ANALYSIS OF USER PERCEPTION ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY URBAN PARKS

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 36 - 45, 30.04.2021

Neslihan Doygun

https://doi.org/10.32328/turkjforsci.820130

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to assess user perceptions on ecosystem services provided from urban parks by using Q methodology. Q methodology is based on the process of classifying perspectives from similar and different aspects of thoughts put forward by people on a subject. In the study realised for three parks in the city of Izmir, ecosystem services were presented to the users as an expression and two different perspectives were determined. Among the ecosystem services provided by the parks, cultural ecosystem services have gained importance for both perspectives. It is thought that the reason for this is that the socio-cultural effects of parks on life and environment are more easily observable than their role in ecological processes. When the expressions agreed on were examined, it was seen that while all of the expressions that came to the fore in factor 1 were positive, there were also negative expressions in factor 2. The results of the study are expected to contribute to the practices aimed at improving city parks, and to set an example for similar studies which will be realised to evaluate ecosystem services, and be conducted with the help of Q methodology. 

Keywords

Urban parks, ecosystem services, Q methodology, factor analysis

KENT PARKLARINDAN SAĞLANAN EKOSİSTEM HİZMETLERİNE YÖNELİK KULLANICI ALGISININ İNCELENMESİ

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, kent parklarından sağlanan ekosistem hizmetlerine yönelik kullanıcı algılarının Q metodoloji yardımıyla değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Q metodoloji, bir konu üzerinde kişiler tarafından ileri sürülen düşüncelerin benzer ve farklı yönlerinden yola çıkılarak bakış açılarının sınıflandırılması işlemine dayanmaktadır. İzmir kentinde yer alan üç park için yürütülen çalışmada ekosistem hizmetleri birer ifade halinde kullanıcıların görüşüne sunulmuş, uygulamada iki farklı bakış açısı belirlenmiştir. Parklardan sağlanan ekosistem hizmetleri arasında, her iki bakış açısında da kültürel ekosistem hizmetleri ağırlık kazanmıştır. Bunun nedeninin, parkların yaşama ve çevreye yönelik sosyo-kültürel etkilerinin, ekolojik süreçlerdeki rolüne nazaran daha kolay gözlemlenebilir nitelikte olmasından kaynaklandığı düşünülmektedir. Faktörlerde hangi ifadeler üzerinde hemfikir olunduğu incelendiğinde, 1 nolu faktörde ön plana çıkan ifadelerin tamamı olumlu iken, 2 nolu faktörde olumsuz ifadelerin de yer aldığı görülmüştür. Çalışma ile elde edilen sonuçların, kent parklarını iyileştirmeye yönelik uygulamalara katkı sağlaması, ekosistem hizmetlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve Q metodoloji ile gerçekleştirilecek benzer araştırmalara örnek teşkil etmesi beklenmektedir.

Keywords

Kent parkları, ekosistem hizmetleri, Q metodoloji, faktör analizi

References

• Amin, Z. (2000). Q Methodology – A Journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singapore Medical Journal, 41(8): 410-414.
• Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12: 187–199.
• Braat, L. C., de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and ecoics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1: 4–15.
• Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
• Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4):91-138.
• Buchel, S., Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosystem Services, 12:169-177.
• Calderón-Contreras, R., Quiroz-Rosas, L. (2017). Analysing scale, quality and diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: A case from Mexico City. Ecosystem Services, 23: 127-137.
• Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M. (2013). Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. Journal of Environmental Management, 129: 33-43.
• Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1): 129–138.
• Çiftcioğlu, G. Ç., Aydın, A. (2018). Urban ecosystem services delivered by green open spaces: an example from Nicosia City in North Cyprus. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190: 613.
• Demir, F., Kul, M. (2011). Modern Bir Araştırma Yöntemi Q Metodu. Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara.
• Jansson, A. (2013). Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 86: 285–291.
• Jim, C. Y., Chen, W. Y. (2006). Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management 38(3): 338–349.
• Kerr, G. N., Swaffield, S. R. (2012). Identifying cultural service values of a small river in the agricultural landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, using combined methods. Society and Natural Resources, 25: 1330–1339.
• 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.
• MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assesment) (2005). Ecosystem and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
• Pike, K., Wright, P., Wink, B., Fletcher, S. (2015). The assessment of cultural ecosystem services in the marine environment using Q methodology, Journal of Coastal Conservation, 19: 667–675.
• Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sutton, S. G., Barnes, M., & Sherrouse, B. C. (2012). Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Applied Geography, 35(1): 164–173.
• Simpson, S., Brown, G., Peterson, A., Johnstone, R. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives for coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 126: 9-21.
• Stainton Rogers, R., (1995). Q methodology. In: J.A. Smith, R. Harre, L. Van Langenhove, (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology. Sage, London.
• Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of Factor Analysis. Nature, 136: 297.
• Swapan, M. S. H., Iftekhar, M. S., Li, X. (2017). Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and Australia. Cities 61: 17–26
• Webler, T., Danielson, S. & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research. Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.
• Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Eğitimin Oyunlaştırılmasına İlişkin Öğrenci Algıları: Bir Q Metodu Analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(191): 235-246.
• Zivojinovic, I., Wolfslehner, B. (2015). Perceptions of urban forestry stakeholders about climate changeadaptation – A Q-method application in Serbia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14: 1079–1087.