Next Article in Journal
Assessment Method and Scale of Observation Influence Ecosystem Service Bundles
Next Article in Special Issue
Infiltration Capacity of Rain Gardens Using Full-Scale Test Method: Effect of Infiltration System on Groundwater Levels in Bergen, Norway
Previous Article in Journal
Social Valuation of Mediterranean Cultural Landscapes: Exploring Landscape Preferences and Ecosystem Services Perceptions through a Visual Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urban Planning and Design for Building Neighborhood Resilience to Climate Change
Open AccessArticle

A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services

1
Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
2
Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2020, 9(10), 391; https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100391
Received: 25 September 2020 / Revised: 11 October 2020 / Accepted: 12 October 2020 / Published: 14 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Ecosystem Services)
Street trees, native plantings, bioswales, and other forms of green infrastructure alleviate urban air and water pollution, diminish flooding vulnerability, support pollinators, and provide other benefits critical to human well-being. Urban planners increasingly value such urban ecosystem services (ES), and effective methods for deciding among alternative planting regimes using urban ES criteria are under active development. In this effort, integrating stakeholder values and concerns with quantitative urban ES assessments is a central challenge; although it is widely recommended, specific approaches have yet to be explored. Here, we develop, apply, and evaluate such a method in the Friendly Area Neighborhood of Eugene, Oregon by investigating the potential for increased urban ES through the conversion of public lawn to alternative planting regimes that align with expressed stakeholder priorities. We first estimated current urban ES from green space mapping and published supply rates, finding lawn cover and associated ES to be dominant. Resident and expert priorities were then revealed through surveys and Delphi analyses; top priorities included air quality, stormwater quality, native plantings, and pollinator habitat, while concerns focused on cost and safety. Unexpectedly, most residents expressed a willingness to support urban ES improvements financially. This evidence then informed the development of planting regime alternatives among which we compared achievable future urban ES delivery, revealing clear differences among those that maximized stakeholder priorities, those that maximized quantitative urban ES delivery, and their integration. The resulting contribution is a straightforward method for identifying planting regimes with a high likelihood of success in delivering desired urban ES in specific local contexts. View Full-Text
Keywords: green infrastructure; urban planning; LiDAR/NDVI; stakeholders; Delphi analysis green infrastructure; urban planning; LiDAR/NDVI; stakeholders; Delphi analysis
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Elderbrock, E.; Enright, C.; Lynch, K.A.; Rempel, A.R. A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services. Land 2020, 9, 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100391

AMA Style

Elderbrock E, Enright C, Lynch KA, Rempel AR. A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services. Land. 2020; 9(10):391. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100391

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elderbrock, Evan; Enright, Chris; Lynch, Kathryn A.; Rempel, Alexandra R. 2020. "A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services" Land 9, no. 10: 391. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100391

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop