Recreational Use of Urban Green Infrastructure: The Tourist’s Perspective

  • Theano S. TerkenliEmail author
  • Simon Bell
  • Ivana Živojinović
  • Jelena Tomićević-Dubljević
  • Thomas Panagopoulos
  • Inga Straupe
  • Oliver Toskovic
  • Katarina Kristianova
  • Lina Straigyte
  • Liz O’Brien
Part of the Future City book series (FUCI, volume 7)


When we think of cities as tourist destinations, we do not just think of cafes and restaurants, cathedrals and monuments, museums and theatres – but also of tree-lined boulevards, great palace parks, beautiful botanic gardens, shady riverside embankments and intimate squares with spreading trees. In other words, the landscape of great cities includes, and is often determined by, the green spaces – or, as termed here – the urban green infrastructure (UGI ). Such places offer so much – a stroll along the Champs Elysees in Paris, wandering through Hyde Park in London, sitting in Parc Güell in Barcelona, a jog along the river Po in Turin – these are just a few examples of how important green areas are to the tourism experience as well as for the local residents. In fact they can be as much a part of the brand image, the unique selling point and the Genius lociof the city as the other landmarks. Some key green elements are also integral parts of the status of UNESCO World...


Green Space Urban Forest European City Green Infrastructure Tourist Destination 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We would like to express our gratitude to our colleagues who contributed to this chapter, through collaboration of various sorts with the authors, in the data collection and analysis. Specifically, many thanks are due to Alexandros Vakalides, MSc Student, University of the Aegean, Greece; Kevon Thompson, MSc Student, Southampton University, UK; Jelena Otašević, MSc Student, University of Belgrade, Serbia; and Zane Mietule, MSc Student, Latvia University of Agriculture, Latvia.


