A Guide to Public Green Space Planning for Urban Ecosystem Services

Evan Elderbrock, Chris Enright, Kathryn A. Lynch and Alexandra R. Rempel
Additional contact information
Evan Elderbrock: Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Chris Enright: Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Kathryn A. Lynch: Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Alexandra R. Rempel: Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA

Land, 2020, vol. 9, issue 10, 1-23

Abstract: Street trees, native plantings, bioswales, and other forms of green infrastructure alleviate urban air and water pollution, diminish flooding vulnerability, support pollinators, and provide other benefits critical to human well-being. Urban planners increasingly value such urban ecosystem services (ES), and effective methods for deciding among alternative planting regimes using urban ES criteria are under active development. In this effort, integrating stakeholder values and concerns with quantitative urban ES assessments is a central challenge; although it is widely recommended, specific approaches have yet to be explored. Here, we develop, apply, and evaluate such a method in the Friendly Area Neighborhood of Eugene, Oregon by investigating the potential for increased urban ES through the conversion of public lawn to alternative planting regimes that align with expressed stakeholder priorities. We first estimated current urban ES from green space mapping and published supply rates, finding lawn cover and associated ES to be dominant. Resident and expert priorities were then revealed through surveys and Delphi analyses; top priorities included air quality, stormwater quality, native plantings, and pollinator habitat, while concerns focused on cost and safety. Unexpectedly, most residents expressed a willingness to support urban ES improvements financially. This evidence then informed the development of planting regime alternatives among which we compared achievable future urban ES delivery, revealing clear differences among those that maximized stakeholder priorities, those that maximized quantitative urban ES delivery, and their integration. The resulting contribution is a straightforward method for identifying planting regimes with a high likelihood of success in delivering desired urban ES in specific local contexts.

Keywords: green infrastructure; urban planning; LiDAR/NDVI; stakeholders; Delphi analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (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/2073-445X/9/10/391/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/10/391/ (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:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:10:p:391-:d:427696

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

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