Cultural ecosystem services along the Woluwe River: mapping the potential for a cross-regional green-blue network during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

The cultural and social benefits of green open spaces (GOSs) are frequently disregarded in environmental planning and policy. The online PPGIS tool, mygreenplace.be, was used to map the cultural ecosystem services (CES) in the GOSs along the Woluwe River. This research aims to clarify the role of CES, spatial qualities and travel distance in GOSs’ valuation and their respective environmental planning and management. The analysis revealed that highly valued GOSs (CES hot spots) offer a diverse combination of CES, mainly activities related to playing and exercising, gathering and consuming. Likewise, these popular, highly valued GOSs provide various facilities enabling these activities (e.g. restaurants, water elements and transportation). Although travel distance proved quintessential for using GOSs, other factors, such as their qualities and attributes, can determine whether, and how frequently, respondents use a particular GOS. Finally, the data showed that the COVID-19 pandemic has positively influenced the use of and appreciation for GOSs.

Keywords:

• green open spaces
• cultural ecosystem services
• PPGIS
• COVID-19
• environmental planning

1. Introduction

Green open spaces (GOSs) such as urban parks and forests provide essential cultural ecosystem services (CES) and thus contain cultural and social values that are an intrinsic part of healthy societies and sustainable urban design and planning (Cabana et al. 2020). According to the Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU 2015, 7), GOSs are defined as:

All forms of vegetated areas such as parks, cemeteries, allotments, brownfields, areas for sports and playing, street vegetation and street trees, vegetation around public buildings, areas of nature protection, woodlands and forests, gardens, agricultural areas, green roofs and green walls as well as other open spaces.

Due to the strong presence of water in the case study, this definition also includes water bodies and their nearshore environments, such as streams, lakes, ponds, artificial swales and stormwater retention ponds. This study explores the following six types of GOSs: cemeteries, forests, gardens, meadows, nature reserves and parks.

CES are “both the environmental spaces (e.g. parks, beaches) within which people interact with the natural environment and the cultural practices (e.g. exercising and playing) that define these interactions and spaces” (Church et al. 2014, 7; Fish, Church, and Winter 2016). The interactions between these environmental spaces and cultural practices (CPs) produce an array of cultural benefits to human well-being that, in return, shape and reflect a wider set of cultural (collective or shared) values about ecosystems (Fish, Church, and Winter 2016). These human interactions at the core of CES are what makes them “the most anthropocentric and challenging category of ecosystem services” (Gliozzo 2018, 46). This anthropocentric quality makes CES irreplaceable, since a valued place cannot be replicated once lost, nor can it be substituted by a different (cultural) ecosystem service (Plieninger et al. 2013, 118; Kalivas et al. 2009). These “experiential and symbolic” values of GOSs are critical to human well-being, but further study is needed to bridge the “disconnect between those who culturally value ecosystems and those who have authority in an environmental governance domain” (Hirons, Comberti, and Dunford 2016).

Despite the critical role CES play in healthy societies, the GOSs are under significant pressure due to population growth and the resulting urban development (Cabana et al. 2020). Therefore, it is important to legitimize the cultural values people associate with GOSs and understand why some GOSs are used more and valued higher than others to protect the remaining GOSs. Once these values are considered, they can be incorporated into environmental planning, management and other decision-making processes (Kalivas et al. 2009; Flood, Mahon, and McDonagh 2021; Waylen, Noort, and Blackstock 2016; Abualhagag and Valánszki 2020).

A better understanding of the use and valuation of GOSs can augment their protection, thus reducing the threat of development (Wang et al. 2021; Stolton et al. 2015).

While previous literature has shown that distance (accessibility) is an important factor that determines whether people use a GOS, other attributes influence the frequency and the duration of peoples’ stays (Herzele and Wiedemann 2003; Grahn 1994; Stessens et al. 2017; Dağıstanlı, Demirağ Turan, and Dengiz 2018; Abualhagag, Valánszki, and Amoako-Atta 2019). For example, water, especially river landscapes, are hot spots for biodiversity and ecosystem services that people embrace and seek out for their multiple health benefits (WHO Europe 2021; Gottwald, Albert, and Fagerholm 2022; Hansen et al. 2022). The combination of green and blue infrastructure, such as parks and rivers respectively, benefits the well-being of urban residents, but it can also increase land value and contribute to conservation strategies (Luttik 2000; Rall, Hansen, and Pauleit 2019; White 2014).

The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted the importance of nearby GOSs as a “place for recovery and re-energizing” from the negative effects of the pandemic (Hansen et al. 2022). The resulting lockdowns and economic turmoil have led to increased stress, poor mental health, domestic violence and divorce (Nieuwenhuijsen 2020). Numerous studies have shown that the presence of, and visits to, GOSs reduce stress and improve brain recovery. As a result, GOSs boost people’s mental health and resilience (Gascon et al. 2015; Wheeler et al. 2012; Völker and Kistemann 2015; Bowler et al. 2010; Grilli et al. 2022). However, while the World Health Organisation (WHO – Europe 2017) recommends that “urban residents should be able to access public green spaces of at least 0.5–1 hectare within 300 metres’ linear distance of their homes,” many cities struggle to meet this recommendation. The lack of local GOSs is often worse in impoverished areas of cities, which have been struck harder by the pandemic (Nieuwenhuijsen 2020; Kinzig et al. 2005; Zhu and Zhang 2008).

A better understanding of CES, their value, and their geographical location provides useful knowledge for environmental planning and management and the preservation of valuable GOSs. Moreover, by examining which GOSs are (not) valued (Kyle et al. 2004), decision-makers can address those areas with a deficit of GOSs/CES and assess how receptive their constituents will be to related interventions (Stern 2000), as well as anticipating conflicts between competing uses (Yung, Freimund, and Belsky 2003).

Thus, it is essential to identify those GOSs with unlocked CES potential so they can later contribute to society’s well-being, particularly regarding the pandemic recovery. Therefore, this research aims to shed light on the importance of CES’ and GOSs’ attributes, such as attractiveness and valuation of distance to GOSs. This value assessment can be incorporated into the environmental planning and management of the Woluwe River and the GOSs in its vicinity. Consequently, this research focuses on three research questions (RQ): What qualities and attributes of GOSs influence CES (RQ1), how does the distance between the respondents’ residence and the GOS influence its use (RQ2), and how has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced GOS use (RQ3)?

2. Methodology

2.1. Case study

The research questions were answered by analyzing the CES in GOSs along the Woluwe River, which is to be (re)developed as a green and blue network in the rural-urban fringe of Brussels in Belgium. The Woluwe River flows alternately above and below ground level from the Sonian Forest in the municipality of Watermael Boisfort in the Brussels Capital Region to the river’s confluence with the Senne River in Vilvoorde, part of the Flemish Region (Figure 1). In the federal state of Belgium, both regions are autonomous in determining the environmental policy and legislation regarding spatial planning, GOSs and water management.

Figure 1. Green open spaces, rivers and Woluwe’s surface status across the case study’s municipalities.

In the Brussels Capital Region, the Woluwe River is the backbone of a green-blue network, where many of its GOSs are strongly protected and preserved (Figure 2). However, smaller GOSs in the rural-urban fringe, mostly situated in the Flemish Region, are under great pressure due to urban growth (e.g. new industrial sites and highway redesign) and insufficient protection by environmental planning policies (Vanempten 2014). Although their role in the well-being and the sustainable development of communities around them is crucial, environmental planning and policy have often disregarded their importance (and environmental management) due to the lack of proper valuation (Dewaelheyns et al. 2014). Moreover, the current GOS deficit and the ongoing urbanization highlight the need to protect the remaining GOSs in the rural-urban fringe (Stessens et al. 2017).

Figure 2. (a) Woluwepark in Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, part of Brussels Region. (b) The Woluwe River border between the Brussels Capital Region and the Flemish Region.

To address these challenges, a partnership was initiated by the Flemish Environment Agency and Regional Landscape Brabantse Kouters with the support of other stakeholders such as the municipalities of Machelen, Kraainem, Steenokkerzeel, Wezembeek-Oppem and Zaventem and the city of Vilvoorde. This ambitious area coalition is eager to accelerate the realization of a continuous green-blue network in the Woluwe Valley based on an integrated vision. Among the Woluwe vision objectives are the creation of multifunctional GOS, coordination of mutual environmental management and development programs, and thus to increase the return on all investments.

2.2. Data collection

Via the online PPGIS tool, mygreenplace.be (Aranda et al. 2021), the study collected data about CPs in GOSs near the Woluwe River. In order to delineate and assess which types of GOSs received the most input, the GOS classification layer was built first. Different data sources were combined, as there is no unified cross-regional data source for GOSs in Belgium to date. The following three main data sources were used to build the GOS layer: the public green spaces layer from the Brussels data service (CIRB), the latest available Groenkaart (green map) for the Flemish municipalities and a complementary layer obtained through Overpass turbo.¹ The resulting layer included six types of GOSs: cemeteries (CE), forests (FO), gardens (GA), meadows (ME), parks (PA) and reserves (RE) (Table 1).

Table 1. Unified green open spaces’ base layer for the Woluwe case study area.

Type of GOS	CE	FO	GA	ME	PA	RE	Grand Total
Number	27	150	367	127	245	6	922
Surface (km²)	0.64	14.61	0.59	1.10	4.50	2.57	24.01

Note. The table includes the number of green open spaces per type, as well as the total surface area.

Based on Fish, Church, and Winter’s (2016, 211) framework, respondents indicated which GOSs they visited via a marker (Aranda et al. 2021), and subsequently, they were asked what activities (CPs) they undertook at the indicated GOS. Respondents could select their activities from a list of 24 different CPs (Fish, Church, and Winter 2016) (Table 2). Next, respondents were asked about the qualities (e.g. accessibility, cleanliness and safety) and attributes (e.g. restaurants, toilets and benches) of the GOSs and rated their importance (Table 3). In addition, the tool asked the respondents how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their visits to, and appreciation for, GOSs. To better understand how CPs, qualities and attributes relate to each other, it is necessary to revise Fish, Church, and Winter’s (2016) definition of CES.

Table 2. Distribution of the respondents’ selection of cultural practices and dominant cultural practice group according to Church et al. (2014).

CP group	Number	%	Cultural practice (CP)	Total
Creating and expressing	3	0.57%	Photography	80
			Painting	8
Gathering and consuming	89	16.89%	Meeting with friends/family	185
			Picnic	75
			Socializing with acquaintances	53
			Visiting a café/restaurant	51
			Socializing with new people	33
			Attending a public event	28
			Camping	1
Producing and caring	82	15.56%	Gardening	9
			Fishing	2
Playing and exercising	353	66.98%	Walking	366
			Listening to nature	213
			Sitting	163
			Biking	156
			Running	154
			Supervising (grand)children	86
			Walking the dog	73
			Listening to music	59
			Sport	30
			Meditation	23
			Swimming	4
			Paddling/canoeing	3
			Other	18
Total	527

Table 3. Respondents’ rating of qualities and attributes.

Type	Name	Rating
Quality	Cleanliness	2.277
Quality	Pleasant view	2.222
Quality	Security (socially safe)	2.192
Quality	Safety (physically safe)	2.108
Quality	Accessibility	2.055
Quality	Proximity (home)	1.947
Quality	Tranquility	1.848
Quality	Size (big)	1.251
Quality	Cultural heritage	649
Attribute	Pathways	1.978
Attribute	Flora	1.873
Attribute	Bench	1.554
Attribute	Fauna	1.458
Attribute	Water elements	1.006
Attribute	Other people	1.003
Attribute	Shade	928
Attribute	Cycling paths	701
Attribute	Steps	608
Attribute	Playground	581
Attribute	Signage	487
Attribute	Café/restaurant	423
Attribute	Unleashed dogs	364
Attribute	Sport facilities	326
Attribute	BBQ	277
Attribute	Fitness facilities	209
Attribute	Toilets	145
Attribute	Drinking fountain	117
Attribute	Petanque	94
Attribute	Entrance fee	12

Note. Using a Likert scale, respondents were asked to rate the importance of the qualities and attributes of their green open space. Underlining signals the top five highly rated qualities and attributes.

Church et al. (2014, 17) argued that “environmental spaces and CPs should be considered mutually reinforcing CES through which cultural benefits to wellbeing arise.” Thus, insights into these interacting pieces (e.g. qualities, attributes, practices and benefits) and the cultural values they shape and reflect aid researchers and decision-makers in discerning the cultural significance of ecosystems. The list of qualities and attributes can be found in Table 3, which builds on the work of Herzele and Wiedemann (2003), Stessens et al. (2017), and Malek et al. (2010). However, the list was adapted based on additional data collection that took place from July 2019 to January 2020 using the pilot version of the mygreenplace.be tool and cognitive interviews to best fit the context of the case study (Aranda et al. 2021).

Moreover, Fish, Church, and Winter’s (2016) framework made it possible to capture the CES that respondents sought through terms more relatable to them. Unlike the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005), which asks directly about recreation, ecotourism and inspirations, this study used CPs and the qualities and attributes that enable them. In this way, people were able to map their activities and interactions in a GOS. For example, the CPs running or listening to nature fall into the MA category “recreation and ecotourism,” and drawing and pleasant views fall into the MA categories “inspiration” and “aesthetic values.” This approach is particularly useful when extrapolating results to direct physical interventions in environmental planning and management (such as the Woluwe valley integrated vision).

The data were collected via a local campaign called “We Love Woluwe,” which the authors set up and ran from July 2020 to March 2021. The campaign primarily invited the residents of Vilvoorde, Machelen, Zaventem, Kraainem, Woluwe Sint-Lambrechts, Woluwe-Sint-Pieters, Auderghem and Watermael Boisfort to participate in the research by visiting the PPGIS tool’s website. The campaign used social media, Facebook ads, emails, postcards, posters, flyers and stickers. The stickers and flyers were distributed in the few spaces that remained open and had a large flow of people during the COVID-19 lockdowns: supermarkets, transport stations and municipal offices. After completing the collection campaign, the data were cleaned by discarding erroneous or incomplete entries. Out of the 630 received, 527 effective entries remained in the final sample.

2.3. Data analysis

RQ1 was divided into three sections. Section 3.1.1 provided the main analysis, which took a twofold approach. First, the entire dataset was analyzed using Excel pivoting. This analysis identified the location of the main CES hot spots (Figure 3) and provided an overview of the respondents’ preferred CPs, attributes and qualities regardless of the specific GOS with which they are associated (Tables 2 and 3). Second, the dataset was analyzed based on use per GOS. The amount of input per GOS polygon was used as a dependent variable against respondents’ preferences (e.g. CPs, qualities and attributes) via regression analysis using STATA software. This approach provides an overview of which GOSs (per municipality within the case study area) were the most popular (i.e. hot spots). The specific types of GOSs and CP groups present in those spaces with higher input were identified by using the GOS typology from the source layer and the Church et al. (2014); Fish, Church, and Winter (2016, 211) framework. The qualities and attributes that respondents most preferred were analyzed by extracting the top counts for each parameter to better understand what constitutes a GOS hot spot.

Figure 3. Green open space hot spots across the case study area.

Section 3.1.2 addressed water elements and their importance among hot spots. Third, Section 3.1.3 provided a deeper analysis of the CES’ valuation across a hot spot by focusing more closely on a specific park. Therefore, a pseudo-quadrat analysis was performed for the Woluwepark, a park within the GOSs sample with the highest input count. Its importance is based on the fact that it exhibits the most key elements in CES hot spots. The quadrat analysis provided a more detailed view of the importance of the combination of CPs, qualities and attributes for respondents’ use.

The quadrat analysis procedure overlays a regular square grid over the analysis area, counting the number of markers that fall within each cell or quadrat (Aranda et al. 2021). To obtain the optimal quadrat size, Griffith, Amrhein, and Desloges’s (1991, 131) formula (1) was used; it was adjusted using a heuristic judgment based on the size of the terrain’s minimal building plots from 115 m to 50 m (2). (1) $$\begin{array}{c}\mathit{\text{Quadrat area}}:\frac{2\mathrm{*}\mathit{A}}{\mathit{n}} \end{array}$$(1) where $A$ is the surface of the study area, and $n$ is the number of markers in the distribution, which leads to an “Ι” square side: (2) $$\begin{array}{c}I=\sqrt{\frac{2·\mathit{A}}{\mathit{n}}}=\sqrt{\frac{2·0.57\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{m}}^2}{88}}=0.11 \mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}=115 \mathrm{m}\approx 50 \mathrm{m} \end{array}$$(2)

