Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services and Disservices

Zuzana Drillet, Tze Kwan Fung, Rachel Ai Ting Leong, Uma Sachidhanandam, Peter Edwards and Daniel Richards
Additional contact information
Zuzana Drillet: ETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, 1 Create Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Singapore
Tze Kwan Fung: ETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, 1 Create Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Singapore
Rachel Ai Ting Leong: ETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, 1 Create Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Singapore
Uma Sachidhanandam: Republic Polytechnic, 9 Woodlands Ave 9, Singapore 738964, Singapore
Peter Edwards: ETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, 1 Create Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Singapore
Daniel Richards: ETH Zurich, Future Cities Laboratory, Singapore-ETH Centre, 1 Create Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, Singapore 138602, Singapore

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 5, 1-14

Abstract: Urban vegetation is important in providing ecosystem services to people. Different urban vegetation types provide contrasting suites of ecosystem services and disservices. Understanding public perceptions of the ecosystem services and disservices can therefore play an important role in shaping the planning and management of urban areas. We conducted an online survey (n = 1000) to understand how residents in the tropical city of Singapore perceived urban vegetation and the associated ecosystem services and disservices. The questionnaire was designed to explore whether different urban vegetation types (grass, shrubs, trees, trees over shrubs, and secondary forest) were perceived as equal in providing benefits. Respondents considered ecosystem services provided by urban vegetation to be more important than disservices. Among ecosystem services, regulating services were most highly rated, with more than 80% of the respondents appreciating urban vegetation for providing shade and improving air quality. Respondents recognized that different vegetation types provided different ecosystem services. For example, secondary forest was most commonly associated with education and wildlife, while trees were strongly associated with cooling and air quality. We conclude that in developing plans and designs for urban vegetation and ecosystem services, it is important to understand the perceptions, priorities, and concerns of residents.

Keywords: urban vegetation; ecosystem services; ecosystem disservices; public perception; tropical city; urban ecosystems; urban ecology; sustainable development (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2076/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/2076/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:2076-:d:329930

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().