan Dong, 2024. "Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-33, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:1848-:d:1515001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/11/1848/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/11/1848/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Zhang, Weixin & Yu, Yang & Wu, Xiuqin & Pereira, Paulo & Lucas Borja, Manuel Esteban, 2020. "Integrating preferences and social values for ecosystem services in local ecological management: A framework applied in Xiaojiang Basin Yunnan province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Fischer, L.K. & Honold, J. & Botzat, A. & Brinkmeyer, D. & Cvejić, R. & Delshammar, T. & Elands, B. & Haase, D. & Kabisch, N. & Karle, S.J. & Lafortezza, R. & Nastran, M. & Nielsen, A.B. & van der Jag, 2018. "Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 455-467.
    4. Pagdee, Adcharaporn & Kawasaki, Jintana, 2021. "The importance of community perceptions and capacity building in payment for ecosystems services: A case study at Phu Kao, Thailand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Pulighe, Giuseppe & Fava, Francesco & Lupia, Flavio, 2016. "Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 1-10.
    6. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    7. Hermes, Johannes & Van Berkel, Derek & Burkhard, Benjamin & Plieninger, Tobias & Fagerholm, Nora & von Haaren, Christina & Albert, Christian, 2018. "Assessment and valuation of recreational ecosystem services of landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 289-295.
    8. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    9. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    10. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    11. Dunford, Rob & Harrison, Paula & Smith, Alison & Dick, Jan & Barton, David N. & Martin-Lopez, Berta & Kelemen, Ezsther & Jacobs, Sander & Saarikoski, Heli & Turkelboom, Francis & Verheyden, Wim & Hauc, 2018. "Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: Experiences from real world situations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 499-514.
    12. Ferretti, Valentina, 2016. "From stakeholders analysis to cognitive mapping and Multi-Attribute Value Theory: An integrated approach for policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(2), pages 524-541.
    13. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    4. Jieyuan Zhu & Huiting Lu & Tianchen Zheng & Yuejing Rong & Chenxing Wang & Wen Zhang & Yan Yan & Lina Tang, 2020. "Vitality of Urban Parks and Its Influencing Factors from the Perspective of Recreational Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Links," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-17, March.
    5. Wenjia Zhou & Jun Cai & Kai Chen, 2022. "Connecting Recreational Service to Visitor’s Well-Being: A Case Study in Qianjiangyuan National Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-17, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Richards, D.R. & Law, A. & Tan, C.S.Y. & Shaikh, S.F.E.A. & Carrasco, L.R. & Jaung, W. & Oh, R.R.Y., 2020. "Rapid urbanisation in Singapore causes a shift from local provisioning and regulating to cultural ecosystem services use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    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. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    17. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    19. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    20. Yang Yang & Zhifang Wang & Guangsi Lin, 2021. "Performance Assessment Indicators for Comparing Recreational Services of Urban Parks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-21, March.

    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:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:1848-:d:1515001. 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.