Advertisement

In Pursuit of Urban Sustainability: Predicting Public Perceptions of Park Biodiversity Using Simple Assessment Tools

  • M. F. SchebellaEmail author
  • D. Weber
  • L. Schultz
  • P. Weinstein
Research paper
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

In the face of ongoing global species loss, it is vital that urban societies see the value of biodiversity. However, practical strategies to enhance society’s appreciation of biodiversity are limited by the disparity that exists between public perceptions and expert assessments of biodiversity. To enhance our understanding of this disparity, and to provide insight into the visual cues that influence laypeople’s perceptions of biodiversity, four novel non-expert-dependent assessment tools—along with estimates of vegetation cover and bird species richness—were used to examine the attributes of 134 Australian urban parks. Ordinal regression modelling was used to explore the ability of these tools to predict perceptions of biodiversity and naturalness collected via a public questionnaire that yielded 1894 individual green space perception responses from 840 individuals. Despite researchers theorising otherwise, changes in structural variation were too subtle to significantly influence perceptions. Vegetation cover, habitat diversity, and a proposed Urban Park Naturalness Index (UPNI) were the strongest predictors of perceived biodiversity, explaining 31% of respondent perceptions. Bird species richness significantly influenced perceptions of naturalness but not biodiversity. Despite a relatively weak correlation between perceptions and objective measures (Nagelkerke R-squared = 0.307), we demonstrate how subtle changes in assessed attributes significantly affect predicted perceptions of the environment. For example, every additional habitat type within a park increases the odds of it being in a higher perceived biodiversity category by 31.7%. We suggest further development of simple assessment tools, such as the UPNI, that provide valuable insights into human responses to nature, and can aid the sustainable design and management of urban green space.

Article Highlights

  • Multiple on-site assessment tools developed and used in 134 urban parks to measure green space attributes, and compared with perceptions of 840 urban respondents.

  • Vegetation cover, UPNI, and habitat diversity were the best predictors of laypeople’s biodiversity perceptions.

  • Weak relationship between perceived biodiversity and presence of anthropic elements, suggesting conservation and recreation can be successfully balanced.

  • Subtle changes to certain park attributes significantly influence perceptions, e.g. one additional habitat increases the odds of a park being in a higher “perceived biodiversity” category by 31.7%

  • Provides insight into the visual cues that influence perceptions of biodiversity, with implications for urban green space design and management.

Keywords

Biodiversity Green space Naturalness Perceptions Species richness Urban parks 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the respondents who participated in this study. This project was funded by a PhD scholarship from the University of South Australia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41742_2019_200_MOESM1_ESM.docx (753 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 752 kb)

References

  1. Abdourahamane Illiassou S, Amadou Oumani A, Abdou L, Mahamane A, Saadou M (2016) Urban biodiversity: perception, preference, general awareness, and threats in two cities (Niamey and Maradi) of Niger. Urban Stud Res.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1469530 Google Scholar
  2. Aplet GH, Cole DN (2010) The trouble with naturalness: rethinking park and wilderness goals. In: Cole DN, Yung L (eds) Beyond naturalness: rethinking park and wilderness stewardship in an era of rapid change. Island Press, Washington, pp 12–29Google Scholar
  3. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2255763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017a) 2016 Census QuickStats: Burnside. http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA40700. Accessed 10 Apr 2018
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017b) 2016 Census QuickStats: Mitcham. http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA44340?opendocument. Accessed 10 Apr 2018
  6. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017c) 2016 Census QuickStats: Unley. http://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA47980?opendocument. Accessed 10 Apr 2018
  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017d) Data by Region, 2011–2016. CanberraGoogle Scholar
  8. Balmford A, Clegg L, Coulson T, Taylor J (2002) Why conservationists should heed pokémon. Science 295:2367.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.295.5564.2367b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonnes M, Uzzell D, Carrus G, Kelay T (2007) Inhabitants’ and experts’ assessments of environmental quality for urban sustainability. J Soc Iss 63:59–78.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00496.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowerman BL, O’Connell RT (1990) Linear statistical models: an applied approach. Duxbury Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown G, Weber D (2011) Public participation GIS: a new method for national park planning. Landsc Urban Plann 102:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chivian E, Bernstein A (2010) How our health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Costanza R, Mageau M (1999) What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat Ecol 33:105–115.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009930313242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dallimer M et al (2012) Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 62:47–55.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darabi H, Hamedi R, Ehsani A, Kafi M (2018) Rapid vulnerability assessment of Lavizan. Urban For Park Pollut 4:417–428.  https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2018.250278.381 Google Scholar
  16. Dearborn DC, Kark S (2010) Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol 24:432–440.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DEFRA (2011) Attitudes and knowledge relating to biodiversity and the natural environment, 2007–2011. Deparment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman C, Buck O (2003) Development of an ecological mapping methodology for urban areas in New Zealand. Landsc Urban Plann 63:161–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00188-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grose MJ (2012) Plant colour as a visual aspect of biological conservation. Biol Conserv 153:159–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hermy M, Cornelis J (2000) Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and suburban parks. Landsc Urban Plann 49:149–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00061-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ignatieva ME, Stewart GH (2009) Homogeneity of urban biotopes and similarity of landscape design language in former colonial cities. In: Hahs AK, Breuste JH, McDonnell MJ (eds) Ecology of cities and towns: A comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 399–421.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609763.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobs B, Mikhailovich N, Delaney C (2014) Benchmarking Australia’s Urban tree canopy: an i-Tree assessment. University of Technology Sydney, UltimoGoogle Scholar
  24. Jorgensen A, Gobster PH (2010) Shades of green: measuring the ecology of urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nat Cult 5:338–363.  https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2010.050307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan R (1985) The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landsc Plann 12:161–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(85)90058-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keesing F et al. (2010) Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases Nature 468:647–652 doi:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7324/abs/nature09575.html#supplementary-information
  27. Lamb RJ, Purcell AT (1990) Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landsc Urban Plann 19:333–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90041-Y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lang T, Rayner G (2012) Ecological public health: the 21st century’s big idea? An essay by Tim Lang and Geof Rayner. BMJ 345:e5466.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LGASA (2014) Open space contribution and funding analysis: Discussion paper. Local Government Association of South Australia, South AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Y, Johnson EJ, Zaval L (2011) Local warming: daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychol Sci 22:454–459.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindemann-Matthies P, Bose E (2008) How aany species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Hum Ecol 36:731–742.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9194-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Livingston M, Shaw WW, Harris LK (2003) A model for assessing wildlife habitats in urban landscapes of eastern Pima County, Arizona (USA). Landsc Urban Plann 64:131–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00217-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Machado A (2004) An index of naturalness. J Nat Conserv 12:95–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2003.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR (2015) Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J Environ Psychol 44:109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meijles EW, de Bakker M, Groote PD, Barske R (2014) Analysing hiker movement patterns using GPS data: implications for park management. Comput Environ Urban Syst 47:44–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miles JC (1991) Teaching in wilderness. J Environ Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1991.9943055 Google Scholar
  37. Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol 20:430–434.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen AB, van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, van den Bosch CK (2014) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosyst 17:305–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-013-0316-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA (2009) The nature relatedness scale. Environ Behav 41:715–740.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nordh H, Hartig T, Hagerhall CM, Fry G (2009) Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For Urban Green 8:225–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Brien L, Townsend M, Ebden M (2008) Environmental volunteering: motivations, barriers and benefitsGoogle Scholar
  42. Parés-Franzi M, Saurí-Pujol D, Domene E (2006) Evaluating the environmental performance of urban parks in Mediterranean Cities: an example from the Barcelona Metropolitan Region. Environ Manag 38:750–759.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0197-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson G, Allen CR, Holling CS (1998) Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1:6–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Qiu L, Nielsen AB (2015) Are perceived sensory dimensions a reliable tool for urban green space assessment and planning? Landsc Res 40:834–854.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2015.1029445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ridder B (2007) An exploration of the value of naturalness and wild nature. J Agric Environ Ethics 20:195–213.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-006-9025-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogers K, Jaluzot A (2015) Oxford i-tree canopy cover assessment. Oxford City Council, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Schebella MF, Weber D, Lindsey K, Daniels CB (2017) For the love of nature: exploring the importance of species diversity and micro-variables associated with favorite outdoor places. Front Psychol 8:2094.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shanahan DF, Lin BB, Gaston KJ, Bush R, Fuller RA (2015) What is the role of trees and remnant vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? Landsc Ecol 30:153–165.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0113-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shwartz A, Turbé A, Simon L, Julliard R (2014) Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: an experiment. Biol Conserv 171:82–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simpson K, Day N (2004) Field guide to the birds of Australia. Penguin group, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  51. Stein A, Gerstner K, Kreft H (2014) Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol Lett 17:866–880.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swain BK, Goswami S (2018) Soundscapes of urban parks in and around Bhubaneswar and Puri, Odisha, India: a comparative study. Pollution 4:93–101.  https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2017.237639.295 Google Scholar
  53. Tilman D (1996) Biodiversity: population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77:350–363.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2265614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM (2014) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:471–493.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tzoulas K, James P (2010) Making biodiversity measures accessible to non-specialists: an innovative method for rapid assessment of urban biodiversity. Urban Ecosyst 13:113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-009-0107-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Young CH, Jarvis PJ (2001) Assessing the structural heterogeneity of urban areas: an example from the Black Country (UK). Urban Ecosyst 5:49–69.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021877618584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zipperer WC, Guntenspergen GR (2009) Vegetation composition and structure of forest patches along urban–rural gradients. In: Hahs AK, Breuste JH, McDonnell MJ (eds) Ecology of cities and towns: a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 274–286.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511609763.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© University of Tehran 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural and Built Environments Research Centre, University of South AustraliaMawson LakesAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information Technology and Mathematical SciencesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations