Abstract
The benefits of Ecosystem Services (ES) for the population’s well-being have been studied from different perspectives. One of these perspectives is the relationship between urban green areas and levels of well-being among users of urban parks. The objective of this study was to analyze possible associations between the perception of cultural ES and aspects related to well-being among users of a set of urban parks in a Latin American metropolis. 481 surveys were carried out with users of ten urban parks in the City of Recife, Northeast Brazil. The questions addressed the profile of the visitors, the perception of the characteristics of the parks, the influence of ES on environmental dimensions, the self-perception of health, and the willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits of the services. Data were analyzed in Stata 14, and four ordinal logistic regression models were generated. The results showed that the better the self-perception regarding mental health and stress levels, the greater the perception of the benefits of ESs in parks. Also, it was evidenced that more acceptance of WTP was correlated with a better perception of ES. The findings suggest that users of urban parks in the studied metropolis know the benefits of ES, associating them with improvements in well-being and urban environmental quality. These results can serve as a base line for decision-makers to incorporate the value of ES in urban planning strategies, especially in the context that the management of urban parks in the city will be granted to non-governmental actors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The form used and the dataset are available in a Github repository: https://github.com/cccneto. All authors whose names appear on the submission: (1) made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; (2) drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; (3) approved the version to be published; and (4) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Notes
The variable “wtp_acceptance” represents the level of acceptance to WTP offered in bids(Lopez-Feldman 2012). When it comes to the use of the double-bidding methodology, the acceptance for WTP offered allows for a review of the respondents’ decision (Aizaki et al. 2015). Thus, this variable is understood here as an approximation of the level of importance given to the ecosystem services offered by the Parks.
References
Abraham IA et al (2022) Public perception on environmental noise pollution: a case study in Zaria city, Kaduna state, Nigeria. Environ Health Eng Manage 9(2):135–145. https://doi.org/10.34172/EHEM.2022.15
Aizaki H, Nakatani T, Sato K (2015) Stated preference methods using R, 1st edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PRESS-TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP
Akpinar A (2016) How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol 16. Elsevier GmbH., pp 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.01.011.
AMATO-LOURENÇO LF et al (2016) Metrópoles, cobertura vegetal, áreas verdes e saúde. Estudos Avançados 30(86):113–130
Asah ST et al (2014) Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications’, Ecosystem Services, vol 10. Elsevier, pp 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.003
Ayala-Azcárraga C, Diaz D, Zambrano L (2019) Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landsc Urban Plann Elsevier 189(April):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.005
Barton H, Grant M (2013) Urban planning for healthy cities a review of the progress of the european healthy cities programme. J Urb Health 90(SUPPL 1):129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9649-3
Berney R (2010) Learning from Bogotá: how municipal experts transformed public space. J Urban Des 15(4):539–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2010.502344
BRASIL (2016) RESOLUÇÃO No 510, DE 7 DE ABRIL DE 2016. Ministério da Saúde/Conselho Nacional de Saúde, Brasília, DF
Camargo DM et al (2018) Physical activity in public parks of high and low socioeconomic status in Colombia using observational methods. J Phys Activity Health 15(8):581–591. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0318
Cariñanos P et al (2017) ‘Assessing allergenicity in urban parks: A nature-based solution to reduce the impact on public health’, Environmental Research. Elsevier Inc., 155(September 2016), pp. 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.02.015
Chen WY et al (2014) Impact of perceived importance of ecosystem services and stated financial constraints on willingness to pay for riparian meadow restoration in Flanders (Belgium). Environ Manage 54(2):346–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0293-z. Department of Geography, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Springer New York LLC
Cheung LTO et al (2022) Perceived benefits, negative impacts, and willingness-to-pay to improve urban green space. Geographical Research, pp 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12549
Crane M et al (2021) Transforming cities for sustainability: a health perspective. Environ Int 147(December 2020):106366.Elsevier Ltd10.1016/j.envint.2020.106366
del Salazar S, S. and, García Menéndez L (2007) Estimating the non-market benefits of an urban park: does proximity matter? Land Use Policy 24(1):296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.011
de Meneses ARS (2018) Desafios da gestão dos parques urbanos de Recife. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Available at: https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/33408
Duan Y et al (2018) Physical activity areas in urban parks and their use by the elderly from two cities in China and Germany. Landsc Urban Plann 178(May):261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.06.009
Dziba L et al (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. New York
Fávero LP (2015) Análise de dados: Modelos de regressão com EXCEL, STATA e SPSS, 1st edn. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro
Geng D (Christina) et al (eds) (2021) ‘Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: a global analysis’, Journal of Forestry Research. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 32(2), pp. 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01249-w
Giles-Corti B et al (2005) Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med 28(2 SUPPL 2):169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018
Haaland C, van den Bosch CK (2015) Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: a review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol 14. Elsevier GmbH, pp 760–771. 4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009.
Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2018) ‘Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure’, Fabis Consulting. V5.1. Edited by R. Haines-Young and M. Potschin. Nothinghan, p. 53. Available at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf
Honeck E et al (2021) ‘Integrating ecosystem services into policymaking – A case study on the use of boundary organizations’, Ecosystem Services. Elsevier B.V., 49(October 2020), p. 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101286
IBGE IBDGEE (2019) Perfil dos Municípios Brasileiros. 2019th edn. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. Available at: https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=2101668
Keeler BL et al (2019) Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nat Sustain Springer US 2(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1
Kendall M et al (2014) Atmospheric Resource Impact Assessment (ARIA): an inventory for evaluating ecosystem services derived from the atmosphere. PROGRESS IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY-EARTH AND ENVIRONMENT. 1 OLIVERS YARD, 55 CITY ROAD, LONDON EC1Y 1SP, ENGLAND, vol 38. SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, pp 414–430. 4 https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133314538719.
Keniger LE et al (2013) What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health 10(3):913–935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913
Lai H et al (2019) The impact of green space and biodiversity on health. Front Ecol Environ 17(7):383–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2077
Latinopoulos D, Mallios Z, Latinopoulos P (2016) Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: a contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use Policy, vol 55. Elsevier Ltd, pp 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.020.
Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., & Kuan, S. C. (2001). Access, Equity, and Urban Greenways: An Exploratory Investigation. Professional Geographer, 53(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00288.
Liu H et al (2020) ‘Supply and demand assessment of urban recreation service and its implication for greenspace planning-A case study on Guangzhou’, Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier, 203(October 2019), p. 103898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103898
Liu R, Xiao J (2021) Factors affecting users’ satisfaction with urban parks through online comments data: evidence from Shenzhen, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010253
Londe PR, Mendes PC (2014) ‘A Influência das Áreas Verdes na Qualidade de Vida Urbana’, Revista Brasileira de Geografia Médica e da Saúde, 10(18), pp. 264–272. Available at: http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/hygeia%5Cnhttp://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/hygeia/article/viewFile/26487/14869
Long JS, Freese J (2001) Regression models for categorical dependent variables, using Stata, 1st edn. College Station, Texas. https://doi.org/10.1186/2051-3933-2-4
Lopez-Feldman A (2012) Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata, MPRA Paper. 41018. Munchen. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41018/
López-Mosquera N, Sánchez M (2011) Emotional and satisfaction benefits to visitors as explanatory factors in the monetary valuation of environmental goods. An application to periurban green spaces. Land Use Policy 28(1):151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.05.008
Mak BKL, Jim CY (2019) ‘Linking park users’ socio-demographic characteristics and visit-related preferences to improve urban parks’, Cities. Elsevier, 92(July 2017), pp. 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.008
Marselle MR et al (2019) Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change: perspectives for Science, Policy and Practice. ’1, Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change, vol –1. SPRINGER NATURE, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02318-8_20
Mertes JD, Hall JR (1996) Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. 3a edn. Lacey, WA: American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration
Mexia T et al (2018) ‘Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass’, Environmental Research. Elsevier Inc., 160(October 2017), pp. 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023
Montes-Pulido C, Forero VF (2021) Cultural ecosystem services and disservices in an urban park in Bogota, Colombia | Serviços ecossistêmicos culturais e desserviços num parque urbano em Bogotá, Colombia | Servicios ecosistémicos culturales y diservicios en un parque urbano de Bogotá, Colo. Ambiente e Sociedade 24:1–20
Nath TK, Han Z, S. S. and, Lechner AM (2018) Urban green space and well-being in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol 36. Elsevier, pp 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.013
Nawrath M, Elsey H, Dallimer M (2022) Why cultural ecosystem services matter most: exploring the pathways linking greenspaces and mental health in a low-income country. Sci Total Environ Elsevier B V 806:150551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150551
Neergaard MA et al (2009) Qualitative description-the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol 9(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-52
Parra-Saldívar A et al (2020) Exploring perceived well-being from urban parks: insights from a megacity in latin America. Sustain (Switzerland) 12(18):1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187586
Payne LL, Mowen AJ, Orsega-Smith E (2002) An examination of park preferences and behaviors among urban residents: the role of residential location, race and age. Leisure Sci 24(2):181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400252900149
Pereira P et al (2022) Nature based solutions impacts on urban environment chemistry: air, soil and water. In: Ferreira CSS, Kalantari Z, Hartmann T,P. P. (eds) Nature-Based solutions for Flood Mitigation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, pp 79–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2021_760.
Pinto LV et al (2022) Ecosystem services and well-being dimensions related to urban green spaces – A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society journal 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104072
Reyes-Riveros R et al (2021) ‘Linking public urban green spaces and human well-being: A systematic review’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 61(September 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127105
Riechers M, Noack EM, Tscharntke T (2017) Experts’ versus laypersons’ perception of urban cultural ecosystem services’, Urban Ecosystems. Urban Ecosyst 20(3):715–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0616-3
Romagosa F (2018) Physical health in green spaces: visitors’ perceptions and activities in protected areas around Barcelona. J Outdoor Recreation Tourism Elsevier Ltd 23(March):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2018.07.002
Sabyrbekov R, Dallimer M, Navrud S (2020) ‘Nature affinity and willingness to pay for urban green spaces in a developing country’, Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier, 194(December 2018), p. 103700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103700
Schaefer M, Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America (2015) ‘Nature as capital: Advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs’,. 2101 CONSTITUTION AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20418 USA: NATL ACAD SCIENCES, 112(24), pp. 7383–7389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420500112
Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 19(4):269–277. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.19.4.9
Sherer, P. (2006). The Benefits of Parks : Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space. The Trust for Public Land, 1–37.
Shi Y et al (2017) ‘The ecosystem service value as a new eco-efficiency indicator for industrial parks’, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION. THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, OXON, ENGLAND: ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 164, pp. 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.187
Silveira IH (2018) Espaços verdes e mortalidade por doenças cardiovasculares no município do Rio de Janeiro. Revista de Saúde Pública 52(49):9. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2018052000290. JungerW. L.
Sturm R, Cohen D (2014) Proximity to urban parks and mental health. J Mental Health Policy Econ 17(1):19–24 Available at: Proximity to Urban Parks and Mental Health (nih.gov)
UN (2019) World population prospects 2019, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects 2019. New York. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12283219
UN, Nations, U. and Division, D. of E. and S. A. P. (2018) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, Demographic Research. New York: United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2005.12.9
Venter ZS et al (2020) Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ Res Lett 15(10). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396
Vidal DG et al (2022) ‘The influence of social and economic environment on health’, in One Health: Integrated Approach to 21st Century Challenges to Health. 1st edn. Cambridge: Academic Press—Elsevier, pp. 1–25. Available at: https://cfe.uc.pt/profile/publications/2232
Wan C, Shen GQ, Choi S (2020) Effects of physical and psychological factors on users’ attitudes, use patterns, and perceived benefits toward urban parks’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol 51. Elsevier, p 126691. April10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126691
Woodruff SC, BenDor TK (2016) Ecosystem services in urban planning: comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans’, Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier B V 152:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003
Wright Wendel HE, Zarger RK, Mihelcic JR (2012) Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America’, Landscape and Urban Planning. Elsevier B V 107(3):272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.003
Xu F et al (2020) Uncovering the willingness-to-pay for urban green space conservation: a survey of the capital area in China’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol 162. Elsevier, p 105053. June10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105053
Zhang H, Zhang J, Cai L (2022) Effects of Cultural Ecosystem Services on Visitors’ subjective Well-Being: Evidences from China’s National Park and Flower Expo. J Travel Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875221095219
Zhang S et al (2018) Explaining individual Subjective Well-Being of Urban China based on the four-capital Model. SUSTAINABILITY. ST ALBAN-ANLAGE 66, CH-4052 BASEL, vol 10. MDPI, SWITZERLAND, 10 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103480.
Zhang S, Zhou W (2018) Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: evidence from geotagged social media data’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol 180. Elsevier, pp 27–35. 1810.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.004
Zhang W et al (2015) Factors affecting the use of urban green spaces for physical activities: views of young urban residents. Beijing’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, vol 14. Elsevier GmbH, pp 851–857. 4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.08.006.
Zwierzchowska I et al (2018) ‘Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 30(July 2017), pp. 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.017
Funding
The authors are grateful for the support of the Dean of Research and Innovation (PROPESQ) of the Federal Institute of Pernambuco for financial support through the APQ 04/2019 public notice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors whose names appear on the submission: (1) made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; (2) drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; (3) approved the version to be published; and (4) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
According to the norms of resolution 510/1617 of the National Health Council (BRASIL 2016), all procedures followed the standards of the resolution. We adopted the opinion survey format, and no type of identification was requested. In addition, when approaching respondents in the park, users were asked if they agreed to answer the survey questions. The research ethics committee approved the research under registration: 44427920.7.0000.0130.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Menezes da Silva, C.E., Vasconcelos Bezerra, A.C. & Cruz Neto, C.C. Associations between the perception of ecosystem services and well-being in urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 26, 1615–1627 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01412-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01412-1