Search

Are bigger green spaces more diverse in terms of their natural and manmade elements? Does higher diversity mean they are more attractive to users and encourage more diversity of activities, and thereby provide a wider range of recreational ecosystem services? We assessed and classified the recreational services in green urban spaces in the city of Oslo, by combining multidimensional biophysical mapping based on the structural diversity index (SDI), with users’ importance scores as an approach to nonmonetary valuation of urban parks. Our results reveal that size is a weak and non-linear determinant of structural diversity. On the other hand, stated preferences are correlated with structural elements. Urban green spaces classification could be improved by combining structural diversity indicators with structural preference studies. At the same time, our structural diversity measure did not cover the full range of recreational services across the spectrum of urban green spaces. We discuss potential extensions of the structural diversity index for urban green space in order to cover a wider range of green spaces – from cemetaries to peri-urban forest – and the recreational opportunities provided by them. Urban green spaces Structural diversity Recreation Cultural ecosystem services Size

Taking into account the perceptions of locals as well as visitors to La Plana de l’Empordà, a region in Girona (Spain) undergoing an agricultural intensification process, this study attempts to explore the linkages between agricultural landscapes and human well-being by performing open, single-question interviews with 241 respondents. The results show a high perception of cultural ecosystem services as benefits from agricultural landscapes, although differences across respondent groups and across a rural–urban gradient suggest important trade-offs. Our results demonstrate that potential conflicts in the study area might emerge between a rural view on agricultural landscapes and a more production-oriented landscape appreciation. We consider it relevant to take into account potential social conflicts due to the new social composition in Mediterranean rural areas where different perceptions regarding the delivery of ecosystem services coexist.

This study examines how local population, tourists and farmers relate to rural landscapes, by exploring visual landscape preferences and the influence of everyday landscapes on the research subjects. Results point towards an immense variability in visual landscape preferences amongst user groups living in or visiting the study area (Plana de l’Empordà, Girona, Spain). Tourists rate grasslands at the top of their preference list, local residents prefer orchards, and farmers favour fields of irrigated herbaceous crops; showing, altogether, that the user's relationship with the landscape determines their visual preferences. Results show that farmers prefer agriculture dominated scenes while local residents and tourists prefer scenes with equilibrium between agricultural and natural elements. Likewise, the presence of margins is widely appreciated aesthetically by all respondents. Furthermore, results underline the importance of landscapes that are familiar to the respondents.

Agricultural landscapes are increasingly valued by society for their potential to provide multiple benefits and values, such as landscape beauty or habitat for biodiversity. Yet, Mediterranean agricultural landscapes are still following a pattern of changes under the narrow focus of increased agricultural productivity, while other benefits and values are depleted. In this study, we assess the importance and multiple benefits Mediterranean agricultural landscapes provide using the ecosystem services approach. Our research aims at assessing different social perceptions concerning the importance of coastal agrarian landscapes for human wellbeing. Using a case study from a coastal agricultural landscape at the Costa Brava, Girona (Spain), we combined non-monetary and monetary methods to assess social perception and the willingness to pay for ecosystem services' delivery. Our study involved different social groups including local residents and tourists visiting the area. Results show that provisioning services and non-productive ecosystem services, such as supporting and cultural services are seen as almost equally important and trade-offs emerge between their prioritizations. A strong preference for cultural ecosystem services, especially aesthetic value (non-monetary valuation) and environmental education (monetary valuation), can be observed. Our results suggest that different preferences are influenced by the respondents' place of residency and place of visit This research was carried out within the framework of PLAYA project, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, under Contract no.CGL2013-49061-C3-3-R, it also received funding from the Generalitat de Catalunya through an FI DGR scholarship (2012FI_B00578) and from the University of Girona through a BR scholarship (BR2012/46)

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro