Next Article in Journal
Research on the Impact of the National Agricultural Green Development Pilot Zone Policy on Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency—A Quasi-Natural Experiment in 41 Cities in the Yangtze River Delta, China
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Risks of Extreme Droughts to Amphibian Populations in the Northwestern Mediterranean
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tree Species as Metabolic Indicators: A Comparative Simulation in Amman, Jordan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/land14081669
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mapping Meaning: Perceptions of Green Infrastructure and Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Rapidly Urbanizing Town of Vác, Hungary

by
István Valánszki
1,2,
László Zoltán Nádasy
1,*,
Tímea Katalin Erdei
1,
Anna Éva Borkó
1,
Vera Iváncsics
1 and
Zsófia Földi
1
1
Department of Landscape Protection and Reclamation, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1118 Budapest, Hungary
2
International Science and Technology Cooperation Base for Urban and Rural Human Settlements and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan 430070, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(8), 1669; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081669
Submission received: 26 July 2025 / Revised: 15 August 2025 / Accepted: 17 August 2025 / Published: 18 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services in Relation to Landscape Design, Planning and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Urban sprawl and suburbanization are reshaping peri-urban areas, challenging urban planning and community well-being. Our study investigates questions regarding the perception of Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) and development preferences (DP) related to Green Infrastructure (GI) in Vác, Hungary, including how CES and DP indicators related to GI vary spatially; how they align with municipal DI designations; how they relate to sociodemographic factors; and how they are applicable to urban planning practices. We used PPGIS and structured interviews with 375 residents to collect over 4900 spatial data points in order to analyze how perceived values, development preferences, officially designated GI elements and sociodemographic characteristics, relate to each other. The results show that CES are strongly associated with GI elements, especially along the riverfront and in downtown areas. However, development preferences, especially congestion and safety concerns, were more dispersed, often located in outer residential areas and along transportation routes. Statistical analyses showed significant differences across age, marital status, and co-residence with children, influencing both CES perception and development preferences. Our study highlights the gap between official GI designations and community-valued spaces, emphasizing the importance of participatory planning and the integration of sociodemographic dimensions into planning practices in rapidly transforming suburban environments.

1. Introduction

Urbanization and urban sprawl are processes that can be observed globally [1] and are also present in Europe, including Central Europe. The growth of cities is putting increasing pressure on their environment, peri-urban areas, even agricultural or urban areas: it creates a strong competitive situation, among other things, in terms of housing, livelihood, transportation, and the environment [2]. These processes and related challenges involve complex socioeconomic, demographic, urban planning, environmental and ecological issues, including loss of habitats and biodiversity, rapid land use changes and loss of local identity and communities [3,4]. While the amount of research on the impact of urbanization and urban sprawl on the environment is increasing rapidly, most studies focus on either entire metropolitan areas [5,6,7,8,9,10] or specific zones or sectors [11]. There is, however, a much lower amount of available research on individual settlements within urban areas, especially those with a unique character or spatial status. Sub-centers of metropolitan areas, for example, have a special status where they act like suburbs but also have their own agglomerations as well, which causes unique issues—commuter traffic being present both ways being one of the most prominent ones [12]. Urban sprawl affects the everyday processes of sub-settlements located in the city’s surroundings, and there is pressure to maintain an appropriate-quality environment, of which Green Infrastructure is a significant part. Research on Green Infrastructure (hereinafter GI) in these settlements with special statuses is especially scarce. However, existing studies suggest that having a strong GI network is highly important in areas undergoing rapid urbanization [10,13,14,15].
The concept of Green Infrastructure, since its initial introduction, has become the focus of a large number of studies on several different scales—international, national, regional, and municipal as well [13,16,17]. Even though exact definitions of GI vary [18,19], the role of GI in urban well-being and urban planning has become widely accepted worldwide [20,21,22]. Green Infrastructure has become an integral part of regulatory frameworks [23,24]. However, whether officially designated GI networks (such as Natura2000 sites in the EU, national-level ecological networks or green elements in zoning plans) and actual biologically active green surfaces correspond to each other is a severely understudied question. This can have major consequences in rapidly changing and developing areas, as designated GI elements can impact the spatial network of possible developments [25], while actual GI elements can mitigate the adverse effects of urbanization and urban sprawl [26]. However, this disparity between official designations and the roles and functions of actual GI elements is currently underrepresented in research.
While existing research on GI predominantly focuses on ecological aspects [6] and green space availability [16], the need to incorporate social dimensions is becoming more widely recognized, and the Cultural Ecosystem Services (hereinafter CES) and preferences of users/locals associated with GI are shifting into the focus of research [12,27,28]. According to the most widely accepted definition, CES are nonmaterial benefits, which are obtained from the ecosystem and influence human well-being [29]. However, the assessment of CES remains challenging due to their intangible characteristics and their perceived importance being variable along urban–rural geographical dimensions [28,30]. Researchers underscore the necessity of advancing knowledge regarding how urbanization influences the perception and valuation of CES, especially in relation to GI [25]. The evaluation of CES requires empirical methods, with particular reliance on tools such as structured surveys (e.g., questionnaires, in-depth interviews) and participatory mapping approaches, notably Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) [31]. PPGIS is a general term used to describe techniques that combine modern cartography with participatory methods to collect and represent the spatial information [32].
Participatory approaches in Green Infrastructure (GI) planning and assessment are increasingly recognized as critical for achieving sustainable and inclusive urban development [33]. By engaging community stakeholders in GI decision making, cities can ensure that interventions align with local needs and values, leading to greater public acceptance and long-term stewardship of urban green spaces [34,35]. Conversely, the absence of an engaged public often undermines GI project success and longevity, as lack of local buy-in can limit the effectiveness and maintenance of these interventions over time [33,36]. However, bridging the gap between participatory ideals and practice remains challenging; community involvement in GI is frequently limited to early planning stages or short-term projects, and it is constrained by factors like insufficient resources, technical complexity, and lack of systematic evaluation of outcomes [34,35]. That is why deeper forms of co-creation and co-management in GI are needed, supported by frameworks for ongoing public participation and joint monitoring [34,37], as well as integrated planning models that link grassroots initiatives with formal urban planning processes [36]. Such participatory approaches aim to move beyond token consultation by empowering citizens in decision making, which can help mainstream nature-based solutions and ensure GI initiatives deliver both ecological benefits and social well-being [33,37]. The applied participatory approach is an important initial step to map the local perception and valuation of CES regarding GI.
In agglomeration areas, there is a continuous exchange of population (commuting, immigration, emigration). Population growth is accompanied by changes in the demographic and social composition of settlements [3]. Different social groups have varying attitudes toward their environment [38,39,40], and differences can also be observed between native and migrant residents in the attachment to and spatial usage of the place [41]. According to [41], the perception of the place of residence is affected by the duration of living there and the resident’s age. Additionally, the relationship between the attachment to GI elements and sociodemographic characteristics of residents is an underrepresented topic in research. Therefore, it is crucial to compare the perception of different social groups on this subject.
With this in mind, our main goal is to assess CES perception and the development preferences of locals in a town facing suburbanization pressure and to explore their links and regularities within the socioeconomic context and existing decision making and planning frameworks affecting GI. To explore these topics, Vác, a district center located within the Budapest Agglomeration Region in Hungary, was selected as a suitable mid-sized town undergoing rapid suburbanization. Our work was guided by the following research questions:
  • What CES and development preferences do locals associate with the GI in a town under suburbanization pressure? Is there any observable spatial regularity among the different perceived CES and development preferences?
  • What spatial relationships can be identified among locals’ perceptions and the main GI elements defined by the municipality? To what extent do CES and development preferences of the locals associated with the GI meet the vision of the municipality?
  • What links can be identified between sociodemographic background and perception of CES and development preferences related to GI?
  • How can our results be applied in urban planning and development practice?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The research was conducted in Vác, a historical town and district center situated in the Budapest Agglomeration Region, Hungary. Vác is located 20 km north of Budapest, on the left bank of the Danube (Figure 1). The geographical coordinates of the Town Hall (located downtown, on one of the main squares) are 47.77859 N, 19.12675 E (WGS84). It is often called “the southern gate of the Danube Bend” and has a population of 34,040 people [42]. Vác is situated along the Danube Bend, where the mountainous region meets the Great Plain. The town has a temperate continental climate, characterized by moderate temperatures and relatively dry conditions. The average annual temperature is approximately 10 °C, with total annual precipitation ranging from 550 to 600 mm. As the fourth largest settlement of the Budapest metropolitan area, it serves a peculiar double role within the spatial structure—it can be considered a suburb of Budapest, but, at the same time, it has its own zone of influence, acting as the local center for nearby smaller villages [12]. Vác is, therefore, particularly exposed to the rapid changes in both environment and local population that characterize peri-urban areas, making it suitable as a study area to explore CES-related issues.

2.2. Typology of Mapped Indicators

In our study, we use PPGIS methods to gain information about the relationships between the sociodemographic characteristics of participants and their attachment to local GI elements. Questions were mainly based on existing participatory and GI-related typologies [43]. In total, six CES-related questions (Places with high natural value and rich flora; Places for social activities; Places of historical and cultural interest; Places for physical or mental health, recharging; Well-ordered places with a beautiful townscape; Places for quiet rest and relaxation—hereinafter, these are collectively referred to as “CES indicators”) and six development preferences/problems (Congestion reduction is necessary in these places; Safety improvements are necessary in these places; Strengthening nature and environment protection is necessary in these places; The development of facilities, equipment and opportunities for leisure activities in these areas is necessary; Strengthening leisure services in these places is necessary; Improving accessibility and availability in these places is necessary) were selected and mapped (Table 1). Sociodemographic characteristics of participants were explored using 5 questions (gender; age; highest level of education; marital status; co-residence with their children).

2.3. Data Collection and Participants’ Characteristics

All data presented here were collected between September 2023 and April 2024 in an in-person interview format, using paper maps—with neighborhoods and major roads marked for easier orientation—and a basic questionnaire [12]. The in-person data collection was carried out by Bachelor- and Master-level students at the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning and Garden Art. Uncertainties may occur during data collection as a result of the multi-interviewer approach, such as differences in question phrasing and map utilization. The students received comprehensive training through collaborative workshops, where they were provided with guidance on survey conduction and engaged in situational exercises to test the methodology. Additionally, standardized materials such as data sheets and maps were utilized during the questionnaire survey to ensure consistent data collection. A total of 375 residents participated, randomly distributed by age and gender. Interview length varied between 10 and 20 min, beginning with basic questions about the sociodemographic features (Table 2) of participants and continued with the indicator-based mapping process [44].
The mapping process used simple point markers—differently colored for each question—that participants were asked to place on the map. Each person had 3 markers available for each CES and DP indicator (36 markers altogether); however, they were not pressured into using all of them. Interviews were conducted in a variety of public locations, including railways stations, bus stops, schools, cafés, healthcare centers and parks, in order to reach a large number of people across different sectors of society [43].

2.4. Spatial Data Preparation

All points placed by participants were digitized using Quantum GIS (ver. 3.4.14.) software. The database includes all (almost 5000) geographical points, along with their associated attributes (sociodemographic data of participant, type of indicator), as well as the officially designated GI elements of Vác with a 50 m buffer. The officially designated GI elements of Vác were selected from Vác’s urban structure plan [45]. We considered green areas (public parks and gardens) in the urban structure plan, as well as special non-built-up recreational areas, as officially designated GI elements. The terms “green area” and “special non-built-up areas” refer to categories defined in urban planning documents and legislation. According to these definitions, green areas are non-buildable zones designated in the urban structure plan, which are partially or entirely covered with permanent vegetation, do not belong to other land use units, and are intended for public use, such as public parks and gardens. Green areas serve to preserve and improve the climatic conditions of the settlement, protect its ecological system, and support recreation and physical activity. From the special non-built-up areas designated in the urban structure plan, those maintained for recreational green space purposes (e.g., sports fields) were selected. They are integral components of the Green Infrastructure system. Each point in the questionnaire was assigned to the GI element or buffer zone it falls within. Heatmaps were generated for the six categories of CES indicators and the six types of development preferences to analyze the spatial density of the points and their overlap with the GI elements.

2.5. Data Analyses

Statistical tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27. The spatial distribution of CES and DP indicators was examined using a Chi-square test, and Pearson’s standardized residuals were calculated to determine whether a statistically significant association between the indicators and the predefined GI categories—outside GI elements, within GI elements, and GI elements with 50 m buffer zones—could be identified. The analysis compared observed counts with expected counts, which were calculated based on each category’s share of the total area. The relationships between participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, their answers to questions regarding CES indicators and development preferences were examined. The analyzed variables included respondents’ age, level of education, family status, and co-residence with their children. The statistical methods used considered the specific attributes of the sample. Levene’s test indicated a violation of variance homogeneity, and substantial differences in group sample sizes were observed, which would bias the F-statistic of a classical one-way ANOVA. Consequently, Welch’s ANOVA was applied, utilizing weighted means and adjusted degrees of freedom (df) to accommodate unequal group sizes while maintaining the nominal significance level of the test [46]. These tests ensure that findings regarding between-group differences remain statistically valid and reliable. Since a significant result from Welch’s ANOVA (p < 0.05) was obtained, post hoc analyses were conducted to determine which specific group pairs differed. The Games–Howell test was chosen as the primary method, using pairwise mean differences for comparison. Supplementary Dunnett’s T3 and Tamhane’s T2 tests were also executed, providing results consistent with those of Games–Howell; final interpretations were based on the Games–Howell findings.

3. Results

3.1. Frequency in Perception of CES and Development Preferences

In order to gain insight into the answering patterns of participants, we analyzed the number of markers used for each CES indicator and development preference. Local residents marked a total of 4926 points, 2695 of which were CES indicators, while 2231 were in relation to development preference questions. CES indicators were placed with the following frequency: CES_02 (556); CES_03 (501); CES_06 (436); CES_01 (406); CES_05 (406); CES_04 (390). The numbers of markers for development preferences were as follows: DP_01 (470); DP_02 (441); DP_05 (408); DP_06 (333); DP_03 (310); DP_04 (269). Our results show that citizens of Vác found it the most important to mark “Places for social activities” (CES_02) among CES indicators, while the most important development preference question was “Congestion reduction is necessary in these places” (DP_01). Participants seemed to find less reason to mark any “Places for physical or mental health, recharging” (CES_04) from CES or areas where “The development of facilities, equipment and opportunities for leisure activities is necessary” (DP_04) from development preferences.

3.2. Spatial Pattern of CES and Development Preferences Perception

The spatial distribution of mapped CES and development preference markers was examined through visual analysis. As illustrated in Figure 2, CES indicator points are primarily concentrated along the Danube River, both to the north and south of the town center, as well as along the riverbank within the central area. A distinct clustering of CES indicator points is evident in the center of Vác, with an east–west axis cutting through the built-up area. Compared to development preferences, CES indicator points demonstrate a stronger concentration within the town center and less dispersion beyond it, with only a few areas showing higher densities of CES indicator points, such as the northeastern corner of the town. While both CES and development preference points are present in the center, development preference points are notably less frequent along the Danube. Interestingly, the development preference points are more widely distributed, with significant numbers marked in the southern, eastern, and northern neighborhoods of Vác. The spatial patterns also reveal clusters of points along the railway line, which divides the town into two main sections parallel to the Danube.
The analysis further examined the spatial distribution of six types of CES and six types of development preferences individually. Certain CES categories showed overlapping patterns, such as CES_02 (Places for social activities) and CES_05 (Well-ordered places with a beautiful townscape) as well as CES_01 (Places with high natural value and rich flora) and CES_06 (Places for quiet rest and relaxation). Regarding CES_02 and CES_05, the points are concentrated along the Danube riverbank, particularly in the areas near the promenade and the downtown section. For CES_01 and CES_06, the points are more densely located in the Danube riverside areas and the Deákvár neighborhood. Additionally, a strong connection was observed between CES_03 (Places of historical and cultural interest) and CES_05. In their case, the downtown concentration should be emphasized. However, points related to CES_04 (Places for physical or mental health, recharging) displayed a unique spatial distribution (Figure 3).
In the case of development preferences, several categories demonstrated similar spatial patterns. For instance, DP_01 was closely associated with DP_02, while DP_03 aligned with DP_05. As for DP_01 and DP_02, the points are concentrated along the main transportation routes. Regarding DP_03 and DP_05, the points are more densely located along the Danube riverbank and in the Deákvár neighborhood. Conversely, the spatial patterns of DP_04 and DP_06 were more diverse, with points scattered throughout the town (Figure 4).

3.3. Connections of GI with CES and Development Preferences

When comparing the marks of CES indicators and development preferences with officially designated GI elements of Vác, a strong connection between CES and GI can be observed: points of the various CES indicators overlapping with GI elements varied between 33% and 69%. At the same time, weaker connections were identified between development preferences and GI: points of different development preferences overlapping with GI elements varied between 8 and 47%. The strongest connections were seen in the cases of CES_01 (69%) and CES_06 (69%). The weakest connections were observed in the cases of two types of development preferences: DP_01 (Congestion reduction; 11%) and DP_02 (Safety improvement; 8%). Considering the GI elements together with their 50 m buffer zones, similar results have been found: the connection was the strongest in the case of CES_06 (83%), while the weakest in the case of DP_02 (31%).
The connections of CES indicators and DPs with officially designated GI elements were also examined using Chi-square association (Table 3). The Chi-square-adjusted standardized residuals are presented in Table 4. Comparing CES and DP with official GI, the adjusted residuals were negative in three cases (CES_01, CES_05, CES_06) and positive in all of the other indicators, with the exception of DP_02, where the analyzed association was not significant. Taking the official GI elements together with their 50 m buffer, all 12 indicators showed positive adjusted residuals, while doing the same analyses with the area outside of the official GI elements showed negative and significant associations in all of the CES and DPs.
Comparing the distribution of points across all CES indicators with the locations of designated GI elements, the following connections can be observed. GI elements either received no points, points in only one category or points from various CES indicators. Within the inner area of Vác, three designated GI elements received no points in any category; these are located along the railway and in the southern, developing suburban area (Figure 5a–c). One GI element in the southern suburban area received points in a single category (CES_05) (Figure 5d). GI elements that received points from all CES indicators are recreational green spaces connected to the Danube riverside (Figure 5e). In the Deákvár settlement area, concentrations of points can be observed that do not affect designated GI elements; these are typically transitional suburban boundaries associated with CES_01 and CES_06 (Figure 5f,g).
By examining the placement of points within the CES types in relation to the locations of designated GI elements, the following highlights can be identified. CES_01 and CES_06 points primarily impact designated GI elements along the Danube riverside. CES_02 points also primarily affect GI elements along the Danube riverside, while downtown concentrations have no impact on GI. CES_03 points predominantly focus on non-designated elements in the downtown area. CES_04 points overlap with designated GI elements along the Danube riverside and in the residential housing estate of Deákvár. CES_05 scoring is concentrated on GI elements along the Danube riverside and in the Deákvár settlement area, though it mainly does not affect GI elements there (Figure 6).
The examination of development preference points shows similar trends. GI elements either received no points or points from various categories. Only one designated GI element received no points, located in the southern suburban settlement boundary (Figure 7a). Designated GI elements within the housing estate area of Deákvár received points from all indicators (Figure 7b). Concentrations of points not affecting any GI elements were observed in downtown areas and along major transportation routes (Figure 7c).
When examining the distribution of development preference points, the following observations can be highlighted: For DP_01 and DP_02, point concentrations are observed not on designated GI elements but in areas along main roads and railways. In contrast, DP_03, DP_04, and DP_05 points are mainly concentrated on designated green spaces along the Danube riverside (Figure 6).

3.4. Effects of Sociodemographic Features on CES and Development Preferences Perception

The sociodemographic features of participants were also analyzed using the Games–Howell post hoc test. In relation to age groups, our results showed significant differences in the cases of the following CES and preferences: participants older than 65 years placed a significantly higher number of markers regarding Places of historical and cultural interest (CES_03) than those between 18 and 39 years. In the development preference question about Congestion reduction (DP_01), markers placed by 40–64 year olds significantly outnumbered the ones placed by people older than 65. Regarding the Development of facilities, equipment and opportunities for leisure activities (DP_04), 18–39-year-old participants placed significantly fewer markers than both 40–64 year olds and people younger than 18. On the other hand, participants 17 or younger showed significantly less activity when answering the question on development preferences about Strengthening leisure services (DP_05): they placed fewer markers than both 18–39 year olds and 40–64 year olds. In the case of the question on Improving accessibility and availability (DP_06), 40–64 year olds placed more markers than 65+ year olds. We did not find significant correlations between participants’ level of education and their willingness to answer questions.
When analyzing the marital status of participants, our results show significant differences in a total of four indicators. In opinions related to CES, married participants placed more markers than singles regarding Places of historical and cultural interest (CES_03), while in the case of Places for physical or mental health and recharging (CES_04), single participants placed significantly fewer markers than both married people and those in a relationship. In questions concerning development preferences, married people showed significantly more interest in sharing their opinion about places where Strengthening leisure services is necessary (DP_05) than singles and people who marked “other” as their marital status type. About the necessity to improve accessibility and availability (DP_06), people in relationships provided significantly more answers than married participants.
When analyzing the correlations between having children and willingness to respond to questions, the results showed significant differences in the cases of the following CES and preferences: For the question concerning Places of historical and cultural interest (CES_03), childless participants used less markers than people with children living in the same household and people with children not living in the same household as well. Childless people also provided significantly fewer answers than those with children living in the same household for the questions regarding Places for physical or mental health and recharging (CES_04), as well as Well-ordered places with a beautiful townscape (CES_05) and Places for quiet rest and relaxation (CES_06). This same correlation—participants with children living in the same household as them using more markers on average than their childless peers—can be observed in the case of the development preference question about Strengthening leisure services (DP_05).

4. Discussion

Our study provides insights into the relationships of GI with the perception of CES and development preferences in peri-urban areas. The results show regularities in spatial patterns of perception of CES and development preferences as well as significant correlations with existing GI elements. Furthermore, our results demonstrated significant effects of basic sociodemographic features (age, family status, children) on perception.

4.1. Frequency in Perception of CES and Development Preferences

Based on the findings of our research, CES appear to be more significant to locals than development preferences. Among CES, social activities as well as historical and cultural values are most frequently marked, while CES related to natural environments are less commonly identified. This can be explained by the ongoing process of suburbanization and urban sprawl, which affects these transforming areas of the Budapest Metropolitan Region [10]. These results underscore the importance of analyzing CES within the specific geographical context [30,47]. The results of development preferences could also indicate a correlation with geographical location. Among development preferences, the emphasis on reducing congestion and enhancing safety can be linked to the challenges of suburbanization [3].

4.2. Spatial Patterns of CES Indicators and Development Preferences Perception and Their Connections with GI

The locals’ perception of CES is primarily centered around downtown and along the Danube. These findings suggest that residents may be less aware of or place less emphasis on the values within their direct surroundings, which could be indicative of suburbanization effects, such as less time spent at home, and, in this way, reduced attachment to local places [4,12]. Additionally, in the more recently developed areas of the town, there are fewer spaces that represent the functional and qualitative values considered important by residents in the studied CES. The latter may also be related to the result that development preferences (e.g., Congestion reduction) are not only concentrated in central areas but also in outer residential areas. Urban development policy is often centralized; developments are primarily directed toward areas that are more important for tourism and more frequently used by visitors. However, the results suggest that residents are more aware of the problems in their close surroundings than they are of values. Consequently, they are generally supportive of developments both in outer residential and in central areas. Suburban areas, which are experiencing rapid growth and transformation, often struggle to keep pace with developments that serve the public interest [48].
The relationship among CES spatial patterns (so-called “bundles”) further indicates that local residents tend to be more satisfied with the quality of areas that are more significant for tourism. These areas, which are typically central, are also prominent for social activities, historical and cultural interest, and are linked to a beautiful townscape [32,44]. Additionally, we identified a correlation between high natural value and Places for rest and relaxation [44]. However, areas designated for physical or mental health exhibit a unique pattern, suggesting that these are special places that vary from person to person and are less focused on other values. Based on the results of the DP bundle analysis, there is a correlation between Safety improvements and Congestion reduction, indicating that people tend to feel less secure in places visited by many people, such as busy transportation areas. The linkage between Strengthening nature and environment protection and Strengthening leisure services suggests that local residents prefer areas with natural value for leisure activities, particularly in locations where recreational infrastructure could be developed, such as along the Danube or on the outskirts of the town. Improving accessibility contributes to a more diverse spatial distribution; based on the results, local connections are often inadequate, even though they are important to people [49]. Additionally, this highlights challenges associated with agglomeration areas, where development efforts struggle to keep pace with the expanding territorial growth of cities [48].
The associations with Green Infrastructure indicate that CES are more strongly linked to these elements, meaning that people tend to associate values more closely with them [43]. At the same time, several development preferences also show a positive correlation. It is important to highlight that this relationship is statistically most significant when using a 50 m buffer, suggesting that the effects of these GI elements on perception extend over a broader spatial range. Furthermore, official delineations do not always reflect the actual GI as perceived by local communities (i.e., the values they attribute to these spaces). Therefore, more accurate delineation is essential, which should involve broader public participation and continuous revision to account for ongoing changes and transformations.
In particular, recreation and natural values were most frequently linked to elements of Green Infrastructure [49]. Regarding the point concentrations that were not associated with GI elements, it can be stated that CES types primarily appear in transforming suburban areas. This suggests that in the absence of designated green spaces, local residents begin to find opportunities for public green areas in their immediate surroundings, utilizing still-undeveloped land suitable for such functions. This reinforces both the perceived importance of urban green spaces among the local population and the significance of the planning principle that access to green areas should be ensured for everyone [16]. Point concentrations related to development preferences, which do not overlap with GI elements, are typically observed along major transportation routes. The results confirm that transportation routes are perceived as sensitive areas by the local population [44,49]. They also highlight the structural significance of areas along these routes within the urban fabric, identifying them as key targets for future development.

4.3. Effects of Sociodemographic Features on CES and Development Preferences Perception

Our results showed that there are statistically significant differences between sociodemographic groups in CES perception and development preferences as well [12]. Understanding these differences and considering them in policymaking and urban planning are of the utmost importance to reduce the possibility of conflicts, especially in rapidly changing urban environments like Vác [12,50].
Based on our results, age seems to strongly influence the importance of certain CES indicators and development preferences in the eyes of our participants [12,28,51]. Older age groups are more interested in local history and cultural values, and they are more opinionated about local, place-related development as well. This phenomenon can be explained by age-related characteristics, such as decreased mobility and more interest in traditional, place-based (offline) cultural activities, as well as demographic changes: younger residents are more likely to be relatively new to the area, having moved recently, while older participants with lengthier local residence are more likely to have traditional attachment to their environment and wanting to preserve its values [52,53].
Noteworthy differences appear based on relationship and family status—married participants appeared to be significantly more engaged and opinionated than singles in multiple indicators—and especially in those related to culture and local history. The strongest connections between opinions and sociodemographic features appear to be linked with cohabitation with children: participants who have at least one child living with them provided significantly more data than childless people, especially in case of questions related to CES indicators. Possible explanations include an increased sense of ownership due to a more settled, permanent lifestyle, and children’s needs for new impulses, leading to more exploration within local open spaces. Singles and childless people, on the other hand, can be more mobile when finding places for active recreation and are less attached to their neighborhoods. This may be the reason behind similar results regarding development preferences as well—married people, due to their increased attachment to their environment, were more engaged with questions about local development, while unmarried people found questions related to mobility and accessibility more important [12,54,55].

4.4. Implications in Urban Planning and Development Practices, Study Limitations

The results also confirm that different social groups have varying needs regarding green spaces [41]. Therefore, in urban planning processes, it is particularly important to consider the perspectives of both native and migrant residents, as well as the differing needs of various social groups, when planning developments related to green areas. These findings further emphasize the importance of ensuring participatory planning in the design of green spaces and large-scale Green Infrastructure elements [15,56]. The results of the analyses on the spatial patterns of CES and development preferences perception and their connections with GI also reinforce the importance of upholding the principle of equal access to green spaces for all [57].
The application of the method we developed may help bridge the gap arising from the limited integration of social values into planning processes [32]. As a result of the applied methodology, the spatially identified values and development preferences expressed by the local population provide valuable information for the preparatory phase of GI planning that aims to integrate the needs of various social groups. To ensure more effective protection of valuable areas, the identified hotspots can also be incorporated into the strategy development process [44]. Furthermore, our findings related to development preferences may serve as a foundation for more targeted development plans aimed at improving the availability and functionality of green spaces.
The methodology and findings of this research primarily support decision makers in the planning of Green Infrastructure systems and in the processes of local building regulations. Urban development plans and local building codes must consider the roles, functions, and deficiencies of green spaces, as identified by locals. Locations highlighted by residents should be incorporated as action areas within urban development concepts and strategies, emphasizing the role of green spaces in enhancing the livability and sustainability of settlements. Based on the research results, zoning regulations defined in local building codes may be modified and new green areas designated to better reflect the importance of green spaces. This ensures improvements in green space provision based on public opinion and facilitates the implementation of development directions for Green Infrastructure.
An increasing number of PPGIS studies use web-based surveys to cover all important social groups; despite this, we applied hard-copy maps as several important local groups, e.g., older people, do not use the internet or smart phones [12,58]. Related to our PPGIS method, bias can appear in relation to the sampling issue, and other factors, such as the respondents’ relationship to and knowledge of the study area [32]. During our research we collected data about the number of years that they or their families had lived in neighborhoods, which was not part of this work but has potential for further research.

5. Conclusions

Our research explores how residents of Vác, a peri-urban town and local sub-center within the Budapest Agglomeration, perceive Cultural Ecosystem Services and express development preferences in relation to local Green Infrastructure. Through the application of PPGIS methods, we uncovered patterns in perceived values, development preferences, officially designated GI elements and sociodemographic characteristics. Answering our first and second research questions, the results reveal that CES—especially those related to social activities, cultural heritage, and aesthetic experiences—are predominantly concentrated in central areas and along the Danube riverfront, often aligning with officially designated GI elements. However, development preferences, such as Congestion reduction and improved safety, were more dispersed and often marked outside officially designated GI elements, particularly in rapidly urbanizing residential neighborhoods and along transportation routes.
Answering our third research question, we can state that significant differences in perception and level of engagement were identified based on sociodemographic features. Older participants and those with children, particularly living together, were more likely to place more markers for both CES and development priorities, suggesting that place attachment and family needs have an impact on spatial preferences. These differences highlight the necessity of taking different community perspectives into consideration in urban and GI planning to ensure that the needs of all residents are met. Our results also shed light on the mismatch between officially designated GI elements and the spaces valued by the local population, pointing to the need for more participation-based planning methods, especially in peri-urban areas undergoing rapid transformation. Future planning should prioritize not only ecological and infrastructural goals but also the experiences and social values of diverse resident groups to increase place attachment and sustain well-being and environmental quality.
Our study confirmed that the PPGIS method is suitable for CES assessment [43] in a suburban area in Hungary [12]. However, our study area is one town and regional sub-center in the Budapest metropolitan region. It would be useful to carry out similar research on other types of peri-urban settlements and areas, e.g., in smaller settlements of the metropolitan region with different locations. Furthermore, identity, especially national identity, can also have a strong influence [31], which is why further research should implement our methods in different countries in the region (e.g., Slovakia, Poland). The research is applicable in other suburban regions; however, cultural and historical characteristics must be considered. The suburbanization process started at different times in various parts of Europe, and beyond which caused a different urban fabric, or a more polycentric network of sub-centers [12].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.V., Z.F. and V.I.; methodology, I.V., A.É.B. and T.K.E.; software, T.K.E.; validation, I.V. and A.É.B.; formal analysis, I.V., L.Z.N. and Z.F.; investigation, Z.F., V.I. and I.V.; writing—original draft preparation, I.V., L.Z.N., Z.F. and T.K.E.; writing—review and editing, L.Z.N. and I.V.; visualization, T.K.E.; supervision, I.V.; funding acquisition, I.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Excellence Program of the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences and by Hubei Provincial Technology Innovation Plan Project: International Science and Technology Cooperation Project (No. 752). The research was also supported by the EKÖP-MATE/2024/25/K university research scholarship Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation from the source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund. Open access funding provided by Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The survey conducted during the research was anonymous and did not collect any sensitive data.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
GIGreen Infrastructure
CESCultural Ecosystem Services
PPGISPublic Participation Geographic Information Systems
DPDevelopment Preferences

References

  1. Shen, J.; Peng, Z.; Wang, Y. From GI, UGI to UAGI: Ecosystem service types and indicators of green infrastructure in response to ecological risks and human needs in global metropolitan areas. Cities 2023, 134, 104176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Malano, H.; Maheshwari, B.; Singh, V.P.; Purohit, R.; Amerasinghe, P. Challenges and Opportunities for Peri-urban Futures. In The Security of Water, Food, Energy and Liveablity of Cities; Maheshwari, B., Purohit, R., Malano, H., Singh, V.P., Aerasinghe, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Linard, C.; Tatem, A.J.; Gilbert, M. Modelling spatial patterns of urban growth in Africa. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 44, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hoefer, W. Local identity on a regional level: Approaches and methodology of managing suburban cultural landscapes in New Jersey/Helyi identitás regionális szinten: Városkörnyéki tájak kezelésének lehetőségei New Jersey példáján. 4D Tájépítészeti és Kertművészeti Folyóirat 2023, 69, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sandström, U.G. Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. Plan. Pract. Res. 2002, 17, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mensah, C.A. Destruction of Urban Green Spaces: A Problem Beyond Urbanization in Kumasi City (Ghana). Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2014, 3, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moreira, T.C.L.; Polizel, J.L.; Santos, I.d.S.; Silva Filho, D.F.; Bensenor, I.; Lotufo, P.A.; Mauad, T. Green Spaces, Land Cover, Street Trees and Hypertension in the Megacity of São Paulo. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, H.; Pei, Z. Urban Green Corridors Analysis for a Rapid Urbanization City Exemplified in Gaoyou City, Jiangsu. Forests 2020, 11, 1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alavi, S.A.; Esfandi, S.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R.; Tayebi, S.; Shamsipour, A.; Sharifi, A. Assessing the Connectivity of Urban Green Spaces for Enhanced Environmental Justice and Ecosystem Service Flow: A Study of Tehran Using Graph Theory and Least-Cost Analysis. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Filepné Kovács, K.; Varga, D.; Kukulska-Kozieł, A.; Cegielska, K.; Noszczyk, T.; Husar, M.; Iváncsics, V.; Ondrejicka, V.; Valánszki, I. Policy instruments as a trigger for urban sprawl deceleration: Monitoring the stability and transformations of green areas. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Andreasen, M.H.; Agergaard, J.; Kofie, R.Y.; Møller-Jensen, L.; Oteng-Ababio, M. Urban encroachment in ecologically sensitive areas: Drivers, impediments and consequences. Build. Cities 2022, 3, 920–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Valánszki, I.; Ladányi, M.; Jombach, S.; Kristensen, L.S.; Filep-Kovács, K. Personal and spatial contexts of CES perception–discovering relationship between place and people in central-eastern-European peri-urban areas. Cities 2025, 161, 105926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fuller, R.A.; Gaston, K.J. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5, 352–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fekete, A.; Abuhayya, M. Urban green spaces: The role of greenery and natural elements in promoting visitors’ attachment and well-being. Acta Hortic. Regiotect. 2023, 26, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kabisch, N.; Strohbach, M.; Haase, D.; Kronenberg, J. Urban green space availability in European cities. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kuttner, M.; Hainz-Renetzeder, C.; Hermann, A.; Wrbka, T. Borders without barriers–Structural functionality and green infrastructure in the Austrian–Hungarian transboundary region of Lake Neusiedl. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 31, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. ; The Conservation Fund. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; 299p. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grabowski, Z.J.; McPhearson, T.; Matsler, A.M.; Groffman, P.; Pickett, S.T. What is green infrastructure? A study of definitions in US city planning. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2022, 20, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mortoja, M.G.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Mayere, S. What is the most suitable methodological approach to demarcate peri-urban areas? A systematic review of the literature. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Berke, P.R.; Conroy, M.M. Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000, 66, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pauleit, S.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Andersson, E.; Anton, B.; Buijs, A.; Haase, D.; Elands, B.; Hansen, R.; Kowarik, I.; Kronenberg, J.; et al. Advancing urban green infrastructure in Europe: Outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. European Environment Agency (EEA). Green Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion. The Concept of Green Infrastructure and Its Integration into Policies Using Monitoring Systems; Technical Report 18; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011; Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-territorial-cohesion (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  24. European Commission. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 (accessed on 24 June 2025).
  25. Jaligot, R.; Kemajou, A.; Chenal, J. Cultural ecosystem services provision in response to urbanization in Cameroon. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 641–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Šperac, M.; Obradovic, D. Parameters of interest for the design of Green Infrastructure. J. Urban Environ. Eng. 2019, 13, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; Fagerholm, N.; Bieling, C.; Plieninger, T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 94, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, X.; de Vries, S.; Assmuth, T.; Dick, J.; Hermans, T.; Hertel, O.; Jensen, A.; Jones, L.; Kabisch, S.; Lanki, T.; et al. Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban environments. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2118–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yousef, R.; Valánszki, I. Developing a conceptual framework for studying people-place relationships/Koncepcionális keret-rendszer kidolgozása az ember-hely kapcsolat értelmezéséhez. 4D Tájépítészeti és Kertművészeti Folyóirat 2023, 69, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brown, G.; Fagerholm, N. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. García-Martín, M.; Fagerholm, N.; Bieling, C.; Gounaridis, D.; Kizos, T.; Printsmann, A.; Müller, M.; Lieskovský, J.; Plieninger, T. Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 2133–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jones, J.; Russo, A. Exploring the role of public participation in delivering inclusive, quality, and resilient green infrastructure for climate adaptation in the UK. Cities 2024, 148, 104879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fors, H.; Hagemann, F.A.; Ode Sang, Å.; Randrup, T.B. Striving for inclusion—A systematic review of long-term participation in strategic management of urban green spaces. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 3, 572423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Adib, M.; Wu, H.; Flohr, T. Professional perceptions of participatory practices in green stormwater infrastructure development. PLoS Water 2023, 2, e0000084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vaňo, S.; Olafsson, A.S.; Mederly, P. Advancing urban green infrastructure through participatory integrated planning: A case from Slovakia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Buijs, A.; Dobbs, C.; van Lierop, M.; Pauleit, S.; Randrup, T.B.; Wild, T. An action framework for the participatory assessment of nature-based solutions in cities. Ambio 2023, 52, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bakhtiari, F.; Bredahl Jacobsen, J.; Søndergaard Jensen, F. Willingness to travel to avoid recreation conflicts in Danish forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chaskin, R.J.; Joseph, M.L. ‘Positive’ Gentrification, Social Control and the ‘Right to the City’ in Mixed-Income Communities: Uses and Expectations of Space and Place. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 480–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zheng, J.; Bai, X.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, T.; Wang, H. Research on the spatial behavior conflict in suburban village communities based on GPS tracking and cognitive mapping. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2022, 21, 2605–2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cegielska, K.; Różycka-Czas, R.; Gorzelany, J.; Olczak, B. Land use and land cover conflict risk assessment model: Social and spatial impact of suburbanisation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2025, 257, 105302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Hungarian Information Database of Regional Development and Land Use Planning (TEIR), System of Spatial Statistics. 2023. Available online: www.teir.hu (accessed on 26 June 2025).
  43. Fagerholm, N.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Raymond, C.M.; Torralba, M.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, T. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Valánszki, I.; Kristensen, S.L.; Jombach, S.; Ladányi, M.; Filepné Kovács, K.; Fekete, A. Assessing Relations between Cultural Ecosystem Services, Physical Landscape Features and Accessibility in Central-Eastern Europe: A PPGIS Empirical Study from Hungary. Sustainability 2022, 14, 754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pestterv. Vác Urban Structure Plan. 2017. Available online: https://www.vac.hu/docs/Vac_Varos_hatalyos_telepulesrendezesi_eszkozeinek_modositasa_a_teljes_telepulesre_vonatkozoan.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2025).
  46. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 6th ed.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sanna, S.; Eja, P. Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26 Pt A, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hlaváček, P.; Kopáček, M.; Horáčková, L. Impact of Suburbanisation on Sustainable Development of Settlements in Suburban Spaces: Smart and New Solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Paracchini, M.L.; Zulian, G.; Kopperoinen, L.; Maes, J.; Schägner, J.P.; Termansen, M.; Zandersen, M.; Perez-Soba, M.; Scholefield, P.A.; Bidoglio, G. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 45, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Samuelsson, K.; Giusti, M.; Peterson, G.D.; Legeby, A.; Brandt, S.A.; Barthel, S. Impact of environment on people’s everyday experiences in Stockholm. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 171, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dou, Y.; Zhen, L.; De Groot, R.; Du, B.; Yu, X. Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 24, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lynnebakke, B.; Aasland, A. Striking roots: Place attachment of international migrants, internal migrants and local natives in three Norwegian rural municipalities. J. Rural Stud. 2022, 94, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dionísio, T.; Bernardo, F.; Dierckx, K.; Loupa-Ramos, L.; van Eetvelde, V. Understanding place attachment profiles among natives, internal and international migrants. J. Environ. Psychol. 2025, 105, 102665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2014, 65, 541–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cross, J.E. Processes of place attachment: An interactional framework. Symb. Interact. 2015, 38, 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Keresztes-Sipos, A.; Reith, A.; Fekete, A.; Balogh, P.I. The role of municipalities and landscape architects in the public involvement processes related to green infrastructure developments. Acta Univ. Sapientiae Agric. Environ. 2021, 13, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, Y.; He, R.; Tian, G.; Shi, Z.; Wang, X.; Fekete, A. Equity Study on Urban Park Accessibility Based on Improved 2SFCA Method in Zhengzhou, China. Land 2022, 11, 2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pocewicz, A.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Brown, G.; Schnitzer, R. An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Trans. GIS 2012, 16, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01669 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area, the town of Vác, Hungary.
Figure 1. Location of the study area, the town of Vác, Hungary.
Land 14 01669 g001
Land 14 01669 g002
Figure 2. Spatial patterns of the mapped CES indicators and development preferences.
Figure 2. Spatial patterns of the mapped CES indicators and development preferences.
Land 14 01669 g002
Land 14 01669 g003
Figure 3. Spatial patterns of the six mapped CES indicators.
Figure 3. Spatial patterns of the six mapped CES indicators.
Land 14 01669 g003
Land 14 01669 g004
Figure 4. Spatial patterns of the six mapped development preferences.
Figure 4. Spatial patterns of the six mapped development preferences.
Land 14 01669 g004
Land 14 01669 g005
Figure 5. Analysis of the distribution of CES indicator points in relation to the locations of designated GI elements ((a–g) describe examples highlighted in the text).
Figure 5. Analysis of the distribution of CES indicator points in relation to the locations of designated GI elements ((a–g) describe examples highlighted in the text).
Land 14 01669 g005
Land 14 01669 g006
Figure 6. Analysis of the distribution of points in relation to DP and CES indicators ((a–f) describe examples highlighted in the text).
Figure 6. Analysis of the distribution of points in relation to DP and CES indicators ((a–f) describe examples highlighted in the text).
Land 14 01669 g006
Land 14 01669 g007
Figure 7. Analysis of the distribution of DP points in relation to the locations of designated GI elements ((a–c) describe examples highlighted in the text).
Figure 7. Analysis of the distribution of DP points in relation to the locations of designated GI elements ((a–c) describe examples highlighted in the text).
Land 14 01669 g007
Table 1. Selected CES and development preferences mapped in the study with their codes used in the text.
Table 1. Selected CES and development preferences mapped in the study with their codes used in the text.
CES IndicatorsCode
Places with high natural value and rich floraCES_01
Places for social activitiesCES_02
Places of historical and cultural interestCES_03
Places for physical or mental health, rechargingCES_04
Well-ordered places with a beautiful townscapeCES_05
Places for quiet rest and relaxationCES_06
Development Preferences IndicatorsCode
Congestion reduction is necessary in these placesDP_01
Safety improvements are necessary in these placesDP_02
Strengthening nature and environmental protection is necessary in these placesDP_03
The development of facilities, equipment and opportunities for leisure activities in these areas is necessaryDP_04
Strengthening leisure services in these places is necessaryDP_05
Improving accessibility and availability in these places is necessaryDP_06
Table 2. Sociodemographic data collected from participants. n = 375.
Table 2. Sociodemographic data collected from participants. n = 375.
Sociodemographic Featuresn%
Age
−178422.4
18–3912934.4
40–648823.5
65+7419.7
Education level
primary school8622.9
secondary school14739.2
higher education11630.9
currently attending primary school266.9
Family status
single14638.9
in relationship7319.5
married11330.1
other4311.5
Children
none20554.7
yes, living together8221.9
yes, living separately8823.5
Table 3. Chi-square test results for the association between CES/DP indicators and GI categories. χ2(df) indicates the Chi-square statistic with degrees of freedom shown; indicated significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The chi-square critical values (df = 22) at two-tailed significance levels are χ20.95 = 33.924, χ20.99 = 40.289, and χ20.999 = 48.268.
Table 3. Chi-square test results for the association between CES/DP indicators and GI categories. χ2(df) indicates the Chi-square statistic with degrees of freedom shown; indicated significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The chi-square critical values (df = 22) at two-tailed significance levels are χ20.95 = 33.924, χ20.99 = 40.289, and χ20.999 = 48.268.
Categoryχ2 (df)p-Value
Outside GI elementsχ2(22) = 109.58<0.001 ***
Within GI elementsχ2(22) = 125.74<0.001 ***
GI elements and 50 m buffer zonesχ2(22) = 228.45<0.001 ***
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Observed and expected numbers of CES and DP markers together with adjusted standardized residuals. Cut-off values for adjusted residuals at two-tailed p-value thresholds are as follows: for p < 0.05, |r₍ᵢⱼ₎| > 1.96; for p < 0.01, |r₍ᵢⱼ₎| > 2.576; and for p < 0.001, |r₍ᵢⱼ₎| > 3.291. Shaded cells indicate significantly higher (pink) or lower (yellow) CES and DP marks than expected based on adjusted standardized residuals above 1.96 or below −1.96, respectively.
Table 4. Observed and expected numbers of CES and DP markers together with adjusted standardized residuals. Cut-off values for adjusted residuals at two-tailed p-value thresholds are as follows: for p < 0.05, |r₍ᵢⱼ₎| > 1.96; for p < 0.01, |r₍ᵢⱼ₎| > 2.576; and for p < 0.001, |r₍ᵢⱼ₎| > 3.291. Shaded cells indicate significantly higher (pink) or lower (yellow) CES and DP marks than expected based on adjusted standardized residuals above 1.96 or below −1.96, respectively.
Outside GI ElementsWithin GI ElementsGI Elements and Buffer Zones
CES_01observed84.0000280.0000227.0000
expected330.0652664.324075.9348
adjusted residual−13.5441 ***−14.1761 ***28.2377 ***
CES_02observed166.0000269.0000390.0000
expected452.010440.4366103.9896
adjusted residual−13.4526 ***35.9434 ***28.0470 ***
CES_03observed228.0000167.0000273.0000
expected407.297236.436693.7028
adjusted residual−8.8842 ***21.6298 ***18.5224 ***
CES_04observed87.0000218.0000303.0000
expected317.057728.363872.9423
adjusted residual−12.9202 ***35.6073 ***26.9369 ***
CES_05observed179.0000146.0000227.0000
expected330.0652638.097875.9348
adjusted residual−8.3150 ***−19.4808 ***17.3358 ***
CES_06observed76.0000301.0000360.0000
expected354.4542685.247981.5458
adjusted residual−14.7902 ***−14.6787 ***30.8356 ***
DP_01observed283.000051.0000187.0000
expected382.095234.182087.9048
adjusted residual−5.0695 ***2.8766 ***10.5693 ***
DP_02observed306.000037.0000135.0000
expected358.519132.072982.4809
adjusted residual−2.7737 **0.87005.7828 ***
DP_03observed118.0000165.0000254.0000
expected252.020222.545657.9798
adjusted residual−8.4421 ***25.7895 ***17.6008 ***
DP_04observed95.0000111.0000174.0000
expected218.688519.563750.3115
adjusted residual−8.3640 ***20.6725 ***17.4380 ***
DP_05observed154.0000165.0000254.0000
expected331.691129.672976.3089
adjusted residual−9.7566 ***24.8430 ***20.3413 ***
DP_06observed217.000053.0000116.0000
expected270.718524.218362.2815
adjusted residual−3.2649 **5.8485 ***6.8068 ***
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valánszki, I.; Nádasy, L.Z.; Erdei, T.K.; Borkó, A.É.; Iváncsics, V.; Földi, Z. Mapping Meaning: Perceptions of Green Infrastructure and Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Rapidly Urbanizing Town of Vác, Hungary. Land 2025, 14, 1669. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081669

AMA Style

Valánszki I, Nádasy LZ, Erdei TK, Borkó AÉ, Iváncsics V, Földi Z. Mapping Meaning: Perceptions of Green Infrastructure and Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Rapidly Urbanizing Town of Vác, Hungary. Land. 2025; 14(8):1669. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081669

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valánszki, István, László Zoltán Nádasy, Tímea Katalin Erdei, Anna Éva Borkó, Vera Iváncsics, and Zsófia Földi. 2025. "Mapping Meaning: Perceptions of Green Infrastructure and Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Rapidly Urbanizing Town of Vác, Hungary" Land 14, no. 8: 1669. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081669

APA Style

Valánszki, I., Nádasy, L. Z., Erdei, T. K., Borkó, A. É., Iváncsics, V., & Földi, Z. (2025). Mapping Meaning: Perceptions of Green Infrastructure and Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Rapidly Urbanizing Town of Vác, Hungary. Land, 14(8), 1669. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081669

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop