Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and Australia

Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and Australia Mohammad Shahidul Hasan Swapan a,⁎, Md Sayed Iftekhar b, Xiyuan Li c a b c

Department of Planning and Geography, School of Built Environment, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Western Australia (M089), 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 21 June 2016 Received in revised form 17 October 2016 Accepted 18 November 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Ecosystem services Urban parks Users' perceptions Social valuations Comparative studies China Australia

a b s t r a c t Parks are an integral part of urban environment which provide a range of ecosystem services. While a great deal of efforts has been invested to investigate monetary and biophysical benefits of natural ecosystems, very few studies have explored socio-ecological values of urban parks. Comparative studies of ecosystem services from urban parks between multiple countries are even rarer. To address this research gap, we have compared users' perceptions of ecosystem services of two major urban parks in China (Dufu Cottage, Chengdu) and in Australia (Kings Park, Perth). Using an ecosystem services framework, we explored three key questions: (i) which ecosystem services are perceived to be most important? (ii) what are the trends of ecosystem services provided by the park? and (iii) which demographic and socio-economic factors influence users' perceptions most? We observed that there is no substantial difference in users' perceptions (in terms of importance and trend) of ecosystem services between two countries, except for microclimate service. Respondents in Dufu Cottage perceived microclimate as the most important service while in Kings Park, a number of services (e.g., aesthetic, habitat and recreational) received almost equal importance. Almost two-thirds of the respondents have perceived an increased level ecosystem services over the last five years. Various socio-demographic factors, such as gender, age, income level and frequency of visits influenced users' perceptions most significantly. These results have critical implications in designing more environmentally sensitive as well as user-oriented urban parks. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The ecosystem services (ES) framework is now increasingly used in environmental management and conservation research. It defines the “characteristics and functional process of the natural environment that provides benefits to sustain and fulfil human life” (Riper, Kyle, Sutton, Barnes, & Sherrouse, 2012 p. 164). In other words, ES “seeks to identify, describe, and quantify the importance of natural landscapes” such as urban parks (Brown, 2013 p. 58). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identifies four broader categories of ecosystem services: provisioning services (e.g., food, fuel, and timber); regulating services (climate and flood control); cultural services (e.g., recreational, spiritual, and aesthetic values) and supporting services (e.g., pollination, population control and soil formation) (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014). These services “affect human well-being through impacts on security, the basic material for a good life, health, and social and cultural relations” (MEA, 2005 p. 5). The UNESCO World Heritage Conference (2003) and ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.S.H. Swapan), [email protected] (M.S. Iftekhar), [email protected] (X. Li).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003 0264-2751/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) further recognise the holistic perspectives of social value of nature and emphasise on better understanding of human-nature relationships in terms of culture, people and place (Turner & Daily, 2008; Raymond et al., 2009). Within urban context, a better understanding of ecosystem services “undergoing dynamic changes is required to meet sustainability and resilience goals in urban policy and planning” (Campbell, Svendsen, Sonti, & Johnson, 2016 p. 34). ES have three major values: economic, place-based and social values or local ecological knowledge (Raymond et al., 2009; Brown, 2013; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014). Economic valuation denotes monetary pricing of the ecosystem services whereas place-based valuation is more concerned with spatial distribution of resources and their benefits to the society. Both economic and place-based valuations underpin the process related to different forms of land use (Brown, Montag, & Lyon, 2012). Social values of ES, on the other hand, are defined as human perceptions of qualities and benefits of natural landscapes. An in-depth review of ES literature suggests that a great deal of efforts has been invested in order to investigate monetary and biophysical benefits of natural ecosystems, but very few studies have explored more intangible socio-cultural perceptions and preferences (Martín-López et al., 2012; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014; Villamor, Palomo, Santiago, Oteros-Rozas, &

18

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

Hill, 2014). Discussion on relative importance of ecosystem services defining the relationship between people and place is also quite limited (Riper, Kyle, Sutton, Barnes, & Sherrouse, 2012). Local knowledge on ES could play a critical role in determining future course of conservation and management of urban green areas or open spaces (Lynam, De Jong, Sheil, Kusumanto, & Evans, 2007; Cowling et al., 2008). Manzo (2005) indicates that seeking users' perceptions about natural ecosystems is a meaningful way to identify degraded areas and management options. It is contended that such perception shapes individual's motivation to contribute in local conservation. According to the Theory of Reasoned Action, human attitude and behaviour are basically driven from one's evaluation of natural resources which can be either positive or negative (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Raymond et al. (2009) define local knowledge ‘as critical in developing place-based solutions to societal problems” (p. 1313). For example, local knowledge and users’ perceptions have immense importance in determining options for activating and managing urban parks. Kumar and Kumar (2008) further show that ES can be varied due to place and scale differences. However, it is evident from literature that a wide range of studies focussed on individual case studies and do not demonstrate the contextual implications of ES of urban green areas or parks (Kline et al., 2013; Asah, Guerry, Blahna, & Lawler, 2014). To contribute to this knowledge gap, this study investigates the contextual difference of users' perceptions of ecosystem services from urban parks. Based on a survey and perception analysis of visitors in two key urban parks in China and Australia, we have investigated and compared two different, developing and developed countries, contexts. In this process, effort is made to understand the local significance of socio-economic factors influencing variations in users' perceptions. The aim of the study is to qualitatively explore how the respondents perceive the importance of the parks and use those facilities in reality (Asah et al., 2014). The users' perception survey allows us to answer four key questions: (i) which ecosystem services are perceived to be most important? (ii) what are the trends of ecosystem services provided by the park? (improved or degraded over the last 5 years) and (iii) which demographic and socio-economic factors influence users' perceptions most?; and (iv) what are the key differences in perceptions of the visitors between the two parks? 2. Understanding ecosystem services of urban parks Urban parks are an integral part of the complex urban system which has significant environmental, social and economic functions (Tyrväinen, 2001; Lütz & Bastian, 2002; Li, Wang, Paulussen, & Liu, 2005). Large urban green patches are maintained for various reasons, such as environmental sustainability, reduction of urban heat island effects, enhanced land value and a range of social, psychological, aesthetic and health benefits. It is noted that “the urban forest [green areas] and its associated ecosystem services allow for the consideration of the broader issues of climate change, urban heat island effects and population growth” (WAPC, 2014 p. 1). Apart from long term climatic impacts, loss of urban vegetation adversely affects local air temperature. Empirical studies suggest that dense vegetation and large tree canopy on the streets improves local thermal environment and stop aggravating ‘heat island’ effects and thus promote urban cooling, carbon sequestration, air and water pollution remediation (e.g., Fernández-Juricic, 2000; Kenneth, Innes, Martin, & Klinkenberg, 2005; Cavanagh & Clemons, 2006; Deng, Song, Chen, & Rong, 2008). A range of literature demonstrates social and economic benefits of urban greenery. Kuo and Sullivan (2001) found people in buildings surrounded by urban parklands socialised more with neighbours, had a stronger sense of community and felt safer. Ulrich (1984) found exposure to greens reduced stress (measured by reduced blood pressure/ muscle tension) (cited in Brunner & Cozens, 2013). Finally, the proximity of urban parks and open spaces influences potential homebuyers/ renter decisions and affects real estate market structure (Jensen et al.,

