urban green space; residential sorting; stated attitudes; Brussels
Résumé :
[en] Extensive evidence exists on the benefits provided by urban green space (UGS) but evidence is lacking about whether and how socio-economic benefits accrue to all residents or disproportionally depending on their socio-economic status or residential location. We model joint effects of socio-economic and locational attributes on attitudes and use of UGS in Brussels (BE). The analysis is based on a survey conducted along an urban-suburban continuum with respondents sampled across non-park public space. Patterns of use are depicted by the frequency and the distance travelled to the most used UGS. Attitudes are analysed along three dimensions: willingness to (i) pay for UGS, (ii) trade-off housing for green space and (iii) substitute private for public green. Our results stress the importance of separating effects of attitudes from socio-economic and locational effects to quantify UGS use, and suggest endogenous effects of green space with residential sorting.
Disciplines :
Sciences de l’environnement & écologie Geographie humaine & démographie
Auteur, co-auteur :
Schindler, Mirjam
Le Texier, Marion
CARUSO, Geoffrey ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Language and Literature, Humanities, Arts and Education (FLSHASE) > Identités, Politiques, Sociétés, Espaces (IPSE) ; Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research - LISER
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Spatial sorting, attitudes and the use of green space in Brussels
Ambrey, C., Fleming, C., Public greenspace and life satisfaction in Urban Australia. Urban Stud. 51 (2014), 1290–1321.
Arnberger, A., Eder, R., The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (2012), 41–49.
Balram, S., Dragićević S., Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landsc. Urban Plan. 71 (2005), 147–162.
Barbosa, O., Tratalos, J.A., Armsworth, P.R., Davies, R.G., Fuller, R.A., Johnson, P., Gaston, K.J., Who benefits from access to green space? A case study from Sheffield, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83 (2007), 187–195.
Bateman, I.J., Day, B.H., Jones, A.P., Jude, S., Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: a virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 58 (2009), 106–118.
Bell, S., Thompson, C.W., Travlou, P., Contested views of freedom and control: children, teenagers and urban fringe woodlands in Central Scotland. Urban For. Urban Green. 2 (2003), 87–100.
Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 187–199.
BISA, Brussels Institute of Statistics and Analysis. 2017.
Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97 (2010), 147–155.
Box, J., Harrison, C., Natural spaces in urban places. Town Ctry. Plan. 62 (1993), 231–235.
Boyle, K., Contingent valuation in practice. Champ, P., Boyle, K., Brown, T., (eds.) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, 2003, Springer.
Brander, L.M., Koetse, M.J., The value of urban open space: meta-analyses of contingent valuation and hedonic pricing results. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011), 2763–2773.
Brown, G., A theory of urban park geography. J. Leis. Res. 40 (2008), 589–607.
Brueckner, J.K., Thisse, J.F., Zenou, Y., Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor? An amenity-based theory. Eur. Econ. Rev. 43 (1999), 91–107.
Byrne, J., When green is White: the cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum 43 (2012), 595–611.
Byrne, J., Sipe, N., Green and Open Space Planning for Urban Consolidation – A Review of the Literature and Best Practice, 11. 2010.
CABE, Community green: using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health. Technical Report., 2010.
Chang, H.S., Liao, C.H., Exploring an integrated method for measuring the relative spatial equity in public facilities in the context of urban parks. Cities 28 (2011), 361–371.
Chiesura, A., The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68 (2004), 129–138.
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. J. Forest Econ. 13 (2007), 75–102.
Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., Green, E., Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landsc. Urban Plan. 86 (2008), 103–114.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M., A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41 (2002), 393–408.
De Groot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., ten Brink, P., van Beukering, P., Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv., 2012, 50–61.
De Valck, J., Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., De Nocker, L., Vranken, L., Outdoor recreation in various landscapes: which site characteristics really matter?. Land Use Policy 65 (2017), 186–197.
De Valck, J., Vlaeminck, P., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Aertsens, J., Chen, W., Vranken, L., Benefits of clearing forest plantations to restore nature? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125 (2014), 65–75.
Dehring, C., Dunse, N., Housing density and the effect of proximity to public open space in Aberdeen, Scotland. Real Estate Econ. 34 (2006), 553–566.
Ernstson, H., The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109 (2013), 7–17 Special Issue: Urban Ecosystem Services.
Fujita, M., Urban Economic Theory. 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fuller, R.A., Gaston, K.J., The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biol. Lett. 5 (2009), 352–355.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M.H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., Lange, A., Donovan, R.J., Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28 (2005), 169–176.
