PL
 |
EN

PL EN

Preferencje help
Polish version English version Język
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
Tytuł artykułu

Ecosystem services-based planning and management of multifamily residential areas: bridging practitioners' approaches and residents' preferences

Autorzy
Kulczyk Sylwia , Matczak Piotr , Zwierzchowska Iwona , Litwiński Michał , Mączka Krzysztof , Gerlée Alina , Derek Marta
Treść / Zawartość
Pełne teksty:
Kulczyk_ecosystem_4_24.pdf
Identyfikatory
DOI
10.34659/eis.2024.91.4.818
Warianty tytułu
PL
Planowanie i zarządzanie osiedlami mieszkaniowymi na podstawie usług ekosystemowych: łącząc perspektywę praktyków i preferencje mieszkańców
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
EN
This paper addresses the realm of planning and managing greenery in multifamily residential areas. We uncover parallels between practitioners' approaches, residents' preferences, and the spatial attributes of residential areas that influence the supply of ecosystem services (ES). We focus on cultural ecosystem services (CES), the most directly experienced by urban inhabitants. Employing a multi-method approach encompassing a workshop for practitioners, a discrete choice experiment (DCE)-based survey of urban residents, and mapping of greenery attributes in Poznań (Poland). Our study underscores the importance of shaping conditions that facilitate bundled regulating and cultural ES. Practitioners recognise the role of greenery in the production of ES. This resonates with residents' preferences for predominantly green neighbourhoods, with the dominance of trees and some facilities for active recreation. Mismatches between opting for well-maintained greenery with some benches while neither the level of maintenance nor facilities for passive recreation are crucial for residents. Ultimately, we identify four types of multifamily residential areas reflecting varying degrees of resident preferences. These findings offer valuable information for the future development of multifamily residential areas, helping to design urban green spaces that respond to values and needs and, consequently, to increase the provision of cultural ecosystem services and support the regulating ones.
PL
Artykuł dotyczy sfery planowania i zarządzania zielenią w budownictwie wielorodzinnym. Zidentyfikowano podobieństwa między podejściem praktyków, preferencjami mieszkańców i atrybutami przestrzennymi obszarów mieszkalnych, które wpływają na podaż usług ekosystemowych. Analizie poddano usługi kulturowe, najbardziej bezpośrednio doświadczane przez mieszkańców miast. Zastosowane metody obejmowały warsztaty dla praktyków, badanie ankietowe mieszkańców miast oparte na eksperymencie dyskretnego wyboru (DCE) oraz mapowanie atrybutów zieleni w Poznaniu. Nasze badanie podkreśla znaczenie kształtowania warunków, które ułatwiają łączenie regulacyjnych i kulturowych usług ekosystemowych. Praktycy dostrzegają rolę zieleni w dostawie usług ekosystemowych, co odpowiada potrzebie bliskości zieleni wyrażanej przez mieszkańców. Ci ostatni preferują zielone osiedla, z dominacją drzew i pewnymi udogodnieniami dla rekreacji aktywnej. Obie grupy różnią się jednak stosunkiem do utrzymania zieleni i podaży obiektów rekreacyjnych; dla mieszkańców ani poziom „zadbania” o zieleń, ani udogodnienia dla rekreacji pasywnej nie są kluczowe, podczas gdy praktycy uważają za konieczne podejmowanie takich właśnie badań. Zidentyfikowano cztery typy wielorodzinnych obszarów mieszkalnych odzwierciedlających różne preferencje mieszkańców. Uzyskane wyniki dostarczają cennych wskazówek dla przyszłego rozwoju osiedli wielorodzinnych, pomagając projektować miejskie przestrzenie zielone odpowiadające na wartości i potrzeby ludzi, a tym samym zwiększać dostarczanie kulturowych usług ekosystemowych oraz wspierać usługi regulacyjne.
Słowa kluczowe
EN
PL
Wydawca
Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
Czasopismo
Economics and Environment
Rocznik
2024
Tom
No. 4
Strony
art. no. 818
Opis fizyczny
Bibliogr. 96 poz., fot., tab., wykr.
Twórcy
autor
Kulczyk Sylwia
skulczyk@uw.edu.pl
  • University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście Street 30, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland
autor
Matczak Piotr
  • Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
autor
Zwierzchowska Iwona
  • Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
autor
Litwiński Michał
  • Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
autor
Mączka Krzysztof
  • Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
autor
Gerlée Alina
  • University of Warsaw
autor
Derek Marta
  • University of Warsaw
Bibliografia
  • Allen, K., Castellano, C., & Pessagno, S. (2021). Using dialogue to contextualize culture, ecosystem services, and cultural ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 26(2), 7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12187-260207
  • Artmann, M., Inostroza, L., & Fan, P. (2019). Urban sprawl, compact urban development and green cities: How much do we know, how much do we agree? Ecological Indicators, 96, 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.059
  • Ayala-Azcárraga, C., Diaz, D., & Zambrano, L. (2019). Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.005
  • Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., & Syrbe, R.-U. (2012). Space and time aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the EU Water Framework Directive. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Ecosystem Services Management, 8(1–2), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.631941
  • Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., & Loomes, G. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Bekő, M. (2015). Budapest’s large prefab housing estates: Urban values of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Hungarian Studies, 29(1-2), 21-36. https://doi.org/10.1556/044.2015.29.1-2.2
  • Brandt, S., & Maennig, W. (2012). The impact of rail access on condominium prices in Hamburg. Transportation, 39, 997-1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9379-0
  • Calderón-Argelich, A., Benetti, S., Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J., Langemeyer, J., & Baró, F. (2021). Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem services literature: A systematic review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104130
  • Cheng, L., Caset, F., De Vos, J., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2019). Investigating walking accessibility to recreational amenities for elderly people in Nanjing, China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 76, 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.09.019
  • Chorążewicz, M. (2010). The role of landscape ecological aspect of spatial planning in Poznań. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 28, 89-89. https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/86809.pdf
  • Cohen, M., Baudoin, R., Palibrk, M., Persyn, N., & Rhein, C. (2012). Urban biodiversity and social inequalities in built-up cities: New evidences, next questions. The example of Paris, France. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(3), 277-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.007
  • Cortinovis, C., & Geneletti, D. (2019). A framework to explore the effects of urban planning decisions on regulating ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services, 38, 100946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100946
  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
  • Czepczyński, M. (2008). Cultural landscapes of post-socialist cities: Representation of powers and needs. London: Routledge.
  • de Bekker-Grob, E. W., Donkers, B., & Jonker, M. F. (2015). Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. Patient, 8, 373-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z
  • de la Fuente de Val, G. (2023). The effect of spontaneous wild vegetation on landscape preferences in urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 81, 127863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127863
  • de la Fuente de Val, G., & Mühlhauser, H. (2014). Visual quality: An examination of a South American Mediterranean landscape, Andean foothills east of Santiago (Chile). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(2), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.01.006
  • de Valck, J., Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., de Nocker, L., & Vranken, L. (2017). Outdoor recreation in various landscapes: Which site characteristics really matter? Land Use Policy, 65, 186-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.009
  • Dieleman, F., & Wegener, M. (2004). Compact city and urban sprawl. Built Environment, 30(4), 308-323. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.30.4.308.57151
  • Erlwein, S., & Pauleit, S. (2021). Trade-offs between urban green space and densification: Balancing outdoor thermal comfort, mobility, and housing demand. Urban Planning, 6(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3481
  • Eurostat. (2021). Type of housing in cities or rural areas, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/digpub/housing/bloc-1a.html?lang=en
  • Farkas, J. Z., Hoyk, E., de Morais, M. B., & Csomós, G. (2023). A systematic review of urban green space research over the last 30 years: A bibliometric analysis. Heliyon, 9(2), e13406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13406
  • Fish, R., Church, A., & Winter, M. (2016). Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services, 21, 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002
  • Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science and Policy, 62, 90-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010
  • Gadziński, J., & Radzimski, A. (2016). The first rapid tram line in Poland: How has it affected travel behaviours, housing choices and satisfaction, and apartment prices? Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.11.001
  • Gavand, K. A., Cain, K. L., Conway, T. L., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., Kerr, J., Glanz, K., & Sallis, J. F. (2019). Associations between neighborhood recreation environments and adolescent physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 16(10), 880-885. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0556
  • Gavrilidis, A. A., Zakerhaghighi, K., Popa, A. M., Akbarian, S. Z., Onose, D. A., Grădinaru, S. R., & Slave, R. A. (2023). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services provision by small public urban green spaces: Perspectives from different cultural backgrounds. Urban Ecosystems, 27, 699-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01480-3
  • Geoportal. (2019). Baza Danych Obiektów Topograficznych. https://www.geoportal.gov.pl/dane/baza-danych-obiektow-topograficznych-bdot (in Polish).
  • GEOPOZ. (2019). Tree height map. Board of Geodesy and the City Cadastre GEOPOZ. https://geopoz.poznan.pl/ (in Polish).
  • Grunewald, K., Bastia, O., Louda, J., Arcidiacono, A., Brzoska, P., Bue, M., Cetin, N. I., Dworczyk, C., Dubova, L., Fitch, A., Jones, L., la Rosa, D., Mascarenhas, A., Ronchi, S., Schlaepfer, M. A., Tezer, A., & Sikorska, D. (2021). Lessons learned from implementing the ecosystem services concept in urban planning. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101273
  • Grzyb, T., Kulczyk, S., Derek, M., & Woźniak, E. (2021). Using social media to assess recreation across urban green spaces in times of abrupt change. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101297
  • GUS. (2022). Bank Danych Lokalnych. https://bdl.stat.gov.pl/ (in Polish).
  • Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, M. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14, 760-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009
  • Haase, D., Dushkova, D., Haase, A., & Kronenberg, J. (2019). Green infrastructure in post-socialist cities: Evidence and experiences from Eastern Germany, Poland and Russia. In T. Tuvikene, W. Sgibnev & C.S. Neugebauer (Eds.), Post-Socialist Urban Infrastructures (pp. 105-124). London: Routledge.
  • Haase, D., Haase, A., Kabisch, S., & Bischoff, P. (2008). Guidelines for the “Perfect Inner City.” Discussing the Appropriateness of Monitoring Approaches for Reurbanization. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1075-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802315765
  • Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf
  • Harrison, C., & Davies, G. (2002). Conserving biodiversity that matters: Practitioners' perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. Journal of Environmental Management, 65(1), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0539
  • Holmes, T. P., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2003). Attribute-based methods. In P.A. Champ, K.J. Boyle & T.C. Brown (Eds.), A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation (pp. 171-219). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Hong, A., Martinez, L., Patino, J. E., Duque, J. C., & Rahimi, K. (2021). Neighbourhood green space and health disparities in the global South: Evidence from Cali, Colombia. Health & Place, 72, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102690
  • Jansson, M. (2014). Green space in compact cities: The benefits and values of Urban Ecosystem services in planning. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 26(2), 139-160. https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/12463/10/jansson_m_150806.pdf
  • Juutinen, A., Mitani, Y., Mäntymaa, E., Shoji, Y., Siikamäki, P., & Svento, R. (2011). Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1231-1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.006
  • Kaczorowska, A., Jaan-Henrik, K., Kronenberg, J., & Haase, D. (2016). Ecosystem services in urban land use planning: Integration challenges in complex urban settings—Case of Stockholm. Ecosystem Services, 22A, 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.006
  • Kim, H., Shoji, Y., Tsuge, T., Aikoh, T., & Kuriyama, K. (2020). Understanding services from ecosystem and facilities provided by urban green spaces: A use of partial profile choice experiment. Forest Policy and Economics, 111, 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102086
  • Kronenberg, J. (2015). Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving Urban Ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 218-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002
  • Kronenberg, J., Skuza, M., & Łaszkiewicz, E. (2023). To what extent do developers capitalise on urban green assets? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 87, 128063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128063
  • Kujala, J., Sachs, S., Leinonen, H., Heikkinen, A., & Laude, D. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136-1196. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595
  • Lakes, T., Brückner, M., & Krämer, A. (2014). Development of an environmental justice index to determine socio-economic disparities of noise pollution and green space in residential areas in Berlin. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(4), 538-556. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.755461
  • Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123
  • Louda, J., Vojáček, O., & Slavíková, L. (2021). Achieving robust and socially acceptable environmental policy recommendations: Lessons from combining the choice experiment method and institutional analysis focused on cultural ecosystem services. Forests, 12(4), 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040484
  • Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lu, Y., Ferranti, E. J. S., Chapman, L., & Pfrang, C. (2023). Assessing urban greenery by harvesting street view data: A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 83, 127917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127917
  • Luo, S., & Patuano, A. (2023). Multiple ecosystem services of informal green spaces: A literature review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 81, 127849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127849
  • Mania, W., & Kozacki, L. (2008). Wpływ nowych form osiedli mieszkaniowych na system przyrodniczy miasta (na przykładzie osiedli piątkowskich w Poznaniu). Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, 22, 243-258. (in Polish).
  • Manyani, A., Shackleton, C. M., & Cocks, M. L. (2021). Attitudes and preferences towards elements of formal and informal public green spaces in two South African towns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104147
  • Mao, Q., Wang, L., Guo, Q., Li, Y., Liu, M., & Xu, G. (2020). Evaluating cultural ecosystem services of urban residential green spaces from the perspective of residents’ satisfaction with green space. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00226
  • Masik, G., Sagan, I., & Scott, J. W. (2021). Smart city strategies and new urban development policies in the Polish context. Cities, 108, 102970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102970
  • McMillan, A., & Lee, S. (2017). Smart growth characteristics and the spatial pattern of multifamily housing in U.S. metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 54(15), 3500-3523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016676008
  • Menconi, M. E., Palazzoni, L., & Grohmann, D. (2021). Core themes for an urban green systems thinker: A review of complexity management in provisioning cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 65, 127355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127355
  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
  • Misgav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00038-4
  • Næss, P., Saglie, I. L., & Richardson, T. (2020). Urban sustainability: Is densification sufficient? European Planning Studies, 28(1), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1604633
  • Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.14.2.161
  • Nazombe, K., & Nambazo, O. (2023). Monitoring and assessment of urban green space loss and fragmentation using remote sensing data in the four cities of Malawi from 1986 to 2021. Scientific African, 20, e01639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01639
  • Nedkov, S., Zhiyanski, M., Dimitrov, S., Borisova, B., Popov, A., Ihtimanski, I., Yaneva, R., Nicolov, P., & Bratanova-Doncheva, S. (2017). Mapping and assessment of urban ecosystem condition and services using integrated index of spatial structure. One Ecosystem, 2, e14499. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.2.e14499
  • Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S., & Koskela, T. (2007). Access to green areas and the frequency of visits – A case study in Helsinki. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6(4), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.05.003
  • Nordh, H., Wingren, C., Uteng, T. P., & Knapskog, M. (2023). Disrespectful or socially acceptable? – A Nordic case study of cemeteries as recreational landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 231, 104645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104645
  • Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Czepkiewicz, M., & Kronenberg, J. (2017). Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.012
  • Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
  • Przewoźna, P., Mączka, K., Mielewczyk, M., Inglot, A., & Matczak, P. (2022). Ranking ecosystem services delivered by trees in urban and rural areas. Ambio, 51, 2043-2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01722-2
  • Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5
  • Qiu, L., Yuxiang, D., & Liu, H. (2022). Integrating ecosystem services into planning practice: Situation, challenges and inspirations. Land, 11(4), 545. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040545
  • Ranchod, Y. K., Diez Roux, A. V., Evenson, K. R., Sánchez, B. N., & Moore, K. (2014). Longitudinal associations between neighborhood recreational facilities and change in recreational physical activity in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis, 2000–2007. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(3), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt263
  • Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form. Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS, 107(11), 5242-5247. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107
  • Ronchi, S., Arcidiacono, A., & Pogliani, L. (2020). Integrating green infrastructure into spatial planning regulations to improve the performance of urban ecosystems: Insights from an Italian case study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101907
  • Sagie, H., & Orenstein, D. E. (2022). Benefits of stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel. Ecosystem Services, 53, 101404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101404
  • Saidi, N., & Spray, H. (2018). Ecosystem services bundles: Challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 113001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae5e0
  • Schmeidler, K. (1998). Housing estate in the Czech Republic. European Spatial Research and Policy, 5, 71-74.
  • Schmid, H.-L., & Säumel, I. (2021). Outlook and insights: Perception of residential greenery in multistorey housing estates in Berlin, Germany. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 63, 127231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127231
  • Scholte, S. S., van Teeffelen, A. J., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
  • Sefcik, J. S., Kondo, M. C., Klusaritz, H., Sarantschin, E., Solomon, S., Roepke, A., South, E. C., & Jacoby, S. F. (2019). Perceptions of nature and access to green space in four urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2313. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132313
  • Sikorski, P., Gawryszewska, B., Sikorska, D., Chormański, J., Schwerk, A., Jojczyk, A., Ciężkowski, W., Archiciński, P., Łepkowski, M., Dymitryszyn, I., Przybysz, A., Wińska-Krysiak, M., Zajdel, B., Matusiak, J., & Łaszkiewicz, E. (2021). The value of doing nothing – How informal green spaces can provide comparable ecosystem services to cultivated urban parks. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101339
  • Staats, H., Gatersleben, B., & Hartig, T. (1997). Change in mood as a function of environmental design: Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(4), 283-300. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1997.0069
  • Stewart, I. S., & Lewis, D. (2017). Communicating contested geoscience to the public: Moving from ‘matters of fact’ to ‘matters of concern’. Earth-Science Reviews, 174, 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.003
  • Szulczewska, B., Giedych, R., Borowski, J., Kuchcik, M., Sikorski, P., Mazurkiewicz, A., & Stańczyk, T. (2014). How much green is needed for a vital neighbourhood? In search for empirical evidence. Land Use Policy, 38, 330-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.006
  • Tandarić, N., Ives, C. D., & Watkins, C. (2020). Can we plan for urban cultural ecosystem services? Journal of Urban Ecology, 6(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa016
  • Tandarić, N., Ives, C. D., & Watkins, C. (2022). From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 120, 106309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106309
  • Tusznio, J., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Rechciński, M., Olszańska, A., & Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2020). Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations. Ecosystem Services, 42, 101077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101077
  • Uittenbroek, C. J., Mees, H., Hegger, D. L., & Driessen, P. P. (2019). The design of public participation: Who participates, when and how? Insights in climate adaptation planning from the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(14), 2529-2547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1569503
  • Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73-137). Washington: Island Press.
  • Van Haaren, C., & Albert, C. (2011). Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: Limitations and synergies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 7(3), 150-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.616534
  • Wang, Y., Potoglou, D., Orford, S., & Gong, Y. (2015). Bus stop, property price and land value tax: A multilevel hedonic analysis with quantile calibration. Land Use Policy, 42, 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.017
  • Winston, N. (2017). Multifamily housing and resident life satisfaction in Europe: An exploratory analysis. Housing Studies, 32(7), 887-911. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1280776
  • Zhao, H., Zhu, T., Wang, S., & Lindley, S. (2022). Study on the changes of urban green space with remote sensing data: A comparison of Nanjing and Greater Manchester. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 31(1), 461-474. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/138208
  • Zulian, G., Marando, F., Mentaschi, L., Alzetta, C., Wilk, B., & Maes, J. (2022). Green balance in urban areas as an indicator for policy support: A multi-level application. One Ecosystem, 7, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.7.e72685
  • Zwierzchowska, I., Haase, D., & Dushkova, D. (2021). Discovering the environmental potential of multi-family residential areas for nature-based solutions: A Central European cities perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 206, 103975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103975
Uwagi
Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki (2025).
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.baztech-3398a83f-f4cc-4ed7-be25-7d6dcccf2fe4
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.