2009). These studies suggest that people with different backgrounds (such as socio-economic conditions, ethnicity and gender) could perceive ecosystem services provided by urban parks differently. However, an understanding of interrelationships between the socio-economic characteristics of the users and their perceived ecosystem services provided by the urban parks are quite limited in the literature (Riper, Kyle, Sutton, Barnes, & Sherrouse, 2012; Sherrouse, Clement, & Semmens, 2011). There are two main streams of comparative studies: studies relying on data collected from different sources and fitting in regressionbased or econometric models [some relevant examples are EhrhardtMartinez, Crenshaw, and Jenkins (2002), Clausen and York (2008), DeFries, Rudel, Uriarte, and Hansen (2010) and Misselhorn (2005)] and studies where case-studies are conducted in individual countries and results are compiled in the same framework [some relevant examples in this group are Wang, Brown, Liu, and Mateo-Babiano (2015a), Babigumira et al. (2014), Sunderland et al. (2014), Horton, Colarullo, Bateman, and Peres (2003), Carlsson et al. (2012) and Tait et al. (2011)]. While the first type of studies allow to quickly assess the impact of key variables (for which reliable country-specific data are available), the second type of studies allow thorough examination of selected key variables by collecting primary data. A relevant example is the study conducted by Goličnik and Thompson (2010) where they examined usage patterns of two urban parks in Slovenia and Scotland. Similarly, Wang, Brown, Zhong, Liu, and Mateo-Babiano (2015b) studied the impacts of socio-economic conditions and proximity on access to urban parks in Brisbane (Australia) and Zhongshan (China). However, we are not aware of any similar study on to what extent perceptions of ES from urban parks are different in different countries and how they are influenced by the socio-economic condition of the users. In this paper, we aim to contribute to this knowledge gap. An ecosystem service framework is a useful tool for our purpose. It is frequently used to generate functionally meaningful values of a range ecosystem services (for example, see: De Groot, Wilson, & Boumans, 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; EME Spain (EME, 2011); Raymond et al., 2009; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014; Brown, 2013; Jim & Chen, 2006). Using such a framework, it is possible to systematically explore the relative importance of different types of services (such as biophysical, sociocultural and economic) provided by urban parks. This would ultimately allow us to understand the influence of socio-economic factors on perceptions of ecosystem services from various perspectives. We elaborate our use of an ecosystem service framework below. 3. Methodology We intend to seek both collective and disjoined identification of the services or benefits the users can perceive including relative importance of different services. A disjoined form of identification enables us deeper and nuanced understandings of the users' perception on this topic (Esses & Maio, 2002). A qualitative trend-analysis addressed by the second question provides an insight into the growth and decline of ecosystem services resulting in a valuable input for future policy implications. It is argued that qualitative approach is more suitable for social enquiry rather than a quantitative approach as Asah et al. (2014) point out that “… quantitative approaches may paint a partial picture of people's perceptions, acquisition and use of ecosystem services and consequent management and policy efforts” (p.183). 3.1. Population and sample In this study, we focused on comparing users' perceptions of selected ecosystem services of two major urban parks in Australia and China. We considered major parks located in Perth and Chengdu. Both cities are State Capitals (of Western Australia and Sichuan Province respectively) with comparable level of urbanisation and demand for public open

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

space. We selected King's Park (KP, in Perth) and Dufu Cottage (DC, in Chengdu) as these are the most prominent parks in respective cities (Brunner & Cozens, 2013; Qin, 2015). The survey was administered on the visitors of the parks to understand the relative importance of various ecosystem services and their trends. A random interceptive sampling method was applied to collect the data. Visitors were randomly intercepted and requested to participate in the survey. In this process, visitors whose age was under 20 years were excluded to comply with the research integrity and ethics requirements. Surveys were conducted from 28th April to 12th July 2014. To avoid potential bias in selecting respondents, interviews were taken in different time of a day – in weekdays and weekends. The sample size was 120 in King's Park and 205 in Dufu Cottage. Among the respondents, majority were below 40 years (54%). All age groups were appropriately represented, but women were overrepresented in the sample (Table 1) which is a common trend in this kind of survey (Giles-Corti et al., 2005). Overall, 37% of the respondents visited the parks at least once a week. As expected, high proportion of the respondents in DC were below AUD 32000 (per year) income cohort. Majority (78%) of the respondents were employed full-time. 3.2. Study sites Kings Park is the central botanic garden in Perth city comprising an area of 4 km2 (Fig. 1). This park possesses a rich Aboriginal and Colonial history. It is also designated as protected ‘A’ class reserve and offers ample opportunity for scientific research, horticulture and education. The park has significant natural ecosystem values and has high native biological diversity. It provides a range of facilities for family and children including specialised picnic areas, theme parks, shops, kiosks and award-wining restaurants. All of these features attract national as well as international visitors (Fig. 2). Dufu Cottage is a traditional botanic garden located in Chengdu city of Sichuan Province in China (Fig. 1). It is one of the biggest open urban

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of demographic and socio-economic condition of the sample (%).

Gender Age

Education

Employment status

Income (AUD/year)

How often you visit this park?

Distance (km) Number of kids in the household

Female Male 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70+ Non-formal Secondary Tertiary Technical Full-time Part-time Unemployed Nil 1-32K 32-65K 65-104K 104K+ Twice/more per week Once a week Once every two week Once a month Less than once in a month Mean ± SD Mean ± SD

Kings Park

Dufu Cottage

Total

44 56 20 49 13 13 5 0 0 6 74 21 82 18 0 0 9 26 48 17 4

61 39 28 17 14 28 9 4 1 7 81 11 75 8 17 9 71 17 3 0 23

55 45 25 29 13 22 8 2 1 7 78 15 78 12 10 4 40 22 26 9 16

7 14

13 8

11 10

33 42

26 30

29 34

12 ± 8 0.57 ± 0.66

4±3 0.73 ± 0.59

7±6 0.67 ± 0.62

19

parks in China. The garden has an area of 2 km2 approximately. The landscape contains typical features of developing countries such as spontaneous development and scattered small scale commercial businesses. However, the garden has a very rich cultural history and significant appeal to the locals. Dufu Cottage bears the historical values of old Chinese dynasty and hosts a number of national cultural relics including thatched cottages, museum, pagoda and artificial mountain. It also provides basic amenities for the public like picnic areas, kiosks and waterbodies. 3.3. Analytical tools 3.3.1. Ecosystem services assessment framework Ecosystem services assessment frameworks have been developed and applied at different spatial scales to do valuation of particular natural resources (Dennis & James, 2016). In order to determine appropriate categories of ecosystem services for this study, we have followed a number of criteria using the following steps: Following the above mentioned criteria, an assessment framework is developed including nine categories of ecosystem services for this study (Table 2). A combination of ecological and socio-cultural valuation approaches is followed in this framework to “explore human attitude and perceptions regarding ecosystem services” (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014 p. 1270; Wang et al., 2015a, 2015b). Further, following OterosRozas et al. (2014), these nine categories of ecosystem services could be classified into two broad wellbeing groups: social-wellbeing related to the well-being of the society and personal-wellbeing related to individual's wellbeing. 3.3.2. Rank order analysis and trend index The respondents were supplied with a list of the nine ecosystem services of urban parks mentioned in Table 2, namely: microclimate, habitat functions, ornamental aesthetic, recreational, cultural, historical, educational and economic benefit. This predefined list helped to maintain consistency among two different case studies. It also enabled to streamline the research process as well as to generate consistent datasets. Users' perceptions were sought to determine the relative importance of those services. The following equation (adapted from Malhotra, 2008) was used to calculate the rank-order of individual respondents: X R¼

fðr1 f 1 Þ þ ⋯ þ ðrn f n Þg N

ð1Þ

where, R = Final rank value; r = Individual rank given by the respondent; f = frequency; n = No. of services identified; and N = Number of total respondents In order to summarise level of agreements [5-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Neutral (N), Agree (A) and Strongly Agree (SA)] with a series of statements into a single score, an agreement score was developed using the following equation: Agreement score ¼

SA þ A−D−SD SA þ A þ N þ D þ SD

ð2Þ

Similarly, to determine the change in overall ecosystems services, we depict comparative histograms of frequencies for the perceptions of the trends measured on five points Likert scale [Substantially improved (SI), improved (I), unchanged (U), degraded (D) and Substantially degraded (SD)]. A trend index reflecting the overall perceived trends was developed using the following equation (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014 p. 1274): Overall perceived trend ¼

SI þ I−D−SD SI þ I þ U þ D þ SD

ð3Þ

20

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

Kings Park (Perth, Western Australia)

Dufu Cottage (Chengdu, China)

Fig. 1. Location and features of Kings Park and Dufu Cottage.

3.3.3. Ordered logit model To understand the impact of socio-economic variables relating the perceptions of ES, we have used ordered logistic model. In an ordered logit model, the relationships between an ordinal dependent variable and a set of independent variables are estimated. This model is appropriate as responses such as importance of ecosystem services and trends in ecosystem services are categorical and ordered. The Stata command ‘ologit’ has been used to fit a proportional odds model, where the odds have the same ratio for all independent variable combinations. This model compares the probability of a response less than or equal to a given category (j = 1, 2, …, k - 1) to the probability of a response greater than this category (Abreu, Siqueira, Cardoso, & Caiaffa, 2008). In the regression models, the explanatory variables are parks (DC = 1 and KP = 0), gender (male = 1, female = 0), visit (at least once per week = 1 and less than once per week = 0), education (tertiary education = 1, the rest = 0), work status (full-time working = 1 and part-time or unemployed = 0), distance from the residence to the park in km, number of kids in the family, age and annual income. As information on age has been collected as age group, it has been converted into a continuous variable by taking the mid-point in each range. Similarly, income categories have been converted into a continuous variable by taking the mid-point and normalised by converting into z-scores. 4. Results Our results are organised in terms of overall importance of ecosystem services and the perceived trends of their supply from the parks.

4.1. Relative importance of different ecosystem services The respondents were asked to rank the ES according to their comparative importance in a 9-point scale where ‘1’ was most important and ‘9’ was least important. In order to fit in a rank-order model (Eq.(1)) the values were reversed to assign greater importance to higher values. The revised responses were put into a rank-order model (Eq.(1)) in order to arrive at a quantifiable average rank value (R) and to demonstrate the relative importance of the identified services in a graphical representation (Fig. 3). Rank value was calculated from the individual rank based on a score of importance (9 being the highest and 1 the lowest) given to each service by all respondents. Rank order analysis is commonly used to measure preferences. It is a quick process that helps to discriminate among stimulus objects and eliminates intransitive responses (Malhotra, 2008). Fig. 3 demonstrates that the respondents in DC perceived that their park has significant influence on microclimate. In contrast to findings from previous works which focused on provisioning (for example, ornamental and recreational functions) and cultural services, respondents of this study highlighted regulating services (for example, environmental protection) (Asah et al., 2014). The respondents also identified that Dufu Cottage is an important historical site conserving traditional culture and ethos. The users in KP, on the other hand, found their park as a more even service provider i.e. equally contributing both in social and personal well-being. Cultural, recreation and economic services received relatively higher ranking compared to DC. Considering broad wellbeing groups, there are few differences between two parks.

Fig. 2. Steps in determining ecosystem framework for this study.

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

21

Table 2 Categories of ecosystem services used for this study. Social-wellbeing Microclimate

Personal-wellbeing Habitat functions

• 02 release • Suitable living • Lower air place for plants tempera- • Suitable living ture places for • Shading animals/birds • Wind protection • Reduce air pollution

Ornamental resources

Cultural and historical

Aesthetic information

Recreation and tourism

Variety of natural ecosystems (birds, butterflies and fish)

• Showing cultural and artistic value (e.g., drama, painting, folklore etc.) • Aboriginal heritage • Historical attractions

Enjoyable landscape (green space, flowers, waterscape)

• Places for Using natural recreation systems for school activities excursions/research • Children playgrounds • Outdoor sports • Eco-tourism

Among social-wellbeing group, microclimate was perceived most important in DC and habitat function in KP. On the other hand, aesthetic function was perceived most important in both parks within personalwellbeing group. 4.1.1. Correlation among ecosystem services In order to understand the relationship between the importance of different ES, we have calculated Spearman's correlation (Table 3). There are many significant correlation values between ES of both parks, for example, microclimate, habitat functions and economic benefit. Having a higher order perception (highly important) on microclimate show a significant negative relationship with aesthetic and cultural services (r = −0.50** and −0.40** respectively) for KP. Habitat functions show strong positive relationship with ornamental resources (r = 0.4**) but highly significant negative relationship with economic benefit (r = −0.70**). Looking at the case of DC, microclimate reveals moderate negative relationship with all other ES except habitat functions (r = 0.30**). Here, there is no significant relationship found between economic benefit and the remaining ecosystem services. Interestingly, educational service has moderately significant negative relationship with most of the ecosystem services in both parks. 4.1.2. Differences between parks and socio-economic groups in terms of overall importance We have used the revised importance score (9 = most important and 1 = least important) to formally compare the parks and the influence of socio-economic variables. From the Odds Ratio statistics presented in Table 4, it could be observed that the importance of aesthetic, cultural, historical and educational services are significantly different between the two study sites. The odds of having higher scores Microclimate Educational

Historical

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Habitat

Economic benefit Contributing in property value increase

(or higher importance) for aesthetic, cultural and historical services are higher (more than 1) for DC and lower (less than 1) for educational service. Recall that an Odds Ratio larger than one indicates higher likelihood to assign higher importance. This suggests that visitors are likely to attach more importance to aesthetic, cultural and historical services and less importance to educational service for DC compared to KP. In both parks, personal characteristics and socio-economic variables have substantial impacts on the importance score given to different ES. For example, male visitors assigned greater importance to recreational services and less importance to habitat and historical services compared to female visitors. Respondents who visited the parks at least once per week have assigned higher scores for cultural, historical and educational services and lower score for climate and habitat services. Respondents with higher age are slightly more likely to assign higher scores for habitat, aesthetic and historical services. Distance seems to have an impact on the importance scores assigned to historical and educational services, the closer the respondents live, the more likely it is for them to attach a higher score for these services. Respondents with higher income are more likely to assign higher scores for climate and economic services. Full-time employed respondents are more likely to assign higher scores for habitat, ornamental and aesthetic services. The interactions effect reveals the impact of personal characteristics and socio-economic variables could be different in different parks. For example, male respondents in DC are more likely to assign higher score for habitat service. Respondents in DC who visited more than once per week have higher likelihood (OR more than 1) to assign higher ratings for climate, habitat and aesthetic services compared to the visitors in KP. They are also less likely to assign higher scores for historical and educational services. Moreover, respondents for DC with tertiary educations are more likely to assign higher scores for habitat and ornament services. Contrary to the main effect of income, in DC respondents with higher income are more likely to assign higher score for aesthetics. Finally, full-time employed respondents are likely to assign higher scores for climate, economic and historical services. 4.2. Importance of sub-categories of ecosystem services

Ornamental KP DC

Cultural

Aesthetic

Recreational

Educational

Economic

Fig. 3. Comparative importance of broad ecosystem services perceived by the respondents. Rating in answer to the question “Which ecosystem service provided by this park is most important to human?”.

To further understand the importance of different types of ecosystems services provided by urban parks, respondents were asked about their agreement with respect to a series of statements. Their levels of agreements were calculated using Eq.(2). The higher numbers indicate more positive agreement. For KP the average scores varied from 0.06–0.99 and for DC 0.22–0.90 (Table 5). For KP, oxygen release, suitable living place for plants and enjoyable landscape (green space, flowers, and waterscape) were ranked most important (Fig. 4A). For DC, the three most important services were suitable living places for animals/birds, suitable living place for plants and shading. Interestingly, children's playground and places for recreational activities showed highest differences in scores between two parks. Both services received higher score in KP.

22

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

Table 3 Spearman's correlation (2-tailed) between the importance of ecosystem services. Name of the park

Ecosystem services

Microclimate

Habitat functions

Ornamental

Aesthetic

Economic benefit

Recreation and tourism

Cultural

Spiritual and historical information

Educational

KP

Microclimate Habitat functions Ornamental Aesthetic Economic benefit Recreation and tourism Cultural Historical information Education Microclimate Habitat functions Ornamental Aesthetic Economic benefit Recreation and tourism Cultural Historical Educational

1

0.13 1

0.11 0.43** 1

−0.50** 0.02 0.31** 1

−0.09 −0.73** −0.56** −0.10 1

−0.20* 0.14 0.09 0.10 −0.18 1

−0.40** −0.15 −0.46** −0.10 −0.09 −0.18* 1

−0.14 −0.39** −0.49** −0.33** 0.28** −0.44** 0.29** 1

1

0.32** 1

0.29** 0.27** 1

−0.15* −0.18** 0.07 1

−0.20** −0.45** −0.18** 0.01 1

−0.15* −0.16* −0.27** −0.07 −0.13 1

−0.20** −0.19** −0.13 −0.25** −0.01 −0.21** 1

−0.26** −0.30** −0.42** −0.23** −0.02 −0.11 0.13 1

−0.14 −0.51** −0.40** −0.29** 0.33** −0.31** 0.23* 0.36** 1 −0.20** −0.12 −0.23** −0.20** −0.11 −0.28** 0.01 0.28** 1

DC

Perceived by the Respondents. 9 point rating scale with 1 = least important to 9 = top most important in answer to question, “Which ecosystem service provided by this park is most important to human?” ‘**’, ‘*’ and ‘^’ mean significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance.