Harrison, C., Brugess, J., Millward, A., Dawe, G., Accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities. A review of appropriate size and distance criteria. English Nature Research Report 153, 153, 1995, 1–39.
Heynen, N., Perkins, H., Roy, P., The political ecology of uneven urban green space. the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 42 (2006), 3–25.
Hoyt, W.H., Rosenthal, S.S., Household location and Tiebout: do families sort according to preferences for locational amenities?. J. Urban Econ. 42 (1997), 159–178.
Ibes, D.C., A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: a novel methodology and case study application. Landsc. Urban Plan. 137 (2015), 122–137.
Ives, C.D., Oke, C., Hehir, A., Gordon, A., Wang, Y., Bekessy, S.A., Capturing residents’ values for urban green space: mapping, analysis and guidance for practice. Landsc. Urban Plan. 161 (2017), 32–43.
Jayasooriya, V.M., Ng, A.W., Muthukumaran, S., Perera, B.J., Green infrastructure practices for improvement of urban air quality. Urban For. Urban Green. 21 (2017), 34–47.
Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75 (2006), 81–96.
Kabisch, N., Haase, D., Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122 (2014), 129–139.
Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., Haase, D., Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces – a systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50 (2015), 25–34.
Keniger, L.E., Gaston, K.J., Irvine, K.N., Fuller, R.A., What are the benefits of interacting with nature?. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10 (2013), 913–935.
Krizek, K.J., Residential relocation and changes in urban travel. Does neighbourhood-scale urban form matter?. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 69 (2003), 265–281.
Lanzendorf, M., Social change & leisure mobility. World Transp. Policy Pract. 6 (2000), 21–25.
Le Texier, M., Schiel, K., Caruso, G., 2018. On the Ability to Analyse Access to UGS: Data Effects in the Brussels Metropolitan Region (forthcoming).
Lin, B.B., Fuller, R.A., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Shanahan, D.F., Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLOS ONE 9 (2014), 1–8.
Lo, A.Y.H., Jim, C.Y., Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces. Cities 27 (2010), 430–442.
López-Mosquera, N., Sánchez, M., The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: an application of the means-end chain theory. Tourism Manag. 32 (2011), 875–889.
Lorenzo, A.B., Blanche, C.A., Qi, Y., Guidry, M.M., Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. J. Arboric. 26 (2000), 319–325.
Lutzenhiser, M., Netusil, N.R., The effect of open spaces on a home's sale price. Contemp. Econ. Policy 19 (2001), 291–298.
Maat, K., de Vries, P., The influence of the residential environment on green-space travel: testing the compensation hypothesis. Environ. Plan. A 38 (2006), 2111–2127.
Martin, C.A., Warren, P.S., Kinzig, A.P., Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of phoenix, {AZ}. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 (2004), 355–368.
Neuvonen, M., Sievänen, T., Tönnes, S., Koskela, T., Access to green areas and the frequency of visits – a case study in helsinki. Urban For. Urban Green. 6 (2007), 235–247.
Nicholls, S., Measuring the accessibility and equity of public parks: a case study using GIS. Manag. Leis. 6 (2001), 201–219.
Sander, H.a., Zhao, C., Land Use Policy Urban green and blue: who values what and where?. Land Use Policy 42 (2015), 194–209.
Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U.K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., Randrup, T.B., Factors influencing the use of green space: results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 95 (2010), 130–137.
Shafer, S.C., Scott, D., Baker, J., Winemiller, K., Recreation and amenity values of urban stream corridors: implications for green infrastructure. J. Urban Des. 18 (2013), 478–493.
Talen, E., The spatial logic of parks. J. Urban Des. 15 (2010), 473–491.
Tu, G., Abildtrup, J., Garcia, S., Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: an analysis of stated residential choices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 148 (2016), 120–131.
Tyrvä inen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 79 (2007), 5–19.
Tyrvä inen, L., Miettinen, A., Property prices and urban forest amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 39 (2000), 205–223.
Tyrvä inen, L., Väänänen, H., The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 43 (1998), 105–108.
Van de Voorde, T., Spatially explicit urban green indicators for characterizing vegetation cover and public green space proximity: a case study on Brussels, Belgium. Int. J. Digit. Earth 10 (2017), 798–813.
Van Herzele, A., Wiedemann, T., A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 63 (2003), 109–126.
Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 125 (2014), 234–244.
Zhang, W., Yang, J., Ma, L., Huang, C., Factors affecting the use of urban green spaces for physical activities: views of young urban residents in Beijing. Urban For. Urban Green. 14 (2015), 851–857.
