**6. Conclusions**

This study illustrates a straightforward approach for deciding among green infrastructure alternatives based on their quantitative and qualitative potential to provide urban ES of high priority to diverse stakeholders in a particular location. Here, investigating a neighborhood in Eugene, Oregon, we show how a combination of surveys, Delphi analyses, land-cover analysis, and urban ES quantification can be integrated to reveal a clear direction for urban green space development.

The importance of consulting multiple stakeholders was emphasized by the prominent areas of agreemen<sup>t</sup> as well as disagreement between residents and decision-makers, consistent with other studies that have queried multiple stakeholder types [111,112]. Since stakeholder support is essential to successful urban ES provision [36], and since these priorities are locally and regionally idiosyncratic (e.g., [38,40,41,101,113]), results here sugges<sup>t</sup> that revealing these consensus priorities is a necessary first step and highlight the value of the Delphi technique as a method for finding consensus among diverse stakeholders. Subsequent evaluation of existing land cover and urban ES delivery showed that, despite the generally high value residents assigned to supporting and regulating urban ES, lawn currently dominates the neighborhood public green space, reflecting the priority that decision-makers have given to ease of maintenance, lawn-related outdoor recreation, and safety perceptions (Supplementary Materials Section S3; Table S8). While lawn prevalence is consistent with that found in other urban settings [29,93], the value residents placed on habitat and regulating urban ES differed from that of European residents, who generally prioritized cultural over environmental urban ES [41]. Additionally, the willingness residents expressed to support urban ES-related changes financially was unexpected, although others have documented similar results (e.g., [107]), showing that resident views should be explored before options are limited for financial reasons alone.

Evidence such as this, whether qualitative or quantitative, allows green space development to focus on the priority urban ES that can be meaningfully delivered by the land area of interest; here, air quality and stormwater quality were the clearest stakeholder priorities and had the highest potential for local delivery. Such urban ES priorities can then inform the development and evaluation of alternative planting regimes, as illustrated above (Section 4.2.), to reveal the relative benefits of each. Once large-scale land cover decisions are made, additional urban ES priorities can be addressed through species selection during green space design, as in the accommodation of pollinator habitat and native species coverage priorities above. Together, these steps provide a straightforward, flexible method suitable for widespread application in local planting decisions with the goal of increasing urban ES delivery on public land.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/10/391/s1. Supplementary Materials, including Figures S1 and S2, Tables S1–S11, and related discussion are included in a separate file. Survey data, Delphi analysis responses, and green space quantification GIS data are available at doi:10.5281/zenodo.4044203. All other materials are available upon request.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.E., A.R.R., C.E., and K.A.L.; methodology, E.E., A.R.R., C.E., and K.A.L.; formal analysis, E.E.; investigation, E.E., A.R.R., and C.E.; resources, A.R.R. and C.E.; data curation, E.E.; writing—original draft preparation, E.E. and A.R.R.; writing—review and editing, E.E., A.R.R., C.E., and K.A.L.; visualization, E.E., A.R.R., and C.E.; supervision, A.R.R., C.E., and K.A.L.; project administration, E.E., A.R.R., C.E., and K.A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank Peg Boulay for lending us the Garmin GPSMAP 62S for field data collection. We thank Scott Altenhoff and Justin Overdevest for early project conceptualization and for their help connecting us with Delphi participants. We also are appreciative of the Friendly Area Neighborhood residents who participated in the survey, as well as the individuals who put their time and effort into responding to the two rounds of Delphi surveys.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