In both cases the habitat functions of the parks have been very strongly emphasised. Habitat functions could be divided into refugium function and nursery function - former function could be seen as a genetic bank and later function for subsistence or commercial purposes (De Groot et al., 2002). Wetlands provide an ideal living place for vegetation, mammals, amphibians and so on. Therefore, wetlands in DC give respondents an impression that this is a suitable habitat for species (Fig. 4A). The elements such as lower air temperature and shading are associated with people's comfort especially in hot summer days. However, the average summer temperature (from December to February) in Perth was very high ranging from 30.56 °C to 46.5 °C in 2013–2014 (Bureau of Meteorology, 2014). With this high temperature, it seemed that it was difficult for the respondents to distinguish the impact of KP on temperature. In addition, a small group of respondents did not find KP as contributing in wind protection and shading. In general, huge tree canopy could increase resistance of air flow and could reduce the wind speed (Fig. 4D). However, field observation suggests that most of the green open space in KP is covered by grass with low-density shaded

tall trees which may have been perceived to have low impacts on wind speed and shading (Fig. 4E). Both parks have received comparative moderate score for their cultural and historical importance (Fig. 4B–C and F). Another interesting observation is that even though 42% of the respondents agreed that KP contributed in increasing property value of nearby areas, still 12% disagreed which was eventually the highest percentage of disagreement in all ecosystem services of KP. The reason could be that the impacts of public open space to real estate are less tangible and indirect. Thus people were less aware of the economic benefits of the park (Jim & Chen, 2006, p. 342). It is also noted that KP is mostly surrounded by public buildings and educational facilities. Therefore, due to limited residential development around KP, some respondents were unable to perceive any positive economic impact of KP. 4.3. Perceptions of trends Majority of the respondents thought that the ecosystem services from the parks have gradually improved, although a large portion of

Table 4 Ordinal logistic regression on importance of ecosystem services. Climate

Park Gender Visit Age Education Distance No. of kids Income Work status Park X gender Park X visit Park X age Park X education Park X distance Park X kids Park X income Park X work Wald No of observations

Ornamental

Aesthetic

Economic

Recreational

Cultural

Historical

Educational

OR

P

OR

Habitat P

OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

0.10 1.14 0.25 0.96 0.69 0.93 1.00 1.75 0.18 0.92 6.77 1.03 3.19 0.99 0.79 0.84 19.13 59.95 149

0.14 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.05 0.99 0.02 0.00 0.92 0.02 0.21 0.15 0.86 0.69 0.73 0.00 0.00

0.12 0.43 0.15 1.06 0.48 0.94 0.77 0.77 5.34 3.46 9.54 0.97 6.89 1.16 1.23 1.22 0.16 53.16 149

0.11 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.25 0.15 0.45 0.23 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.38 0.06 0.05 0.69 0.56 0.11 0.00

1.17 0.82 0.22 0.98 0.60 0.96 0.50 0.53 21.30 1.03 4.22 1.02 4.50 0.99 1.45 1.92 0.05 63.00 149

0.91 0.74 0.14 0.51 0.38 0.45 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.96 0.20 0.57 0.08 0.85 0.54 0.12 0.03 0.00

1486.16 0.59 0.24 1.05 3.93 0.97 0.99 0.30 23.90 0.86 10.23 0.90 0.48 1.01 1.50 2.95 0.03 94.80 149

0.00 0.10 0.17 0.03 0.14 0.21 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.06 0.00 0.57 0.92 0.44 0.01 0.00 0.00

0.49 1.18 1.79 0.98 4.66 1.04 2.08 1.75 0.07 1.18 0.49 1.00 0.12 0.96 0.50 0.59 26.51 57.97 149

0.72 0.75 0.60 0.35 0.16 0.45 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.81 0.56 0.93 0.09 0.63 0.20 0.06 0.00 0.00

0.15 2.61 1.27 1.01 0.48 1.00 0.35 0.93 2.32 0.54 0.62 1.01 3.01 1.15 8.28 0.78 0.19 62.01 149

0.21 0.07 0.77 0.60 0.34 1.00 0.00 0.85 0.20 0.41 0.66 0.83 0.24 0.04 0.00 0.60 0.09 0.00

77.89 1.77 14.80 1.00 2.41 1.06 2.12 1.30 2.09 0.55 0.07 0.99 0.07 0.86 0.56 0.73 0.79 33.41 149

0.02 0.27 0.01 0.88 0.34 0.32 0.09 0.50 0.38 0.36 0.02 0.53 0.02 0.12 0.31 0.45 0.85 0.01

21.84 0.34 18.89 1.04 0.64 1.10 1.51 1.07 0.08 1.20 0.02 0.98 0.09 0.93 0.64 1.20 7.69 59.65 149

0.01 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.25 0.80 0.00 0.79 0.02 0.35 0.05 0.23 0.38 0.65 0.02 0.00

0.05 0.95 6.31 0.95 0.91 1.08 1.19 1.29 0.25 1.31 0.07 1.06 5.03 0.90 0.37 1.00 1.79 67.90 149

0.04 0.91 0.00 0.03 0.87 0.00 0.48 0.39 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.10 0.12 1.00 0.61 0.00

Note: In the analysis only those with complete responses were used. Statistically significant values at 10% level have been highlighted bold. Here, OR = Odds Ratio and P = Probability.

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26 Table 5 Agreement scores indicating importance of sub-categories of ecosystem services. Broad categories

Sub-categories

Microclimate 02 release Lower air temperature Shading Wind protection Reduce air pollution Habitat Suitable living place for plants Suitable living places for animals/birds Ornamental Variety of natural ecosystems (birds, butterflies and fish) Aesthetic Enjoyable landscape (green space, flowers, waterscape) Recreational Places for recreational activities Children playgrounds Outdoor sports Eco-tourism Cultural Showing cultural and artistic value (e.g., drama, painting, folklore etc.) Historical Historical/heritage attractions Educational Using natural systems for school excursions/research Economic Contributing in property value increase

Table 6 Frequency distribution (%) of overall trend in the provision of ecosystem services.

KP

DC

0.95 0.61 0.76 0.52 0.88 0.97 0.93 0.88

0.85 0.77 0.90 0.62 0.83 0.89 0.87 0.73

0.99 0.70 0.92 0.82 0.52 0.86 0.75

23

0.35 0.22 0.71 0.78 0.57

0.85 0.61 0.78 0.45 0.57 0.83

Perceived by the Respondents on a 5 point Likert Scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree in answer to question “This Park is very important for ……”.

them (43%) thought those remained unchanged (Table 6). In KP, half of the responses (51%) were in ‘neutral’ category followed by ‘slightly improved’ category, whereas in DC it was ‘slightly improved’ (55%) followed by ‘neutral’ category. Responses for DC were more extreme as 19% responses were in ‘Substantially improved’ category, whereas, 10% of the responses were in ‘Substantially degraded’ category. Similarly, the overall trend index score (calculated based on Eq.(3)) show that the delivery of all ecosystem services was perceived as either increasing or stable (Fig. 5). In both parks, it was perceived that the supply of ornamental and aesthetic services have increased most. In KP, the supply of recreational services and in DC, the supply of economic service has also increased. In contrast, educational, historical, cultural, habitat and microclimate functions were frequently perceived as decreasing.

KP DC Total

Substantially improved

Improved

Unchanged

Degraded

Substantially degraded

9 19 15

43 55 50

51 38 43

3 10 7

0 2 2

Perceived by the Respondents on a 5 point Likert Scale ranging from ‘Substantially improved’ to ‘Substantially degraded’ in answer to question “Please respond whether the ecosystem services have been improved or degraded over the last 5 years”.

4.3.1. Differences between parks and socio-economic groups in terms of trend perception From Table 7, it can be observed that there is not much difference between the parks (except for cultural service) in terms of trends perception. For cultural services, overall, respondents in DC are less likely (Odds Ratio lower than 1) to assign higher scores (i.e., improved conditions). Male respondents are less likely to select improved categories compared to female respondents for ornament, aesthetic, recreational, cultural and historical services. On the other hand, those who visited at least once a week were more likely to select improved categories for ornament, recreational and cultural services. Younger respondents were slightly less likely to select improved categories for habitat, ornament and cultural services and more likely to select improved categories for economic and recreational services. Respondents with higher income are more likely to select improved categories for cultural services. Full-time employed respondents were less likely to select improved categories for ornament, recreational and cultural services. There are some interactions effects between the park and the sociodemographic factors. For example, male respondents in DC are more likely to select improved categories for recreational and historical services. Respondents visiting DC at least once a week have lower odds to rating more improved categories for ornament, recreational and cultural services. Similarly, full-time employed respondents in DC Park have higher likelihood to select improved categories for recreational and cultural services. Finally, respondents in DC living closer to the park have lower likelihood to select improved categories for economic, recreational, cultural and historical services.

A. Wetlands in Dufu Cottage

B. Dufu Cottage Museum

C. Thatched cottage in Dufu1

D. Large canopies in Fraser Avenue, Kings Park

E. Large green areas with low density trees in Kings Park2

F. State War Memorial in Kings Park

Fig. 4. Visual presentation of key elements in Kings Park and Dufu Cottage.

24

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

KP

DC

Trends’ Frequencies

Trend

Trends’ Frequencies

Trend

Index

Index

Economic

0.46

Economic

0.67

Educational

0.29

Educational

0.30

Historical

0.40

Historical

0.43

Cultural

0.38

Cultural

0.38

Recreational

0.59

Recreation

0.58

Aesthetic

0.55

Aesthetic

0.69

Ornamental

0.78

Ornamental

0.64

Habitat

0.46

Habitat

0.45

Microclimate

0.26

Microclimate

0.33

Fig. 5. Frequency distribution of overall trend in the provision of individual broad ecosystem services. Perceived by the Respondents on a 5 point Likert Scale ranging from Substantially improved (SI) to Substantially degraded (SD) in answer to question “Please respond whether the ecosystem services have been improved or degraded over the last 5 years”.

5. Discussion Our paper is one of the first studies to compare perceptions of ecosystem services from urban parks between a developed (Australia) and a developing country (China). Based on a visitor survey, we assessed to what extent different types of services are preferred and

how people's perceptions are influenced by socio-demographic variables. We have observed that there is no substantial difference between the visitors' perceptions of ecosystem services of the two parks. Visitors in both parks perceive the importance of multiple services from the parks, which reinstate the multi-dimensional role and functions of urban parks in both contexts (Thompson, 2002; Loukaitou-Sideris,

Table 7 Ordinal logistic regression on the trends in ecosystem services. Habitat

Park Gender Visit Age Education Distance No. of kids Income Work status Park X gender Park X visit Park X age Park X education Park X distance Park X kids Park X income Park X work Wald No of observations

Ornamental

Aesthetic

Recreational

Cultural

OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

Economic OR

P

OR

P

OR

P

OR

Historical P

0.03 0.66 2.53 0.96 0.57 1.02 0.86 1.04 0.86 1.40 0.90 1.07 5.51 0.88 0.62 0.97 2.52 31.58 149

0.18 0.24 0.31 0.01 0.44 0.39 0.69 0.88 0.81 0.65 0.92 0.09 0.19 0.11 0.51 0.95 0.55 0.02

0.02 0.51 5.15 0.97 0.32 1.03 0.86 1.10 0.32 1.47 0.08 1.05 8.75 0.93 0.92 0.87 2.49 40.43 149

0.12 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.26 0.71 0.72 0.03 0.66 0.04 0.12 0.15 0.41 0.93 0.75 0.61 0.00

2.16 0.43 5.94 0.99 2.65 1.00 1.64 0.64 6.11 1.06 0.08 1.05 0.36 0.95 0.29 1.13 1.55 30.31 149

