Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 338–349 | Cite as

Perception and Attitude of Residents Toward Urban Green Spaces in Guangzhou (China)

  • C. Y. Jim
  • Wendy Y. Chen
PROFILE

Abstract

Fast economic and social changes in recent years in China have brought massive expansion, redevelopment, and restructuring of cities. These changes offer cities the opportunity to improve environmental quality through urban green spaces (UGSs) and to address the challenges of meeting community aspirations. This study explored peoples’ minds concerning UGSs in Guangzhou city in south China in relation to the following: (1) knowledge and perception of 25 ecosystem services and 8 negative impacts; (2) attitude toward site condition and management; (3) expectation of landscape design; and (4) preference ranking of venues. A questionnaire was designed to solicit opinions from 340 respondents randomly chosen from residents living in the study area. The results indicated widespread recognition of ecosystem services and strong support of UGS programs. Negative responses were weakly expressed. Amelioration of urban microclimate and environmental quality were emphasized. Environmental functions stressed in publicity programs, together with aggravating environmental problems in the city, tended to focus respondents’ attention on UGS benefits. Wildlife habitat, species conservation and other natural ecosystem services drew limited concerns. Awareness of economic benefits was very low. Visual-landscape contributions with strong preference for naturalistic design and recreational benefits were highlighted. Compared with other countries, Guangzhou residents were characterized by visual–scenic–recreation orientation and pragmatic–utilitarian perception of UGSs, reflecting underlying differences in the understanding of inherent ecosystem services of green spaces. Relevant UGS policies and practices could adopt the approaches of market survey, citizen participation, and precision planning in order to meet increasingly mature and refined demands. Citizens’ understanding of high-order ecosystem services could be enhanced to encourage appreciation of nature and their associated benefits.

Keywords

Community participation Ecosystem service Environmental function Naturalistic landscape design Outdoor recreation Precision planning Urban green space Visitor perception Guangzhou China 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research grant support kindly provided by the Hui Oi Chow Trust Fund and the Outstanding Researcher Award, both administered by the University of Hong Kong, and the Urban China Research Network Small Grant Award of the Urban China Research Network at the University of Albany is gratefully acknowledged. The study was partly supported by a Postgraduate Studentship of the University of Hong Kong.

Literature Cited

  1. Arnold H. F. 1993. Trees in urban design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Baines C. 2000. A forest of other issues. Landscape Design 294:46–47Google Scholar
  3. Bateman I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Õzdemiroğlu, D. W. Pearce, R. Sugden, J. Swanson. 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolund P., S. Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley G. 1995. Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. In: G. Bradley (eds). Urban forest landscapes: Integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA pp 3–11Google Scholar
  6. Burgess J., S. M. Hassison, M. Limb. 1988. People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies 25:455–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanza R., C. Folke 1997. Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals. In: G. Daily (eds). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. pp 49–70Google Scholar
  8. Cranz G. 1979. The useful and the beautiful: urban parks in China, Landscape 23:3–10Google Scholar
  9. Cummings R. G., D. S. Brookshire, W. D. Schulze 1986. Valuing environmental goods: An assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. De Vries S., R. A. Verheij, P. P. Groenewegen, P. Spreeuwenberg. 2003. Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A 35:1717–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunnett N., C. Swanwick, H. Woolley. 2002. Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwyer J. F., H. W. Schroeder, P. H. Gobster 1994. The deep significance of urban trees and forests. In: R. H. Platt, R. A. Rowntree, P. C. Muick. (eds). The ecological city: Preserving and restoring urban biodiversity. University of Massachusetts Press, Boston. pp 137–150Google Scholar
  13. Fang C.F., D. L. Ling. 2003. Investigation of the noise reduction provided by tree belts. Landscape and Urban Planning 63:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser D.G., W. A. Kenney. 2000. Cultural background and landscape history as factors effecting perceptions of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 26:106–113Google Scholar
  15. Frey H. W. 2000. Not green belts but green wedges: the precarious relationship between city and country. Urban Design International 5:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrod G., K. G. Willis 1999. Economic valuation of the environment: Methods and case studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Garvin A., G. Berens 1997. Urban parks and open space. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Geoghegan J. 2002. The value of open spaces in residential land use, Land Use Policy 19:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory R., S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic. 1993. Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7:177–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grey G. W., F. J. Deneke 1986. Urban forestry, 2nd. ed. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Guangdong Census Office. 2002. Tabulation on the 2000 population census of Guangdong Province. China: Guangdong Economic Press, Guangzhou (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  22. Harnik P. 2000. Inside city parks. Urban Land Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris R. A., L. F. Cohn. 1985. Use of vegetation for abatement of highway traffic noise. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 11:34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayward D. G., W. H. Weitzer. 1983. Understanding urban park users: A key to effective planning and management. Parks and Recreation Resources 2(2):24–27Google Scholar
  25. Hayward D. G., W. H. Weitzer. 1984. The public’s image of urban parks: Past amenity, present ambivalence, uncertain future. Urban Ecology 8:243–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. He X., Z. Ning. 2002. Advances in urban forest ecology. Chinese Forestry Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. Hendee J. C., G. H. Stankey, R. C. Lucas 1990. Wilderness management. North American Press, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  28. Hunter I. R. 2001. What do people want from urban forestry? The Europe experience. Urban Ecosystems 5:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jakobsson K. M., A. K. Dragun 1996. Contingent valuation and endangered species: Methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Jim C. Y. 2002. Planning strategies to overcome constraints on greenspace provision in urban Hong Kong. Town Planning Review 73:127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jim C. Y. 2004. Green space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening in compact cities. Cities 21:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jim C. Y., H. T. Liu. 2001. Patterns and dynamics of urban forests in relation to land use and development history in Guangzhou City, China. The Geographical Journal 167:358–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jupp E., L. Musgrave, J. Reeve, M. Mason 2002. People and places: Social inclusion policy for the built and historic environment. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Last F. T., J. E. Good, R. H. Watson, D. A. Greig. 1976. The city of Edinburgh—its stock of trees: A continuing amenity and timber resource, Scottish Forestry 30(2):112–126Google Scholar
  35. Lewan L., T. Söderqvist. 2002. Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecological Economics 42:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li D. 1999. The analysis on characteristics and benefits of the vegetation in Guangzhou urban parks. Ecologic Science 18:66–70 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  37. Lorenzo A. B., C. A. Blanche, Y. Qi, M. M. Guidry. 2000. Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: A small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture 26:319–325Google Scholar
  38. Luttik J. 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 48:161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marcus C. C., C. Francis 1998. Post-occupancy evaluation. In: C. C. Marcus C. Francis (eds). People places, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. pp 345–356Google Scholar
  40. McPherson E. G., J. R. Simpson, P. J., Peper, Q. Xiao. 1999. Benefit-cost analysis of Modesto’s municipal urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 25:235–248Google Scholar
  41. Miller R. W. 1997. Urban forestry: Planning and managing urban greenspaces, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  42. Peng Z. 2003. Development of modern urban forest. China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. Rowntree, R. A. (ed.) 1986. Ecology of the urban forest part II: Function. Urban Ecology 9:227–440 (special issue)Google Scholar
  44. Serpa A., A. Muhar. 1996. Effects of plants size, texture and colour on spatial perception in public green areas—a cross-cultural study. Landscape and Urban Planning 36:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smardon R. C. 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 15:85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Takano T., K. Kanamura, M. Watanabe. 2002. Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56:913–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tyrväinen L. 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tyrväinen L. 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tyrväinen L., H. Väänänen. 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: An application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape and Urban Planning 43:105–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tyrväinen L., H. Silvennoinen, O. Kolehmainen. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1:135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. 2002. Green spaces, better places. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker S. E., B. S. Duffield. 1983. Urban parks and open spaces: An overview. Landscape Research 8(2):2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang Q., Z. Chen, H. Shen. 2002. A study on the indirect valuation of the forest ecosystem in Baiyun Mountain. Ecologic Science 21:72–75 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  54. Yang S., H. Gao, S. Wang. 1989. Environmental function of urban green spaces in Guangzhou. Tropical Geography 9:134–141 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  55. Zheng Z. 1995. Street planting in Guangzhou. Tropical Geography 15:62–69 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations