Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Green Infrastructure in England
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Impact of Green Infrastructure on Society
2.2. Impacts of Green Infrastructure on Wildlife
2.3. Use of Spatial Analysis in Determining Greenspace Quality
3. Methodology and Data
3.1. Methods for Evaluating Green Infrastructure
3.2. Wildlife Species and Biodiversity Data
3.3. Greenspace Data and Recreational Values
4. Analysis
4.1. Species Richness and Recreational Value
- (1)
- The number of unique species as a representation of biodiversity;
- (2)
- The composite index of Outdoor Recreational Value estimated by ORVal.
4.2. Independent Variables for the Regression Modelling
4.3. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) Regression Modelling
4.4. Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) Modelling
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Union. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. 2013. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/green-infrastructure-gi-2014-enhancing (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Benedict, M.; MacMahon, E. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Natural England. Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Guidance (NE176). 2009. Available online: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/94026 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- UK Green Building Council. Demystifying Green Infrastructure. 2015. Available online: https://ukgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/05153004/Demystifying-Green-Infrastructure-report-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Georgi, N.J.; Zafiriadis, K. The impact of park trees on microclimate in urban areas. Urban Ecosyst. 2006, 9, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emilsson, T.; Sang, Å.O. Impacts of climate change on urban areas and nature-based solutions for adaptation. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice; Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 15–27. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, J.B.; Lundy, L.; Revitt, D.M. An impact assessment methodology for urban surface runoff quality following best practice treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 416, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bottalico, F.; Chirici, G.; Giannetti, F.; de Marco, A.; Nocentini, S.; Paoletti, E.; Salbitano, F.; Sanesi, G.; Serenelli, C.; Travaglini, D. Air pollution removal by green infrastructures and urban forests in the City of Florence. Agric. Agric. Sci. Proc. 2016, 8, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liquete, C.; Kleeschulte, S.; Dige, G.; Maes, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Olah, B.; Zulian, G. Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 268–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jerome, G.; Sinnett, D.; Burgess, S.; Calvert, T.; Mortlock, R. A framework for assessing the quality of green infrastructure in the built environment in the UK. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2019, 40, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunold, C. Green infrastructure and urban wildlife: Toward a politics of sight. Humanimalia 2019, 11, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arntz, W.; Strobel, A.; Moreira, E.; Mark, F.; Knust, R.; Jacob, U.; Brey, T.; Barrera-Oro, E.; Mintenbeck, K. Impact of climate change on fishes in complex Antarctic ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2012, 46, 351–426. [Google Scholar]
- Forzieri, G.; Feyen, L.; Russo, S.; Vousdoukas, M.; Alfieri, L.; Outten, S.; Migliavacca, M.; Bianchi, A.; Rojas, R.; Cid, A. Multi-hazard assessment in Europe under climate change. Clim. Chang. 2016, 137, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC Secretariat. Scientific Review of the Impact of Climate Change on Plant Pests. 2021. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb4769en/cb4769en.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Ulrich, R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grazuleviciene, R.; Vencloviene, J.; Kubilius, R.; Grizas, V.; Dedele, A.; Grazulevicius, T.; Ceponiene, I.; Tamuleviciute-Prasciene, E.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Jones, M.; et al. The effect of park and urban environments on coronary artery disease patients: A randomized trial. BioMed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 403012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shanahan, D.F.; Lin, B.B.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Dean, J.H.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R. Toward improved public health outcomes from urban nature. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 470–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, J.; Verheij, R.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Schellevis, F.; Groenewegen, P. Morbidity is related to a green living environment. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009, 63, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomalak, M.; Rossi, E.; Ferrini, F.; Moro, P. Negative aspects and hazardous effects of forest environment on human health. In Forests, Trees and Human Health; Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Seeland, K., Schipperijn, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; Chapter 4; pp. 77–126. [Google Scholar]
- Day, B.; Smith, G. Outdoor Recreational Valuation (ORVal) Data Set Construction, University of Exeter. 2016. Available online: https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/pdf-reports/orval_data_reportOLD.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Day, B.; Smith, G. The ORVal Recreation Demand Model: Extension Project, University of Exeter. 2017. Available online: https://www.leep.exeter.ac.uk/orval/pdf-reports/ORValII_Modelling_Report.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Zhang, S.; Ramírez, F. Assessing and mapping ecosystem services to support urban green infrastructure: The case of Barcelona, Spain. Cities 2019, 92, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leveau, L.M.; Isla, F.I. Predicting bird species presence in urban areas with NDVI: An assessment within and between cities. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2021, 63, 127199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mörtberg, U.; Wallentinus, H.G. Red-listed forest bird species in an urban environment—Assessment of green space corridors. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 50, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holtmann, L.; Philipp, K.; Becke, C.; Fartmann, T. Effects of habitat and landscape quality on amphibian assemblages of urban stormwater ponds. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 1249–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zorzal, R.; Diniz, P.; Oliveira, R.; Duca, C. Drivers of avian diversity in urban greenspaces in the Atlantic Forest. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2020, 59, 126908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlain, D.E.; Gough, S.; Vaughan, H.; Vickery, J.A.; Appleton, G.F. Determinants of bird species richness in public green spaces. Bird Study 2007, 54, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFrederick, Q.S.; LeBuhn, G. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biol. Conserv. 2006, 129, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacIvor, J.S.; Ksiazek-Mikenas, K. Invertebrates on Green Roofs. In Green Roof Ecosystems; Sutton, R.K., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 333–355. [Google Scholar]
- Mccarthy, K.; Lathrop, R. Stormwater basins of the New Jersey coastal plain: Subsidies or sinks for frogs and toads? Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, M.; Flajšman, K.; Mihelič, T.; Vilhar, U.; Simončič, P.; Verlič, A. Green space area and type affect bird communities in a South-eastern European city. Urban For. Urban Gree. 2021, 63, 127212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, M.R.; Shi, Z.H.; Chongfa, C. Assessing regional environmental quality by integrated use of remote sensing, GIS, and spatial multi-criteria evaluation for prioritization of environmental restoration. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 6993–7009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Liu, J.; Jiao, Y.; Tang, Y.; Reid, K. Exploring spatial nonstationary environmental effects on Yellow Perch distribution in Lake Erie. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. The National Planning Policy Framework. 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Public Health England. Improving Access to Greenspace: A New Review for 2020. 2020. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904439/Improving_access_to_greenspace_2020_review.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2022).
- Williams, P.H.; Humphries, C.J.; Vane-Wright, R.I. Measuring biodiversity: Taxonomic relatedness for conservation priorities. Aust. Syst. Bot. 1991, 4, 665–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Löki, V.; Deák, B.; Lukács, A.B.; Molnár, V.A. Biodiversity potential of burial places—A review on the flora and fauna of cemeteries and churchyards. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 18, e00614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skovlund, E.; Fenstad, G. Should we always choose a nonparametric test when comparing two apparently nonnormal distributions? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001, 54, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fagerland, M.W. T-tests, non-parametric tests, and large studies—A paradox of statistical practice? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2012, 12, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de Jalón, S.G.; Chiabai, A.; Quiroga, S.; Suárez, C.; Ščasný, M.; Máca, V.; Zvěřinová, I.; Marques, S.; Craveiro, D.; Taylor, T. The influence of urban greenspaces on people’s physical activity: A population-based study in Spain. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 215, 104229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, Y.; Gallacher, J.; Palmer, S.; Fone, D. Neighbourhood green space, physical function and participation in physical activities among elderly men: The Caerphilly Prospective study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jokimäki, J. Occurrence of breeding bird species in urban parks: Effects of park structure and broad-scale variables. Urban Ecosyst. 1999, 3, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.-M.; Zhou, L.-Z. Area, isolation, disturbance and age effects on species richness of summer waterbirds in post-mining subsidence lakes, Anhui, China. Avian Res. 2018, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Species Group | Records |
---|---|
Amphibians | 98,453 |
Bats | 77,756 |
Birds | 2,208,575 |
Butterflies | 687,150 |
Mammal | 430,380 |
Reptiles | 136,514 |
Total | 3,638,828 |
Type of Greenspace | Count | Total Area (km2) | Avg. Area (km2) |
---|---|---|---|
Common | 1283 | 12,649.60 | 9.86 |
Country Park | 413 | 40,446.13 | 97.93 |
Doorstep Green | 103 | 128.59 | 1.25 |
Forestry Commission Woods | 193 | 54,132.82 | 280.48 |
Garden | 331 | 1877.75 | 5.67 |
Millennium Green | 81 | 176.26 | 2.18 |
Nature | 2844 | 151,441.38 | 53.25 |
Park | 9633 | 77,507.83 | 8.05 |
Village Green | 669 | 1035.86 | 1.55 |
Woods | 7166 | 152,363.77 | 21.26 |
Total | 22,716 | 491,759.99 | 21.65 |
lsps | lval | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | Std Error | t Value | Pr(>|t|) | Estimate | Std Error | t Value | Pr(>|t|) | |||
X-Intercept | −0.281 | 0.015 | −18.70 | 0.000 | *** | 8.800 | 0.022 | 339.23 | 0.000 | *** |
Area | 0.001 | 0.000 | 22.14 | 0.000 | *** | 0.000 | 0.000 | −18.59 | 0.000 | *** |
Woodland | 0.516 | 0.003 | 150.83 | 0.000 | *** | 0.272 | 0.005 | 54.19 | 0.000 | *** |
Natural Grassland | 0.301 | 0.007 | 42.75 | 0.000 | *** | 0.056 | 0.010 | 5.40 | 0.000 | *** |
Managed Grassland | 0.194 | 0.006 | 32.45 | 0.000 | *** | 0.079 | 0.009 | 9.00 | 0.000 | *** |
Parking | 0.407 | 0.021 | 19.71 | 0.000 | *** | 1.140 | 0.030 | 37.55 | 0.000 | *** |
Rivers/Canals | 0.095 | 0.008 | 11.19 | 0.000 | *** | 0.212 | 0.013 | 17.05 | 0.000 | *** |
Number of Habitats | 0.392 | 0.013 | 30.68 | 0.000 | *** | 1.100 | 0.019 | 58.47 | 0.000 | *** |
Urban Percentage | −0.204 | 0.015 | −13.69 | 0.000 | *** | 1.630 | 0.022 | 74.35 | 0.000 | *** |
Area | Woodland | Natural Grassland | Managed Grassland | Parking | Rivers & Canals | Num. of Habitats | Urban Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | 1 | 0.55 | −0.73 | 0.55 | −0.58 | 0.06 | 0.26 | 0.44 |
Woodland | 0.55 | 1 | −0.81 | 0.90 | −0.71 | 0.26 | −0.46 | 0.02 |
Natural Grassland | −0.73 | −0.81 | 1 | −0.89 | 0.87 | −0.45 | 0.23 | 0.16 |
Managed Grassland | 0.55 | 0.90 | −0.89 | 1 | −0.90 | 0.60 | −0.41 | −0.27 |
Parking | −0.58 | −0.71 | 0.87 | −0.90 | 1 | −0.78 | 0.07 | 0.39 |
Rivers & Canals | 0.06 | 0.26 | −0.45 | 0.60 | −0.78 | 1 | −0.01 | −0.79 |
Num. of Habitats | 0.26 | −0.46 | 0.23 | −0.41 | 0.07 | −0.01 | 1 | 0.23 |
Urban Percentage | 0.44 | 0.02 | 0.16 | −0.27 | 0.39 | −0.79 | 0.23 | 1 |
Area | Woodland | Natural Grassland | Managed Grassland | Parking | Rivers & Canals | Num. of Habitats | Urban Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | 1 | 0.59 | −0.96 | 0.47 | −0.38 | −0.83 | 0.33 | −0.05 |
Woodland | 0.59 | 1 | −0.64 | 0.33 | −0.39 | −0.46 | 0.23 | −0.07 |
Natural Grassland | −0.96 | −0.64 | 1 | −0.45 | 0.37 | 0.76 | −0.37 | 0.17 |
Managed Grassland | 0.47 | 0.33 | −0.45 | 1 | −0.20 | −0.46 | −0.26 | 0.07 |
Parking | −0.38 | −0.39 | 0.37 | −0.20 | 1 | 0.25 | −0.22 | 0.24 |
Rivers & Canals | −0.83 | −0.46 | 0.76 | −0.46 | 0.25 | 1 | −0.41 | −0.01 |
Num. of Habitats | 0.33 | 0.23 | −0.37 | −0.26 | −0.22 | −0.41 | 1 | −0.27 |
Urban Percentage | −0.05 | −0.07 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.24 | −0.01 | −0.27 | 1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Murkin, K.; Shiode, N.; Shiode, S.; Kidd, D. Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Green Infrastructure in England. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042915
Murkin K, Shiode N, Shiode S, Kidd D. Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Green Infrastructure in England. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):2915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042915
Chicago/Turabian StyleMurkin, Katherine, Narushige Shiode, Shino Shiode, and David Kidd. 2023. "Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Green Infrastructure in England" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 2915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042915