0.69 0.05 0.26 0.69 0.20 0.94 0.34 0.19 0.02 0.94 0.14 0.20 0.42 0.34 0.13 0.82 0.78 0.02

7.55 0.60 0.52 1.03 1.15 1.03 0.92 1.05 1.60 0.62 0.85 1.00 0.77 0.86 1.42 0.84 1.82 43.38 149

0.30 0.18 0.43 0.00 0.87 0.20 0.79 0.84 0.47 0.46 0.88 0.95 0.86 0.06 0.55 0.59 0.68 0.00

1.13 0.35 16.63 1.05 1.81 1.11 0.65 1.33 0.24 4.95 0.02 0.99 0.35 0.81 0.96 0.61 11.84 71.82 149

0.95 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.21 0.33 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.84 0.36 0.05 0.96 0.34 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.48 25.73 0.92 0.58 1.03 0.40 1.85 0.30 2.49 0.00 1.18 1.09 0.74 0.99 0.78 24.86 80.02 149

0.03 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.03 0.99 0.43 0.01 0.00

0.08 0.40 3.18 0.98 0.58 0.98 0.87 1.02 1.03 5.10 0.15 1.06 2.24 0.77 0.80 1.19 1.62 38.52 149

0.20 0.02 0.26 0.37 0.26 0.51 0.67 0.94 0.97 0.03 0.15 0.07 0.53 0.01 0.79 0.67 0.69 0.00

Note: In the analysis only those with complete responses were used. The dependent variable is ratings on a 5 point Likert Scale ranging from ‘Substantially improved’ (5) to ‘Substantially degraded’ (1) in answer to question “Please respond whether the ecosystem services have been improved or degraded over the last 5 years”. A model for trends on climate and educational services could not be estimated due to lack of fit. Statistically significant values at 10% level have been highlighted bold. Here, OR = Odds Ratio and P = Probability.

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

1995). However, we do observe some differences in the perceptions of respondents between two countries when broader categories of ecosystem services (e.g. social well-being and personal well-being) and demographic characteristics of the visitors are considered. For instance, respondents in DC assigned higher values for lowering air temperature, shading and protection from wind which mostly represent social wellbeing services (Table 5). This could be a reflection of increasing awareness of Chinese residents of the environmental functions of urban parks (Jim & Chen, 2006). This may also be due to the existence of fewer numbers of large urban green areas caused by increasing pressure of uncontrolled real estate development in urban China. Chen, Jia, and Lau (2008) note that the urban built-up area in Chinese cities has increased by 125% during the last two decades. Living within such an urbanised world, the respondents could signify the importance of DC in terms of climatic service. In terms of the personal well-being category, respondents in DC also assigned higher importance for historical service than KP. The importance of historical services of urban parks have been identified in other studies as well (Chiesura, 2004; Thompson, 2002). Given the immense significance of Chinese dynasty and cultural relics, such services were highlighted by the respondents of DC. On the other hand, visitors in KP assigned higher scores for aesthetic, recreational and habitat services which mostly represent personal well-being category. Such variation in perceptions of services could reflect the services available in the parks relative to surrounding places. However, respondents in both sites have indicated that the ornamental and aesthetic services of the parks have improved substantially. This reflects the perceptions related to the improvement initiatives implemented by the park authorities (Carter & Horwitz, 2014). We also observe that there are significant variations in different socio-economic groups. Parks are more important to male visitors for their recreational services and less important for habitat and historical services compared to female. For DC, male respondents are more likely to perceive higher rate of popularity in recreational and historical services. The observed gender-difference is in contrast to the findings of Ching-hua, Sasidharan, Elmendorf, and Willits (2005) where there was no significant difference found between male and female, but similar to the findings of Richardson and Mitchell (2010) and Schipperijn et al. (2010). Previous studies suggest several reasons behind the difference between male and female visitors in terms of usage and perceptions. They may experience and utilise urban green space in different ways. Women may face certain social, physical and psychological barriers to actively use the park. Women have concern for personal safety and would avoid any place or location with safety concerns relatively more than men (O'Brien, 2005; Foster, Hillsdon, & Thorogood, 2004). Frequency of visit seems to have impact on the perceptions of the importance of ecosystem services. Overall, those who visit KP more frequently have assigned higher importance to cultural, historical and educational services and less importance to aesthetic, climate and habitat services. However, for DC the trend is opposite. Such trend could be related to the localised consumption pattern of these services as enjoyment of cultural and historical services probably do not require regular frequent visit to the park. Respondents in this group also have higher likelihood to suggest that recreational and cultural appeal of DC are declining. In DC, respondents with higher income are more likely to value aesthetic service. Authorities of both parks need to consider these issues to cater for different groups of users while planning their management strategies. 6. Conclusion In essence, the results from our study reveal that parks users in both countries are appreciative of the multi-functional services even though there are contextual variations. These suggest that planners in both developed and developing countries should emphasise on designing parks to satisfy diverse demand which could improve the quality of urban life.

25

There are several ways current research could be extended further. Our methodology is based on surveys which could be complemented by observational methods (active and passive) and secondary user statistical analysis. The number of sites could also be expanded to include parks in regional areas. That would not only give wider geographic coverage but also deeper understanding of the impacts of socio-demographic factors. Finally, trade-offs between multiple services and disservices have not been considered in this study, which might provide additional insights related to ecosystem services provided by the urban parks.

References Abreu, M. N. S., Siqueira, A. L., Cardoso, C. S., & Caiaffa, W. T. (2008). Ordinal logistic regression models: Application in quality of life studies. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 24, s581–s591. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Vol. 278. Prentice-Hall. Asah, S. T., Guerry, A. D., Blahna, D. J., & Lawler, J. J. (2014). Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosystem Services, 10, 180–186. Babigumira, R., Angelsen, A., Buis, M., Bauch, S., Sunderland, T., & Wunder, S. (2014). Forest clearing in rural livelihoods: Household-level global-comparative evidence. World Development, 64, S67–S79. Bureau of Meteorology (2014). Perth in summer 2013–14: Warm, sunny, and very dry. (from) http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/wa/archive/201,402.perth. shtml Brown, G. (2013). The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 5, 58–68. Brown, G., Montag, J. M., & Lyon, K. (2012). Public participation GIS: A method for identifying ecosystem services. Society & Natural Resources, 25(7), 633–651. Brunner, J., & Cozens, P. (2013). ‘Where have all the trees gone?’ Urban consolidation and the demise of urban vegetation: A case study from Western Australia. Planning Practice and Research, 28(2), 231–255. Campbell, L. K., Svendsen, E. S., Sonti, N. F., & Johnson, M. L. (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 34–44. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., Krupnick, A., Lampi, E., Löfgren, Å., Qin, P., ... Sterner, T. (2012). Paying for mitigation: A multiple country study. Land Economics, 88(2), 326–340. Carter, M., & Horwitz, P. (2014). Beyond proximity: The importance of green space useability to self-reported health. EcoHealth, 11(3), 322–332. Cavanagh, J. -A. E., & Clemons, J. (2006). Do urban forests enhance air quality? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13(2), 120–130. Chen, H., Jia, B., & Lau, S. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International, 32(1), 28–40. Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. Ching-hua, H., Sasidharan, V., Elmendorf, W., & Willits, F. K. (2005). Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 281. Clausen, R., & York, R. (2008). Global biodiversity decline of marine and freshwater fish: A cross-national analysis of economic, demographic, and ecological influences. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1310–1320. Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O'Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., ... WilhelmRechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9483–9488. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. DeFries, R. S., Rudel, T., Uriarte, M., & Hansen, M. (2010). Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, 3(3), 178–181. Deng, H., Song, M., Chen, C., & Rong, B. (2008). Current situation and development of Chinese urban forestry. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(4), 371–377. Dennis, M., & James, P. (2016). User participation in urban green commons: Exploring the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well being. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 22–31. Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Crenshaw, E. M., & Jenkins, J. C. (2002). Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: A cross-national investigation of intervening mechanisms. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 226–243. EME (2011). La Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España - Fundación Biodiversidad del Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente. (from) http://www.ecomilenio.es/informe-sintesis-eme/2321 Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (2002). Expanding the assessment of attitude components and structure: The benefits of open-ended measures. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 71–101. Fernández-Juricic, E. (2000). Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape. Conservation Biology, 14(2), 513–521. Foster, C., Hillsdon, M., & Thorogood, M. (2004). Environmental perceptions and walking in English adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(11), 924–928.

26

M.S.H. Swapan et al. / Cities 61 (2017) 17–26

Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., ... Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 169–176. Goličnik, B., & Thompson, C. W. (2010). Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(1), 38–53. Horton, B., Colarullo, G., Bateman, I. J., & Peres, C. A. (2003). Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation programme in Amazonia: A UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environmental Conservation, 30(2), 139–146. Jensen, R. R., Hardin, P. J., Bekker, M., Farnes, D. S., Lulla, V., & Hardin, A. (2009). Modeling urban leaf area index with AISA+ hyperspectral data. Applied Geography, 29(3), 320–332. Jim, C., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation–amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1), 81–96. Kenneth, B., Innes, J. L., Martin, K., & Klinkenberg, B. (2005). Forest loss with urbanization predicts bird extirpations in Vancouver. Biological Conservation, 126(3), 410–419. Kline, J. D., Mazzotta, M. J., Spies, T. A., & Harmon, M. E. (2013). Applying the ecosystem services concept to public land management. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 42(1), 139–158. Kumar, M., & Kumar, P. (2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 808–819. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343–367. Li, F., Wang, R., Paulussen, J., & Liu, X. (2005). Comprehensive concept planning of urban greening based on ecological principles: A case study in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 72(4), 325–336. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1995). Urban form and social context: Cultural differentiation in the uses of urban parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), 89–102. Lütz, M., & Bastian, O. (2002). Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape - A case study from Saxony. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 92(2), 159–170. Lynam, T., De Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., & Evans, K. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 5. Malhotra, N. K. (2008). Marketing research: An applied orientation, 5/e: Pearson Education. Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 67–86. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D. G., ... Willaarts, B. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PloS One, 7(6), e38970. MEA (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being - A framework for assessment: Millennium ecosystem assessment. Misselhorn, A. A. (2005). What drives food insecurity in southern Africa? A meta-analysis of household economy studies. Global Environmental Change, 15(1), 33–43. O'Brien, E. (2005). Publics and woodlands in England: Well-being, local identity, social learning, conflict and management. Forestry, 78(4), 321–336. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., González, J. A., Plieninger, T., López, C. A., & Montes, C. (2014). Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance socialecological network. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1269–1289.

Qin, B. (2015). City profile: Chengdu. Cities, 43, 18–27. Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1301–1315. Richardson, E. A., & Mitchell, R. (2010). Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine, 71(3), 568–575. Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sutton, S. G., Barnes, M., & Sherrouse, B. C. (2012). Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Applied Geography, 35(1), 164–173. Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U. K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130–137. Sherrouse, B. C., Clement, J. M., & Semmens, D. J. (2011). A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography, 31(2), 748–760. Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., ... Shively, G. (2014). Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: A global comparative study. World Development, 64, S56–S66. Tait, P. R., Miller, S., Abell, W., Kaye-Blake, W., Guenther, M., & Saunders, C. (2011). Consumer attitudes towards sustainability attributes on food labels. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 59–72. Turner, R., & Daily, G. (2008). The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 25–35. Tyrväinen, L. (2001). Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 62(1), 75–92. Ulrich, R. (1984). View a window may ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421. UNESCO World Heritage Conference (2003). Linking universal and local values: Managing a sustainable future for world heritage World Heritage Paper 13. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Villamor, G. B., Palomo, I., Santiago, C. A. L., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Hill, J. (2014). Assessing stakeholders' perceptions and values towards social-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecological Processes, 3(1), 1–12. Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015a). A comparison of perceived and geographic access to predict urban park use. Cities, 42, 85–96. Wang, D., Brown, G., Zhong, G., Liu, Y., & Mateo-Babiano, I. (2015b). Factors influencing perceived access to urban parks: A comparative study of Brisbane (Australia) and Zhongshan (China). Habitat International, 50, 335–346. WAPC (2014). The urban forest of Perth and Peel - Statistical report. Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission.