Skip to Content

6.4 Recreational value of public green space

Last modified by Emily West on 2022/01/19 14:13

6.4 Recreational value of public green space

Project Name: CONNECTING Nature

Pillar of Sustainable DevelopmentSocietal challenge
People6 - Place Regeneration
Description
This indicator represents a quantification of the number of visitors/recreational activities within a greenspace or blue green space in order to evaluate, or measure an increase in, recreational benefits as a result of NBS. Examples of features and activities that can attract visitors to NBS include features such as large trees, benches, education days, and communication zones for picnicking.
Scale as linked to D2.2 framework

Delete as appropriate:

  • National
  • City
  • Neighborhood 
  • Street
  • Household
  • Object
Data source [ link to data framework]
  • Questionnaire 
Data needs
  • Required data will depend on selected methods, for further details on applied and earth observation/remote sensing metrics refer to Connecting Nature Indicator Metrics Reviews Env24_Applied and Env24_RS
Expected Outputs
  • Qualitative
Calculation methods
  • A variety of methods exist from applied/public participation techniques through to earth observation/remote sensing approaches. For further details on measurement tools and metrics, including those adopted by past and current EU research and innovation projects, refer to Connecting Nature Indicator Metrics Reviews Env24_Applied and Env24_RS
Links and references

Applied methods:

  • Akpinar, A (2016) How is quality of urban green spaces associated with physical activity and health? Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16, 76-83.
  • Akpinar, A, Barbosa-Leiker, C and Brooks, KR (2016) Does green space matter? Exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20), 407-418.
  • Brown, G, Schebella, MF and Weber, D (2014) Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning 121, 34-44.
  • Cessford, G and Muhar, A (2003) Monitoring options for visitor numbers in national parks and natural areas. Journal for Nature Conservation 11(4), 240-250.
  • Coldwell, DF and Evans, KL (2018) Visits to urban green-space and the countryside associate with different components of mental well-being and are better predictors than perceived or actual local urbanisation intensity. Landscape and Urban Planning 175, 114-122.
  • Colley, K and Craig, T (2019) Natural places: Perceptions of wildness and attachment to local greenspace. Journal of Environmental Psychology 61, 71-78.
  • Cope A, Doxford, D and Probert, P (2000) Monitoring Visitors to UK Countryside Resources: the Approaches of Land and Recreation Resource Management Organisations to Visitor Monitoring. Land Use Policy 17(1), 59–66.
  • Faivre, N, Fritz, M, Freitas, T, de Boissezon, B and Vandewoestijne, S (2017) Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environmental Research 159, 509-518.
  • Kimpton, A (2017) A spatial analytic approach for classifying greenspace and comparing greenspace social equity. Applied Geography 82, 129-142.
  • Schipperijn, J, Bentsen, P, Troelsen, J, Toftager, M and Stigsdotter, U (2013) Associations between physical activity and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 12, 109-116.
  • Sugiyama, TP, Francis, JMPH, Middleton, NJB, Owen, NP and Giles Corti, BP (2010) Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces. American Journal of Public Health 100(9), 1752-1757.

EO/RS methods

  • Breuste J et al. (2015) Special Issue on Green Infrastructure for Urban Sustainability. In: Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(3), n.p. Online (15.2.17): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278665439.
  • Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., & Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measurephysical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121,34–44.
  • Dennis, M.; James, P. (2016) User participation in urban green commons: Exploring the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well being. Urban For. Urban Green., 15, 22– 31.
  • De Ridder et al. (2004): An integrated methodology to assess the benefits of urban green space. In: Science of the Total Environment 334-335, 489-497. Online (15.2.17): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christiane_Weber2/pub lication/8211761_Integrated_methodology_to_ass ess_the_benefits_of_urban_green_space/links/00b49526772 578934c000000/Integrated-methodology-to-assess- the benefits-of-urban-green-space.pdf.
  • Herold, M., Liu, X., & Clarke, K. C. (2003). Spatial metrics and image texture for mapping urban land use. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 69(9), 991–1001.
  • Kopecká M, Szatmári D, Rosina K (2017) Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia. Land 2017, 6, 25; doi:10.3390/land6020025
  • Nikolaidou, S., Klöti, T., Tappert, S., & Drilling, M. (2016). Urban Gardening and Green Space Governance: Towards New Collaborative Planning Practices. Urban Planning, 1(1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i1.520
  • Vargas-Hernández J.G., Pallagst K., Zdunek-Wielgołaska J. (2018) Urban Green Spaces as a Component of an Ecosystem. In: Dhiman S., Marques J. (eds) Handbook of Engaged Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-53121-2_49-1

Revisions

VersionNameDateChanges made
0.1Emily (EcoWise)19/01/2022Factsheet created