  1. Andrada II R, Deng J (2010) Enjoying green cities: assessing visitors’ attitudes and preferences for urban forests in Washington, DC. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-94, pp 168–174Google Scholar
  2. Bell S (2008) Design for outdoor recreation. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berte E, Panagopoulos T (2014) Enhancing city resilience to climate change by means of ecosystem services improvement: a SWOT analysis for the city of Faro, Portugal. Intern J Urban Sustain Dev 6:241–253. doi: 10.1080/19463138.2014.953536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cekule M (2010) Rīgas telpiskās struktūras analīze, izmantojot ģeogrāfiskās informācijas sistēmas (Riga’s city spatial strukture analyse based on geographical information system). Doctoral thesis, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia (in Latvian)Google Scholar
  6. Chang TC, Huang S (2014) Urban tourism and the experience economy. In: Lew AA, Hall CM, Williams AM (eds) The wiley-blackwell companion to tourism. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen WC, Jim CY (2008) Assessment and valuation of the ecosystem services provided by urban forests. In: Carreiro MM, Song YC, Wu J (eds) Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests. International perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 53–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiesura A (2004) The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc Urban Plan 68(1):129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crouch D (ed) (1999) Leisure/tourism geographies: practices and geographical knowledge. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobbs C, Escobedo FJ, Zipperer WC (2011) A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landsc Urban Plan 99:196–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donis J (2001) Urban forestry in Latvia: status, policy, management research. In: Urban forestry in the Nordic and Baltic countries – urban forests under transition. Proceedings from an international seminar on urban forestry in Kaunas, Lithuania. Randrup TB, Gustavsson R, Christophersen T (eds) Skov& Landskab Report 9. Hoersholm: Skov& Landskab, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  12. Dwyer JF, McPherson GE, Schroeder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18(5):227–234Google Scholar
  13. Eriksson L, Nordlund A, Olsson O, Westin K (2012) Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban For Urban Green 11:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fábos JG (1995) Introduction and overview: the greenway movement, uses and potentials of greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman RTT (2008) Urban regions. ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gudurić I, Tomićević J, Konijnendijk CC (2011) A comparative perspective of urban forestry in Belgrade, Serbia and Freiburg, Germany. Urban For Urban Green 10:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunnarsson G, Øhrstroom HE (2007) Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 83:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall CM, Page SJ (2006) The geography of tourism and recreation: environment. Place and space. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall CM, Williams AM, Lew AA (2014) Tourism: conceptualizations, disciplinarity, institutions, and issues. In: Lew AA, Hall CM, Williams AM (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell companion to tourism. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansmann R, Whitehead I, Krajter Ostoić S, Živojinović I, Stojanovska M, Jones N, Bernasconi A, Benamar S, Lelieveld C, Barstad J (2016) Partnerships for urban forestry and green infrastructure delivering services to people and the environment: a review on what they are and aim to achieve. Southeast Eur For 7(1). doi: 10.15177/seefor.16-09
  21. Huijbens E (2014) Natural wellness. The case of Icelandic wilderness landscapes for health and wellness tourism. In: Smith M, Puczkó L (eds) Health, tourism and hospitality: spas. Wellness and Medical Travel. Routledge, London, pp 413–416Google Scholar
  22. Iso-Ahola SE (1982) Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder. Ann Tour Res 9(2):256–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. James P, Tzoulas K, Adams MD, Barber A, Box J, Breuste J, Elmqvist T, Frith M, Gordon C, Greening KL, Handley J, Haworth S, Kazmierczak AE, Johnston M, Korpela K, Moretti M, Niemelä J, Pauleit S, Roe MH, Sadler JP, Thompson WC (2009) Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban For Urban Green 8:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jankovska I, Straupe I, Panagopoulos T (2010) Professionals awareness in promotion of conservation and management of urban forests as green infrastructure of Riga, Latvia. WSEAS Trans Environ Dev 6:614–623Google Scholar
  25. Jankovska I, Donis J, Straupe I, Panagopoulos T, Kupfere L (2013) Assessment of the forest recreation accessibility in Latvia. Fresenius Environ Bull 22(7B):2145–2151Google Scholar
  26. Jankovska I, Straupe I, Brumelis G, Donis J, Kupfere L (2014) Urban forests of Riga, Latvia – pressures, naturalness, attitudes and management. Balt For 20(2):342–351Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Konijnendijk CC (2008) The forest and the city: the cultural landscape of urban woodland. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konijnendijk CC, Randrup TB (2004) Urban forestry. In: Burley J, Evans J, Youngquist JA (eds) Encyclopedia of Forest sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Konijnendijk CC, Annerstedt M, Busse Nielsen A, Maruthaveeran S (2013) Benefits of urban parks a systematic review. International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration, Copenhagen/Alnarp, pp 1–70Google Scholar
  31. Madureira H, Nunes F, Oliveira JV, Cormier L, Madureira T (2015) Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban For Urban Green 14:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Majumdar S, Deng J, Zhang Y, Pierskalla C (2011) Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: a study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban For Urban Green 10(4):275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McConnell DJ (2003) The forest farms of kandy: and other gardens of complete design. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  34. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Page S (1995) Urban tourism. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Schipperijn J, Ekholm O, Stigsdotter UK, Toftager M, Bentsen P, Kamper-Jørgensen F, Randrup TB (2010) Factors influencing the use of green space: results from a danish national representative survey. Landsc Urban Plan 95:130–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Selby M (2012) Geographies of tourism and the city. In: Wilson J (ed) The routledge handbook of tourism geographies. Routledge, London, pp 232–239Google Scholar
  38. Terkenli TS (1996) The cultural landscape: geographical perspectives. Papazissis Publications, Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  39. Tomićević J (2005) Towards participatory management: linking people, resources and management. A socio-economic study of Tara National Park. Culterra, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Landespflege der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Heft 43, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner T (2005) Garden history: philosophy and design 2000 BC–2000 AD. Spon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Tyrväinen L, Pauleit S, Seeland K, de Vries S (2005) Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In: Konijnendijk C, Nilsson K, Randrup T, Schipperijn J (eds) Urban forests and trees. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyrväinen L, Gustavsson R, Konijnendijk C, Ode A (2006) Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands. Forest Policy Econ 8:811–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tyrväinen L, Mäkinen K, Schipperijn J (2007) Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 79:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNWTO (2011) Tourism Trends 2030: Global Overview. UNWTO General Assembly, 19th Session, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 10 Oct 2011, UNWTO, MadridGoogle Scholar
  45. UNWTO & UNEP (2011) Tourism: investing in the green economy. In: Towards a green economy. United Nations Environmental Programme, Geneva, pp 409–447Google Scholar
  46. Urry J (1995) Consuming places. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Ward Thompson C (2004) Forest amenity planning approaches. In: Burley J, Evans J, Youngquist JA (eds) Encyclopedia of forest sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 478–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiltshier P (2009) A review of “Religious” tourism and pilgrimage management. J Sustain Tour 17:408–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yli-Pelkonen V, Kohl J (2005) The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Available at Accessed 20 Sept 2016
  50. Živojinović I, Wolfslehner B (2015) Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate change adaptation – A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban For Urban Green 14:1079–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theano S. Terkenli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simon Bell
    • 2
  • Ivana Živojinović
    • 3
    • 4
  • Jelena Tomićević-Dubljević
    • 5
  • Thomas Panagopoulos
    • 6
  • Inga Straupe
    • 7
  • Oliver Toskovic
    • 8
  • Katarina Kristianova
    • 9
  • Lina Straigyte
    • 10
  • Liz O’Brien
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of the AegeanMitiliniGreece
  2. 2.Department of Landscape ArchitectureEstonian University of Life SciencesTartuEstonia
  3. 3.The European Forest Institute Central-East and South-East European Regional Office (EFICEEC-EFISEE)University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU)ViennaAustria
  4. 4.Forest FacultyLatvia University of AgricultureJelgavaLatvia
  5. 5.Faculty of Forestry, Department of Landscape Architecture and HorticultureUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  6. 6.University of AlgarveFaroPortugal
  7. 7.Forest FacultyLatvia University of AgricultureJelgavaLatvia
  8. 8.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  9. 9.Faculty of ArchitectureSlovak University of Technology in BratislavaBratislavaSlovakia
  10. 10.Faculty of Forest Science and EcologyAleksandras Stulginskis UniversityKaunasLithuania
  11. 11.Centre for Ecosystems, Society and BiosecuritySocial and Economic Research Group (Forest Research)SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations