Perceptions of trade-offs between urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: A case study of Canberra, Australia

IF 6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128711
Baige Zhang
{"title":"Perceptions of trade-offs between urban forest ecosystem services and disservices: A case study of Canberra, Australia","authors":"Baige Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Urban greening initiatives are increasingly integrated into urban planning and climate change strategies, offering multiple benefits to residents. Despite growing advocacy for incorporating diverse stakeholder preferences and concerns into policy-making processes, there remains a knowledge gap about differences in perceptions between decision-makers and other stakeholders. Using Canberra, Australia, as a case study, this research explores the perceptions of policymakers and key stakeholder groups regarding urban forest ecosystem services (ESs), ecosystem disservices (EDs), and associated trade-offs through analysing legislative instruments, policy documents, and stakeholder submissions. The findings reveal that while legislation exhibits a high level of cohesiveness, policy documents and stakeholder submissions prioritise ESs variably. Notwithstanding generally shared acknowledgement of the urban forest’s importance, perceptions of key stakeholder groups about ESs, EDs and trade-offs differed, and from those of policymakers, in some key respects. The disparities are mainly attributed to the different scales at which urban forests are perceived, and divergent value orientations among stakeholders. Results suggest that policymakers can draw from the differing perceptions to inform decisions at both city-wide and neighbourhood levels. However, making informed choices about trade-offs requires careful consideration of multiple policy objectives and the diverse values of stakeholders. More proactive engagement with key stakeholders in the policy-making process could foster a consistent and comprehensive understanding of, and response to, these diverse perceptions. These results from Canberra underscore the benefits of more inclusive approaches to the development of urban greening strategies, to achieve more socially-sustainable outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49394,"journal":{"name":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","volume":"105 ","pages":"Article 128711"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866725000457","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Urban greening initiatives are increasingly integrated into urban planning and climate change strategies, offering multiple benefits to residents. Despite growing advocacy for incorporating diverse stakeholder preferences and concerns into policy-making processes, there remains a knowledge gap about differences in perceptions between decision-makers and other stakeholders. Using Canberra, Australia, as a case study, this research explores the perceptions of policymakers and key stakeholder groups regarding urban forest ecosystem services (ESs), ecosystem disservices (EDs), and associated trade-offs through analysing legislative instruments, policy documents, and stakeholder submissions. The findings reveal that while legislation exhibits a high level of cohesiveness, policy documents and stakeholder submissions prioritise ESs variably. Notwithstanding generally shared acknowledgement of the urban forest’s importance, perceptions of key stakeholder groups about ESs, EDs and trade-offs differed, and from those of policymakers, in some key respects. The disparities are mainly attributed to the different scales at which urban forests are perceived, and divergent value orientations among stakeholders. Results suggest that policymakers can draw from the differing perceptions to inform decisions at both city-wide and neighbourhood levels. However, making informed choices about trade-offs requires careful consideration of multiple policy objectives and the diverse values of stakeholders. More proactive engagement with key stakeholders in the policy-making process could foster a consistent and comprehensive understanding of, and response to, these diverse perceptions. These results from Canberra underscore the benefits of more inclusive approaches to the development of urban greening strategies, to achieve more socially-sustainable outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
289
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening is a refereed, international journal aimed at presenting high-quality research with urban and peri-urban woody and non-woody vegetation and its use, planning, design, establishment and management as its main topics. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening concentrates on all tree-dominated (as joint together in the urban forest) as well as other green resources in and around urban areas, such as woodlands, public and private urban parks and gardens, urban nature areas, street tree and square plantations, botanical gardens and cemeteries. The journal welcomes basic and applied research papers, as well as review papers and short communications. Contributions should focus on one or more of the following aspects: -Form and functions of urban forests and other vegetation, including aspects of urban ecology. -Policy-making, planning and design related to urban forests and other vegetation. -Selection and establishment of tree resources and other vegetation for urban environments. -Management of urban forests and other vegetation. Original contributions of a high academic standard are invited from a wide range of disciplines and fields, including forestry, biology, horticulture, arboriculture, landscape ecology, pathology, soil science, hydrology, landscape architecture, landscape planning, urban planning and design, economics, sociology, environmental psychology, public health, and education.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Understanding street tree inequities: The interrelation of urban layout and socio-economics How to quantify multidimensional perception of urban parks? Integrating deep learning-based social media data analysis with questionnaire survey methods The contribution of geolocated data to the diagnosis of urban green infrastructure. Tenerife insularity as a benchmark Plant smellscape: A key avenue to connect nature and human well-being
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1