Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception

Highlights

• An approach for assessing green space quality including seven quality components is put forward.

• A multi-criteria model for assessing green space quality is proposed.

• GIS-based modelling is coupled with how green space quality is perceived.

• The indicator maps obtained may support green space management and design.

Abstract

For city dwellers urban green space is the primary source of contact with nature. Qualitative green space is increasingly perceived as an important factor for quality of life in urban areas and a key component of sustainable urban design and planning. In this study, the relation between different features of urban green spaces and perception of green space qualities was analyzed by combining the outcome of a survey on green space perception with GIS-based spatial metrics. A survey has been conducted among residents of the Brussels Capital Region and surroundings to assess the relative importance residents assign to different qualities of urban green spaces and how they value these qualities within visited spaces. Quietness, spaciousness, cleanliness and maintenance, facilities and feeling of safety are identified as important qualities of public green spaces, while naturalness, historical and cultural value are perceived as less important qualities. A GIS-based model was developed to infer naturalness, quietness and spaciousness as perceived by users of public green spaces from green space properties. Using variables describing biological value, land-cover composition, green space area and shape, good correlations were obtained between GIS-based assessment of naturalness and spaciousness and how green space users perceive these qualities. The model proposed may be useful for simulating green space development and improvement scenarios and assess their impact on perceived quality. Thus it may serve as a spatial decision support tool for improving the quality of urban green spaces.

Introduction

Positive perceptions of green and open space are only surpassed by dwelling characteristics as important predictors of high levels of neighborhood satisfaction (Douglas, Russell et al. 2018). A proper assessment of the role and benefits of green spaces (GS) for urban residents is an important concern in the emerging area of urban ecosystem services (ES). Since the last decennium of the 20th century, the concept of ES has gained an important role in the debate on sustainability and quality of life (Lappé, 2009; Burkhard, Petrosillo et al. 2010). Neßhöver et al. (2007) consider ES as the missing link between ecosystems and human wellbeing. Also on the policy level more attention and action is directed to the dependence of man on nature and its ecosystems. In urban areas, the aspect of non-material benefits or cultural ES is highly relevant (Chang, Qu et al. 2017) and GS quality is a major factor for how people receive cultural ES. In order to reinforce this link in urban areas, an understanding of the quality and management of urban ecosystem services is required to ensure sustainable urban planning (Luederitz, Brink et al. 2015) and general wellbeing.

Urban green spaces (UGS) have been the subject of a wide range of studies, yet correlations with assumed benefits have been often based on their presence or abundance, and less based on their qualities (Kabisch and Haase, 2013; Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015). Several recent studies, however, point to the importance of assessing urban green space quality (Velarde, Fry et al. 2007; Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015; de la Barrera et al., 2016; Ode Sang, Knez et al. 2016; Hedblom, Knez et al. 2017; Zhang, Van den Berg et al. 2017; Madureira, Nunes et al. 2018). Rather than a biased preoccupation with green-space acreage and tree counts, planners should also consider the geometry of the green network and the quality of the greenery (Jim, 2004) and the various aspects of GS quality (Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015). Many studies on urban green quality are health-related and yield mixed results. For example, Hillsdon et al. (2006) and Schipperijn, Bentsen et al. (2013) found no associations between access to urban GS on the one hand, and recreational physical activity on the other hand. However, the latter determined associations between the presence of features and physical activity. Annear, Cushman et al. (2009) found that residents of an area with a poor quality physical and social environment appear to engage in leisure time physical activity less frequently than those living in a higher quality area of the same city. Regardless of their availability to residents, lower quality areas of green space may be less conducive to facilitating physical activity or a restorative experience (Annear, Cushman et al. 2009). Van Dillen et al. (2012) concluded that for neighborhood green space, quality indicators tend to have added predictive value for health indicators and naturalness of a place has been linked to higher general wellbeing (Knez, Ode Sang et al. 2018). As such, green space quality may be a better predictor of health than quantity alone (Richardson, Pearce et al. 2010).

The concept of ‘quality’ of GS is complex and multi-dimensional (Khan, Moulaert et al. 2014). Moreover, there is a lack of robust and scientific methodologies for the assessment of green space quality, especially from the user's perspective. Most studies are geared towards the monetary or benefit valuation of green space (Morancho, 2003; De Ridder, Adamec et al. 2004; Kong, Yin et al. 2007), or discuss a specific aspect of green space quality (e.g. visual or acoustic). Cohen et al. (2014) state that the small number of studies on quality assessment of UGS does not base their assessment on the analysis of in-situ objective measurements and their cumulative impact in a specific location. For a large study area (metropolitan), a full in-situ analysis may not be feasible though and GIS data may be a useful substitute for in-situ measurements. Until now, little work has been done coupling GIS-based assessment of green space quality to how GS are perceived by users. Integrative approaches combining GIS-derived quality indicators with users’ experience of GS might offer interesting prospects for the planning, design and management of GS in urban areas (Khan, Moulaert et al. 2014; Kothencz and Blaschke, 2017).

Urban growth and transformation presents numerous challenges for the maintenance of UGS, and consequently also for human health and well-being (Tzoulas, Korpela et al. 2007). In the context of the Brussels Capital Region (BCR), an expected population growth of 14,000 per year on a population of 1,167,951 in 2015 (FOD Economie, 2013), makes well-informed densification strategies a pressing issue. Maintenance and improvement of accessibility and quality of GS is a crucial part of developing such strategies. With the aim of developing an integrated approach for the assessment of UGS qualities, this study is based on a survey that is conducted among residents of the BCR to assess perceived importance of GS qualities contributing to the provision of cultural ES. Cultural ES are usually defined as the intangible and nonmaterial benefits provided by nature (Hirons, Comberti et al. 2016). A GIS-based model is then developed to infer quality indicators, such as, naturalness, quietness and spaciousness from spatial properties of GS. The model relates GIS-based metrics describing GS properties to the survey outcomes on the perception of GS quality. Integrating different components of green space quality, the model may be useful as a decision support tool for planners, designers and policy makers and may provide valuable insights for the design of public GS and qualitative urban development.