Keywords
place contextuality
trees
ecosystem services
PPGIS
How to Cite
Abstract
Collecting opinions regarding environmental management is essential, particularly in urban areas where space is limited, and interests often collide. However, the impact of the conditions in which the research is conducted on opinions and preferences elicited via surveys and interviews about the environment is usually taken for granted. The recent development of computer-aided survey methods allows a simulation of an environment, which can create an artificial environment for interviews. Therefore, examining whether direct access to the environment impacts opinions and preferences becomes a significant issue when considering environmental policies and management design and execution. This study examines whether the location of an interview, indoors or outdoors (in the vicinity of trees), influences the opinion on the ecosystem services (ES) trees provide. A quasi-experimental method with a map-aided computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) survey in two Polish cities, indoors and outdoors, in the vicinity of trees, shows that respondents’ location did not significantly affect the opinion on the ES provided by trees. However, on average, respondents answering the survey inside buildings marked more trees on a map than those answering outside. We argue that although an interview location does not have a significant impact on the results, from the perspective of various stakeholder groups in participatory processes, the convenience of place is more important than the character of the place (i.e., in the vicinity of trees) as long as the survey method is mediated by a virtual representation of the subject of the study.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, under the project “iTre- es – the impact of institutional framework change on ecosystem services provided by trees and shrubs to local communities” [No. 2017/25/B/ HS6/00954].
References
Bauer D.J., Sterba S.K., Hallfors D.D., 2008. Evaluating group-based interventions when control participants are ungrouped. Multivariate Behavioral Research 43(2): 210-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170802034810
Bertram C., Rehdanz K., 2015. The role of urban green space for human well-being. Ecological Economics 120: 139-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.013
Bolund P., Hunhammar S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29(2): 293-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
Brown G., Strickland-Munro J., Kobryn H., Moore S.A., 2016. Stakeholder analysis for marine conservation planning using public participation GIS. Applied Geography 67: 77-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.12.004
Chang J., Qu Z., Xu R., Pan K., Xu B., Min Y., Ge Y., 2017. Assessing the ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces along urban center-edge gradients. Scientific Reports 7(1): 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11559-5
Carrus G., Scopelliti M., Lafortezza R., Colangelo G., Ferrini F., Salbitano F., Agrimi M., Portoghesi L., Semenzato P., Sanesi G., 2015. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 134: 221-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Coleman A.F., Eisenman T.S., Locke D.H., Harper R.W., 2023. Exploring links between resident satisfaction and participation in an urban tree planting initiative. Cities 134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104195
Carolan M.S., 2008. The bright- and blind-spots of science: Why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. Critical Sociology 34(5): 725-740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920508093365
Czepkiewicz M., Jankowski P., Zwoliński Z., 2018. Geo-questionnaire: A spatially explicit method for eliciting public preferences, behavioural patterns, and local knowledge – An overview. Quaestiones Geographicae 37: 177-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0033
Deterding S., Dixon D., Khaled R., Nacke L., 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments 9-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Díaz S., Demissew S., Carabias J., Joly C., Lonsdale M., Ash N., Larigauderie A., et al., 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1-16.
dos Santos M., Massarollo M., de Moraes E., 2016. The family interview in the process of donating organs and tissues for transplantation: Perceptions of potential donors’ relatives. Transplantation Proceedings 46(6): 1674-1677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.05.010
EEA, 2022. Who benefits from nature in cities? Social inequalities in access to urban green and blue spaces across Europe. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/who-benefits-from-nature-in (accessed 1 December 2023).
Elwood S., Deborah M., 2000. Placing interviews: Location and scales of power in qualitative research. The Professional Geographer 52(4): 649-657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-0124.00253
Fukuda T., Yokoi K., Yabuki N., Motamedi A., 2019. An indoor thermal environment design system for renovation using augmented reality. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 6(2): 179-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2018.05.007
Gagnon M., Jacob D., McCabe J., 2015. Locating the qualitative interview: Reflecting on space and place in nursing research. Journal of Research in Nursing 20: 3-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987114536571
Geron N.A., Martin D.G., Rogan J., Healy M., 2023. Residents’ roles as environmental policy actors using an urban governance framework: A case study of a tree planting program. Cities 135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104201
Grace D., 2013. Transnational institutional ethnography: Tracing text and talk beyond state boundaries. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12(1): 587-605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200131
Hanssen T., 2012. The influence of interview location on the value of travel time savings. Transportation 39(6): 1133-1145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9378-1
Herzog H., 2005. On home turf: Interview location and its social meaning. Qualitative Sociology 28(1): 25-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-005-2629-8
Hovorka D.S., Auerbach N., 2010. The generative potential of participatory geographic information systems. In: Tojo T., David L.C., Michel A. (eds), Positive design and appreciative construction: From sustainable development to sustainable value. Emerald Group Publishing: 157-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-9152(2010)0000003013
Hurlbert M., Gupta J., 2015. The split ladder of participation: a diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environmental Science & Policy 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011
Illic V., 2015. Planning implementation of method of observation in social sciences. Etnoantropoloski Problemi – Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 10(2): 287-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21301/EAP.v10i2.1
Inglot A., Przewoźna P., Mielewczyk M., Mączka K., Matczak P., 2021. The effect of interview location on the perception of Ecosystem Services provided by trees. A Polish case study. Gdańsk University of Technology: MOST WIEDZY Digital Repository.
Jackson P., 2021. Interview locations. In: Mac Ginty R., Brett R., Vogel B. (eds), The companion to peace and conflict fieldwork. Palgrave Macmillan: 101-113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46433-2_7
Jenner B.M., Myers K.C., 2018. Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: A comparison of in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 22(2): 165-177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1512694
Jones N.A., Ross H., Lynam T., Perez P., Leitch A., 2011. Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society 16(1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03802-160146
Jones N.A., Ross H., Lynam T., Perez P., 2014. Eliciting mental models: A comparison of interview procedures in the context of natural resource management. Ecology and Society 19(1): 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06248-190113
Jones-Walters L., Çil A., 2011. Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. Journal for Nature Conservation 19: 327-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.09.001
Jóźwiak K., Moerbeek M., 2013. Optimal treatment allocation and study duration for trials with discrete-time survival endpoints. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 143(5): 971-982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2012.11.006
Ko H., Son Y., 2018. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: A case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecological Indicators 91: 299-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006
Korpilo S., Virtanen T., Saukkonen T., Lehvävirta S., 2018. More than A to B: Understanding and managing visitor spatial behaviour in urban forests using public participation GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 207: 124-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.020
Kronenberg J., 2012. Urban ecosystem services. Sustainable Development Applications 3: 13-30. https://sendzimir.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Sustainable_Development_Applications_3.pdf
Lee J.H., 2021. Setting the governance of a participatory ecosystem service assessment based on text mining the language of stakeholders’ opinions. Journal of Environmental Management 284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112003
Livesley S.J., McPherson E.G., Calfapietra C., 2016. The urban forest and ecosystem services: Impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. Journal of Environmental Quality 45: 119-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.11.0567
Mabon L., Barkved L., de Bruin K., Wan-Yu S., 2022. Whose knowledge counts in nature-based solutions? Understanding epistemic justice for nature-based solutions through a multi-city comparison across Europe and Asia. Environmental Science & Policy 136: 652-664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.025
Mace G.M., 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345: 1558-1560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704
Mączka K., Matczak P., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A., Rechciński M., Olszańska A., Cent J., Grodzińska-Jurczak M., 2016. Application of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy – A systematic empirical analysis of national level policy documents in Poland. Ecological Economics 128: 169-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.023
Mączka K., Chmielewski P., Jeran A., Matczak P., van Riper C.J., 2019. The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network. Ecosystem Services 35: 173-183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.005
Mączka K., Matczak P., Jeran A., Chmielewski P., Baker S., 2021. Conflicts in ecosystem services management: Analysis of stakeholder participation in Natura 2000 in Poland. Environmental Science & Policy 117: 16-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.01.001
Mandelbaum E., 2018. Seeing and conceptualizing: Modularity and the shallow contents of perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97(2): 267-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12368
Maricchiolo F., Mosca O., Paolini D., Marino D., 2021. Feeling good in the place we live: The moderating role of the perception of environmental resources in the relationship between values and personal and family well-being. Sustainability 13(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084407
McVittie A., Faccioli M., 2020. Biodiversity and ecosystem services net gain assessment: A comparison of metrics. Ecosystem Services 44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101145
MEA, 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.
Moran L., Rau H., 2016. Mapping divergent concepts of sustainability: Lay knowledge, local practices and environmental governance. Local Environment 21(3): 344-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.963838
Neuhäuser M., Mackowiak M.M., Ruxton G.D., 2021. Unequal sample sizes according to the square-root allocation rule are useful when comparing several treatments with a control. Ethology 127(12): 1094-1100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13230
Nicolosi E., Corbett J.B., 2018. Engagement with climate change and the environment: A review of the role of relationships to place. Local Environment 23(1): 77-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1385002
Nyelele C., Kroll C.N., Nowak D.J. 2019. Present and future ecosystem services of trees in the Bronx, NY. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 42: 10-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.018
Olsson J.A., Brunner J., Nordin A., Hanson H.I., 2020. A just urban ecosystem service governance at the neighbourhood level- perspectives from Sofielund, Malmö, Sweden. Environmental Science & Policy 112: 305-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.025
Ordóñez C., Threlfall C.G., Livesley S.J., Kendal D., Fuller R.A., Davern M., van der Ree R., Hochuli D.F., 2020. Decision-making of municipal urban forest managers through the lens of governance. Environmental Science & Policy 104: 136-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.008
Otto-Banaszak I., Matczak P., Wesseler J., Wechsung F., 2010. Different perceptions of adaptation to climate change: A mental model approach applied to the evidence from expert interview. Regional Environmental Change 15(7): 779-796.
Piga B.E.A., Stancato G., Rainisio N., Boffi M., 2021. How do nature-based solutions’ color tones influence people’s emotional reaction? An assessment via virtual and augmented reality in a participatory process. Sustainability 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313388
Pocewicz A., Nielsen-Pincus M., Brown G., Schnitzer R., 2012. An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS 16(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01287.x
Rawluk A., Ford R.M., Neolaka F.L., Williams K.J., 2017. Public values for integration in natural disaster management and planning: A case study from Victoria, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management 185: 11-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.052
Reed M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Riechers M., Barkmann J., Tscharntke T., 2016. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Services 17: 33-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007
Riechers M., Barkmann J., Tscharntke T., 2018. Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Landscape and Urban Planning 175: 161-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.017
Rodosthenous C., Mavrotheris E., Greller W., Tabuenca B., 2023. Creating environmental awareness in education through IoT and gamification. In: Auer M.E., Pachatz W., Rüütmann T. (eds), Learning in the age of digital and green transition (Lecture notes in networks and systems 634). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_69
Röhrich W., Hardiess G., Mallot H., 2014. View-based organization and interplay of spatial working and long-term memories. PLoS ONE 9: 11-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112793
Salmond J.A., Tadaki M., Vardoulakis S., Arbuthnott K., Coutts A., Demuzere M., Dirks K.N., Heaviside C., Lim S., Macintyre H., McInnes R.N., Wheeler B.W., 2016. Health and climate related ecosystem services provided by street trees in the urban environment. Environmental Health 15: 36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0103-6
Schirpke U., Marino D., Marucci A., Palmieri M., Scolozzi R., 2017. Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: Experiences and challenges. Ecosystem Services 28: 105-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.009
Scholz T., Hof A., Schmitt T., 2018. Cooling effects and regulating ecosystem services provided by urban trees – Novel analysis approaches using urban tree cadastre data. Sustainability 10: 712. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030712
Schroeter R., Scheel O., Renn O., Schweizer P.J., 2016. Testing the value of public participation in Germany: Theory, operationalization and a case study on the evaluation of participation. Energy Research & Social Science 13: 116-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.013
Shwartz A., Turbé A., Simon L., Julliard R., 2014. Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment. Biological Conservation 171: 82-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.009
Silva R.A., Lapola D.M., Patricio G.B., Teixeira M.C., Pinho P., Priess J.A., 2016. Operationalizing payments for ecosystem services in Brazil’s sugarcane belt: How do stakeholder opinions match with successful cases in Latin America? Ecosystem Services 22: 128-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.013
Simon P.J., Batterbury J., Fernando L., 2006. Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: An introduction. World Development 34(11): 1851-1863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.019
Song X.P., Tan P.Y., Edwards P., Richards D., 2018. The economic benefits and costs of trees in urban forest stewardship: A systematic review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 29: 162-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017
Stedman R.C., 2003. Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society& Natural Resources 16(8): 671-685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309189
Tabuenca B., García-Alcántara V., Gilarranz-Casado C., Barrado-Aguirre S., 2020. Fostering environmental awareness with smart IoT planters in campuses. Sensors 20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s20082227
Tabuenca B., Moreno-Sancho J.L., Arquero-Gallego J., Greller W., Hernández-Leo D., 2023. Generating an environmental awareness system for learning using IoT technology. Internet of Things 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.100756
TEEB, 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. https://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/synthesis/ (accessed 1 December 2023).
Tenório M.M., Reinaldo F.A.F., Góis L.A., Lopes R.P., dos Santos Junior G., 2018. Elements of gamification in virtual learning environments. In: Auer M., Guralnick D., Simonics I. (eds), Teaching and learning in a digital world. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73204-6_12
Tsai B.W., Lu D.J., Chung M.K., Lien M.C., 2013. Evaluation of PPGIS empowerment – A case study of Meinong Yellow Butterfly Valley in Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Management 116: 204-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.005
WHO, 2016. Urban green spaces and health. Geneva: World Health Organization – Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/345751 (accessed 1 December 2023).
WHO, 2021. Green and blue spaces and mental health: New evidence and perspectives for action. Geneva: World Health Organization – Regional Office for Europe. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/342931 (accessed 1 December 2023).
Zadeh F.A., Sulaiman A.B., 2010. Dynamic street environment. Local Environment 15(5): 433-452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549831003735403
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Piotr Matczak, Marcin Mielewczyk, Krzysztof Mączka, Patrycja Przewoźna, Adam Inglot
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.