家门口的大自然:居民如何看待城市公园与生物多样性区域?

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Landscape and Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-03-23 DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105059
M. Melon , P. Sikorski , P. Archiciński , E. Łaszkiewicz , A. Hoppa , P. Zaniewski , E. Zaniewska , W. Strużyński , B. Sudnik-Wójcikowska , D. Sikorska
{"title":"家门口的大自然:居民如何看待城市公园与生物多样性区域?","authors":"M. Melon ,&nbsp;P. Sikorski ,&nbsp;P. Archiciński ,&nbsp;E. Łaszkiewicz ,&nbsp;A. Hoppa ,&nbsp;P. Zaniewski ,&nbsp;E. Zaniewska ,&nbsp;W. Strużyński ,&nbsp;B. Sudnik-Wójcikowska ,&nbsp;D. Sikorska","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The role of nature in enhancing urban well-being is well-established, but perceived naturalness may not always align with scientific definitions. Our study aimed to investigate whether areas selected for nature-related activities demonstrate increased biodiversity, offer diverse experiences, and integrate both social and ecological perspectives. We aimed to bridge the gap between perceived naturalness and objective ecological richness. Integrating social and environmental parameters, we considered both objective indicators, such as the presence of rare species, and subjective perspectives. Extensive geotagged surveys among 401 working-age Warsaw residents, coupled with field analyses, and biodiversity data collected for the scale of the whole city, allowed to juxtapose human perception with tangible ecological indicators. Our results revealed that only 14% of the locations identified by respondents as natural were associated with high biological diversity. In contrast, over 30% were in areas with low biological diversity, lacking rare species. Factors like presence of natural and semi-natural vegetation types, distance from buildings, population density, presence of water, noise, and extreme temperatures were found to be significant. We distinguished four types of natural areas: close to home, open grassland, high naturalness, and forested, reflecting different preferences and alternative choices when high-quality natural areas are not nearby. Most notably, urban parks emerged as key locations for nature contact, even though objective measures of biodiversity were often low. This underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of how urban residents interact with and value natural spaces, bridging the gap between subjective experiences and objective ecological richness within the city's green areas. Our study highlights the complex interplay between the physical properties of urban green spaces, individual perceptions, and the ecological aesthetics influencing these interactions. In particular, the concept of perceived naturalness emerges as a critical factor, often contrasting with objective, quantifiable naturalness, and necessitating a nuanced approach in urban planning and public health contexts to cater to diverse needs and preferences of city dwellers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624000586/pdfft?md5=ce0f03bc69f9781d3901f341f532260a&pid=1-s2.0-S0169204624000586-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nature on our doorstep: How do residents perceive urban parks vs. biodiverse areas?\",\"authors\":\"M. Melon ,&nbsp;P. Sikorski ,&nbsp;P. Archiciński ,&nbsp;E. Łaszkiewicz ,&nbsp;A. Hoppa ,&nbsp;P. Zaniewski ,&nbsp;E. Zaniewska ,&nbsp;W. Strużyński ,&nbsp;B. Sudnik-Wójcikowska ,&nbsp;D. Sikorska\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The role of nature in enhancing urban well-being is well-established, but perceived naturalness may not always align with scientific definitions. Our study aimed to investigate whether areas selected for nature-related activities demonstrate increased biodiversity, offer diverse experiences, and integrate both social and ecological perspectives. We aimed to bridge the gap between perceived naturalness and objective ecological richness. Integrating social and environmental parameters, we considered both objective indicators, such as the presence of rare species, and subjective perspectives. Extensive geotagged surveys among 401 working-age Warsaw residents, coupled with field analyses, and biodiversity data collected for the scale of the whole city, allowed to juxtapose human perception with tangible ecological indicators. Our results revealed that only 14% of the locations identified by respondents as natural were associated with high biological diversity. In contrast, over 30% were in areas with low biological diversity, lacking rare species. Factors like presence of natural and semi-natural vegetation types, distance from buildings, population density, presence of water, noise, and extreme temperatures were found to be significant. We distinguished four types of natural areas: close to home, open grassland, high naturalness, and forested, reflecting different preferences and alternative choices when high-quality natural areas are not nearby. Most notably, urban parks emerged as key locations for nature contact, even though objective measures of biodiversity were often low. This underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of how urban residents interact with and value natural spaces, bridging the gap between subjective experiences and objective ecological richness within the city's green areas. Our study highlights the complex interplay between the physical properties of urban green spaces, individual perceptions, and the ecological aesthetics influencing these interactions. In particular, the concept of perceived naturalness emerges as a critical factor, often contrasting with objective, quantifiable naturalness, and necessitating a nuanced approach in urban planning and public health contexts to cater to diverse needs and preferences of city dwellers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Landscape and Urban Planning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624000586/pdfft?md5=ce0f03bc69f9781d3901f341f532260a&pid=1-s2.0-S0169204624000586-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Landscape and Urban Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624000586\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624000586","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自然在提高城市幸福感方面的作用已得到广泛认可,但人们所感知的自然性可能并不总是与科学定义相一致。我们的研究旨在调查为与自然相关的活动所选择的区域是否增加了生物多样性,是否提供了多样化的体验,以及是否将社会和生态观点结合在一起。我们旨在缩小感知自然度与客观生态丰富度之间的差距。结合社会和环境参数,我们考虑了客观指标(如是否存在稀有物种)和主观观点。我们对华沙 401 名工作年龄段的居民进行了广泛的地理标记调查,并结合实地分析和在整个城市范围内收集的生物多样性数据,将人的感知与有形的生态指标并列起来。我们的研究结果表明,只有 14% 的受访者认为自然的地点具有较高的生物多样性。相反,超过 30% 的地区生物多样性较低,缺乏珍稀物种。我们发现,自然和半自然植被类型的存在、与建筑物的距离、人口密度、水源、噪音和极端温度等因素都很重要。我们将自然区域分为四种类型:离家近、开阔草地、高自然度和森林,这反映了当附近没有优质自然区域时,人们的不同偏好和替代选择。最值得注意的是,城市公园成为人们接触自然的主要地点,尽管生物多样性的客观指标通常较低。这突出表明,需要全面了解城市居民如何与自然空间互动并重视自然空间,缩小城市绿地中主观体验与客观生态丰富性之间的差距。我们的研究强调了城市绿地的物理特性、个人感知以及影响这些互动的生态美学之间复杂的相互作用。特别是,感知自然性的概念是一个关键因素,它往往与客观的、可量化的自然性形成对比,因此在城市规划和公共卫生方面必须采取细致入微的方法,以满足城市居民的不同需求和偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Nature on our doorstep: How do residents perceive urban parks vs. biodiverse areas?

The role of nature in enhancing urban well-being is well-established, but perceived naturalness may not always align with scientific definitions. Our study aimed to investigate whether areas selected for nature-related activities demonstrate increased biodiversity, offer diverse experiences, and integrate both social and ecological perspectives. We aimed to bridge the gap between perceived naturalness and objective ecological richness. Integrating social and environmental parameters, we considered both objective indicators, such as the presence of rare species, and subjective perspectives. Extensive geotagged surveys among 401 working-age Warsaw residents, coupled with field analyses, and biodiversity data collected for the scale of the whole city, allowed to juxtapose human perception with tangible ecological indicators. Our results revealed that only 14% of the locations identified by respondents as natural were associated with high biological diversity. In contrast, over 30% were in areas with low biological diversity, lacking rare species. Factors like presence of natural and semi-natural vegetation types, distance from buildings, population density, presence of water, noise, and extreme temperatures were found to be significant. We distinguished four types of natural areas: close to home, open grassland, high naturalness, and forested, reflecting different preferences and alternative choices when high-quality natural areas are not nearby. Most notably, urban parks emerged as key locations for nature contact, even though objective measures of biodiversity were often low. This underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of how urban residents interact with and value natural spaces, bridging the gap between subjective experiences and objective ecological richness within the city's green areas. Our study highlights the complex interplay between the physical properties of urban green spaces, individual perceptions, and the ecological aesthetics influencing these interactions. In particular, the concept of perceived naturalness emerges as a critical factor, often contrasting with objective, quantifiable naturalness, and necessitating a nuanced approach in urban planning and public health contexts to cater to diverse needs and preferences of city dwellers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Landscape and Urban Planning
Landscape and Urban Planning 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.
期刊最新文献
Evidence of taxonomic but not functional diversity extinction debt in bird assemblages in an urban area in the Cerrado hotspot Are golf courses good or bad for birds: A synthetic review Comment on Functional landscape connectivity for a select few: Linkages do not consistently predict wildlife movement or occupancy. Autum R. Iverson, David Waetjen, Fraser Shilling A multi-value based approach to identify potential dark sky places in mainland China A review of methods for quantifying urban ecosystem services
×
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