Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Recreational use of the urban riverscape: What brings people to the river? Cover

Recreational use of the urban riverscape: What brings people to the river?

By: Tomasz Grzyb  
Open Access
|Apr 2024

References

  1. Åberg, E. U., & Tapsell, S. (2013). Revisiting the River Skerne: The long-term social benefits of river rehabilitation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.009
  2. Ayala-Azcárraga, C., Diaz, D., & Zambrano, L. (2019). Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.005
  3. Baumeister, C. F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T., & Schraml, U. (2020). Geography of disservices in urban forests: public participation mapping for closing the loop. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.2021289
  4. Bąkowska-Waldmann, E. (2022). Rivers of Warsaw in the eyes of inhabitants. Sendzimir Foundation. https://sendzimir.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Raport-doliny-rzeczne.pdf
  5. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12, 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.011
  6. Bertram, C., Meyerhoff, J., Rehdanz, K., & Wüstemann, H. (2017). Differences in the recreational value of urban parks between weekdays and weekends: A discrete choice analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.006
  7. Bjerke, T.,Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., & Strumse, E. (2006). Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 5, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.006
  8. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051300046X
  9. Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004
  10. Brown, G., Schebella, M. F., & Weber, D. (2014). Using participatory GIS to measure physical activity and urban park benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.006
  11. Browning, M. H. E. M., Rigolon, A., McAnirlin, O., & Yoon, H. V. (2022). Where greenspace matters most: A systematic review of urbanicity, greenspace, and physical health. Landscape and Urban Planning, 217, 104233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104233
  12. Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
  13. Chang, P., & Olafsson, A. S. (2022). The scale effects of landscape variables on landscape experiences: a multi-scale spatial analysis of social media data in an urban nature park context. Landscape Ecology, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01402-2
  14. Chen, X., de Vries, S., Assmuth, T., Dick, J., Hermans, T., Hertel, O., & Reis, S. (2019). Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban environments. Science of the Total Environment, 651, 2118–2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.030
  15. Cohen, D. A., Lapham, S., Evenson, K. R., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., Ward, P., & McKenzie, T. L. (2013). Use of neighbourhood parks: Does socio-economic status matter? A four-city study. Public Health, 127, 325–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.01.003
  16. Dade, M. C., Mitchell, M. G. E., Brown, G., & Rhodes, J. R. (2020). The effects of urban greenspace characteristics and socio-demographics vary among cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 49, 126641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126641
  17. Degórska, B., & Degórski, M. (2017). Green infrastructure as a very important quality factor in urban areas – Warsaw case study. Europa XXI, 32, 51–70. https://doi.org/10.7163/eu21.2017.32.4
  18. Durán Vian, F., Pons Izquierdo, J. J., & Serrano Martínez, M. (2021). River-city recreational interaction: A classification of urban riverfront parks and walks. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 59, 127042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127042
  19. Elbakidze, M., Dawson, L., Milberg, P., Mikusiński, G., Hedblom, M., Kruhlov, I., … & Grodzynskyi, M. (2022). Multiple Factors Shape the Interaction of People with Urban Greenspace: Sweden as a Case Study. SSRN Electronic Journal, 74. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4032626
  20. European Environment Agency (2022). Percentage of total green infrastructure, urban green space, and urban tree cover in the area of EEA-38 capital cities (excluding Liechtenstein). https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/percentage-of-total-green-infrastructure/#tab-chart_1 [accessed 09.02.2023]
  21. Esri (2020). ArcGIS Desktop Version 10.8. Environmental Systems. Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
  22. Fischer, L. K., Honold, J., Botzat, A., Brinkmeyer, D., Cvejic, R., Delshammar, T., ... & Kowarik, I. (2018). Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosystem Services, 31, 455–467 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.015
  23. Grzyb, T., & Kulczyk, S. (2023). How do ephemeral factors shape recreation along the urban river? A social media perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 230, 104638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104638
  24. Hamstead, Z. A., Fisher, D., Ilieva, R. T., Wood, S. A., McPhearson, T., & Kremer, P. (2018). Geolocated social media as a rapid indicator of park visitation and equitable park access. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 72, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.01.007
  25. Hegetschweiler, K. T., de Vries, S., Arnberger, A., Bell, S., Brennan, M., Siter, N., … & Hunziker, M. (2017). Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: A review of European studies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 21, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.002
  26. Hegetschweiler, K. T., Wartmann, F. M., Dubernet, I., & Fischer, C. (2022). Urban forest usage and perception of ecosystem services – A comparison between teenagers and adults. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 74, 127624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127624
  27. Hossu, C. A., Iojă, I. C., Onose, D. A., Niþă, M. R., Popa, A. M., Talabă, O., & Inostroza, L. (2019). Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosystem Services, 37, 100937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100937
  28. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
  29. Kičić, M., Haase, D., Marin, A. M., Vuletić, D., & Krajter Ostoić, S. (2022). Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of tree-based green infrastructure: A focus group participatory mapping in Zagreb, Croatia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 78, 127767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127767
  30. Kraemer, R., & Kabisch, N. (2021). Parks in context: Advancing citywide spatial quality assessments of urban green spaces using fine-scaled indicators. Ecology and Society, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12485-260245
  31. Krellenberg, K., Artmann, M., Stanley, C., & Hecht, R. (2021). What to do in, and what to expect from, urban green spaces – Indicator-based approach to assess cultural ecosystem services. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 59, 126986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.126986
  32. Mantzios, K., Ioannou, L. G., Panagiotaki, Z., Ziaka, S., Périard, J. D., Racinais, S., … & Flouris, A. D. (2022). Effects of Weather Parameters on Endurance Running Performance: Discipline-specific Analysis of 1258 Races. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 54(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002769
  33. McCormack, G. R., Rock, M., Toohey, A. M., & Hignell, D. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health and Place, 16(4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003
  34. McPhearson, T., Hamstead, Z. A., & Kremer, P. (2014). Urban ecosystem services for resilience planning and management in New York City. Ambio, 43(4), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0509-8
  35. Miaux, S., & Garneau, J. (2016). The sports park and urban promenade in the ‘quais de Bordeaux’: An example of sports and recreation in urban planning. Loisir et Société / Society and Leisure, 39(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07053436.2016.1151223
  36. National Geoportal (2023). Orthophotomap in standard resolution. https://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/wss/service/PZGIK/ORTO/WMS/StandardResolution
  37. Ode Sang, Å., Knez, I., Gunnarsson, B., & Hedblom, M. (2016). The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 18, 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.008
  38. Palliwoda, J., & Priess, J. A. (2021). What do people value in urban green? Linking characteristics of urban green spaces to users’ perceptions of nature benefits, disturbances, and disservices. Ecology and Society, 26(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12204-260128
  39. Pinto, L., Ferreira, C. S. S., & Pereira, P. (2021). Environmental and socioeconomic factors influencing the use of urban green spaces in Coimbra (Portugal). Science of the Total Environment, 792, 148293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148293
  40. Pitt, H. (2019). What prevents people accessing urban bluespaces? A qualitative study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 39, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.02.013
  41. Priess, J., Pinto, L. V., Misiune, I., & Palliwoda, J. (2021). Ecosystem Service Use and the Motivations for Use in Central Parks in Three European Cities. Land, 10(2), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020154
  42. Rall, E., Bieling, C., Zytynska, S., & Haase, D. (2017). Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecological Indicators, 77, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.001
  43. Rall, E., Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2019). The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.016
  44. Riechers, M., Strack, M., Barkmann, J., & Tscharntke, T. (2019). Cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green change along an urban-periurban gradient. Sustainability, 11(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030645
  45. Rushing, J. R., Needham, M. D., Antonio, A. D., & Covelli, E. (2019). Barriers to attachment? Relationships among constraints, attachment, and visitation to urban parks. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 27, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.100228
  46. Scott Shafer, C., Scott, D., Baker, J., & Winemiller, K. (2013). Recreation and amenity values of Urban Stream corridors: Implications for green infrastructure. Journal of Urban Design, 18(4), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.800450
  47. Sikorska, D., Sikorski, P., Archiciński, P., Chormański, J., & Hopkins, R. J. (2019). You can’t see the woods for the trees: Invasive Acer negundo L. in urban riparian forests harms biodiversity and limits recreation activity. Sustainability, 11(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205838
  48. Smith, N., Georgiou, M., King, A. C., Tieges, Z., & Chastin, S. (2022). Factors influencing usage of urban blue spaces: A systems-based approach to identify leverage points. Health and Place, 73, 102735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102735
  49. Stepniewska, M., & Sobczak, U. (2017). Assessing the synergies and tradeoffs between ecosystem services provided by urban floodplains: The case of the Warta River Valley in Poznań, Poland. Land Use Policy, 69, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.026
  50. United Nations (2015). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
  51. Valenzuela, P. L., Mateo-March, M., Zabala, M., Muriel, X., Lucia, A., Barranco-Gil, D., & Pallarés, J. G. (2022). Ambient Temperature and Field-Based Cycling Performance: Insights From Male and Female Professional Cyclists. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 17(7), 1025–1029. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2021-0508
  52. Van Berkel, D. B., Tabrizian, P., Dorning, M. A., Smart, L., Newcomb, D., Mehaffey, M., … & Meentemeyer, R. K. (2018). Quantifying the visual-sensory landscape qualities that contribute to cultural ecosystem services using social media and LiDAR. Ecosystem Services, 31, 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.022
  53. Veerkamp, C. J., Schipper, A. M., Hedlund, K., Lazarova, T., Nordin, A., & Hanson, H. I. (2021). A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecosystem Services, 52, 101367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101367
  54. Vert, C., Carrasco-Turigas, G., Zijlema, W., Espinosa, A., Cano-Riu, L., Elliott, L., … & Gascon, M. (2019). Impact of a riverside accessibility intervention on use, physical activity, and wellbeing: A mixed methods pre-post evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 190, 103611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103611
  55. Vierikko, K., & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2019). Seasonality in recreation supply and demand in an urban lake ecosystem in Finland. Urban Ecosystems, 22(4), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00849-7
  56. Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. (2013). “I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!” Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Social Science and Medicine, 78, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.047
  57. Wang, Y., Niemelä, J., & Kotze, D. J. (2022). The delivery of Cultural Ecosystem Services in urban forests of different landscape features and land use contexts. People and Nature, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10394
  58. Warsaw City Hall (2019). Attitudes of Warsaw residents towards the Vistula River. A report from the survey. https://dzielnicawisla.um.warszawa.pl/files/Wisla_2018_raport_z_badania.pdf [accessed 03.08.2020]
  59. Warsaw City Hall (2020). The Vistula in Warsaw in the eyes of its users. https://dzielnicawisla.um.warszawa.pl/files/wisla_badanie_0623.pdf [accessed 21.06.2019]
  60. Williams, A. T., Davies, P., Ergin, A., & Balas, C. (2000). Environmental risk assessment; a case study of the Colhuw Beach revetment on the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, Wales. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 6, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02913809
  61. Wolff, M., Mascarenhas, A., Haase, A., Haase, D., Andersson, E., Borgström, S. T., … & Biernacka, M. (2022). Conceptualizing multidimensional barriers: a framework for assessing constraints in realizing recreational benefits of urban green spaces. Ecology and Society, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13180-270217
  62. Zhang, S., & Zhou, W. (2018). Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180(18), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.004
  63. Zingraff-Hamed, A., Noack, M., Greulich, S., Schwarzwalder, K., Wantzen, K. M., & Pauleit, S. (2018). Model-Based Evaluation of Urban River Restoration: Conflicts between Sensitive Fish Species and Recreational Users. Sustainability, 10(1747). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061747
  64. Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I. C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A. (2018). Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central European cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 30, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2024-0002 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6202 | Journal ISSN: 1210-8812
Language: English
Page range: 14 - 25
Submitted on: Jun 22, 2023
|
Accepted on: Feb 1, 2024
|
Published on: Apr 3, 2024
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Tomasz Grzyb, published by Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geonics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.