RQ2 was also divided into three sections. Section 3.2.1 addressed the importance of travel distance and GOS use. For this travel distance and GOS assessment, the (Euclidean) travel distance variable was calculated. Using this as the dependent variable, a regression was performed using the general sample with all 527 entries against multiple variables. As part of the assessment, it was hypothesized that respondents who use a specific means of transport (car) and do not have access to a GOS at their residence or within walking distance travel longer distances than those who do not have access to a GOS.

Subsequently, Section 3.2.2 addressed traveled distance and the accessibility of GOSs near the Woluwe River through a buffer analysis. Based on the WHO’s recommendations, a buffer of 300 m around the Woluwe River was created (WHO – Europe 2017). By intersecting this buffer layer with the GOSs, it was possible to determine which ones were near the river, their use (based upon the marker count), if the river was above or underground and their users’ preferences.

Contrary to Section 3.2.1, which focused on what CPs, qualities and attributes create a CES hot spot, Section 3.2.3 analyzed “cold spots.” This analysis was done by filtering the GIS data set to find what local residents value in a GOS, even when they are outside their neighborhood, since the Flemish GOSs have less input to proceed for a hot spot analysis compared to the Brussels side.

Finally, for RQ3, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on who and what people seek in GOSs was addressed. Questions about COVID-19 were included in the survey and analyzed via regression analysis to better understand these effects. To be precise, the analysis took the respondents’ answers to “How did the COVID-19 crisis affect your visits to green open spaces?” (using a Likert scale) as a dependent variable and used the factors of average visit duration, the average frequency of visits, age, gender, personal status, education level, household status and GOS appreciation and access as independent variables.

3. Results

The study area included eight municipalities in two regions with a total population of 270,591 (STATBEL 2021). Based on this population, the sample of 527 respondents has a margin of error of 4.26% at a 95% confidence level. Of these 527 respondents, 59% were Belgian, 16% were foreign, and 24% were unspecified (Table 4). Moreover, 56% of the total sample was female, with middle and young adults being the predominant age group. Men accounted for 25% of the total, with the predominant age groups being young and older adults. The remaining 19% did not disclose these details.

Table 4. Sample breakdown based on age group and nationality.

Age group	Belgium	Expats	Unspecified	Grand Total	%
Teenagers	32	11	X	43	8.16
Young adults	133	37	X	170	32.26
Middle age adults	79	27	X	106	20.11
Older adults	70	9	X	79	14.99
Unspecified	X	X	129	129	24.48
%	60%	16%	24%	100%

3.1. What qualities and attributes of green open spaces influence cultural ecosystem services?

3.1.1. General analysis

Of the total 527 entries, the majority are concentrated on the Brussels side of the Woluwe: 76% in the Brussels Capital Region compared to 24% in the Flemish Region (Figure 3). Moreover, there is a strong concentration of respondents’ markings in areas where the Woluwe River is situated above ground and integrated into the park landscape. Furthermore, 66% of respondents selected CPs related to playing and exercising. CPs related to “gathering and consuming” and “producing and caring” were in second and third place, respectively (Table 2). Table 5 shows that out of all the types of GOSs, parks received the most input from respondents by far.

Table 5. Breakdown of cultural ecosystem service hot spots per use (marker count), type of green open space, and cultural practice group.

Green open space name	Type	Use count	Creating and expressing	Gathering and consuming	Producing and caring	Playing and exercising
Woluwepark	Park	88	1	14	16	57
Mellaertsvijverspark	Park	71	1	10	16	44
Parc Parmentier (Parmentierpark)	Park	55	1	6	10	38
Sonian forest (Zoniënwoud)	Forest	58		9	16	33
Parc des Sources (Ter Bronnen Park)	Park	41		4	7	30
Total		313	3	43	65	202

The regression analysis focused on GOSs at the municipal scale, and its results confirmed the preference for CPs in the playing and exercising group. It also showed “painting” as a highly correlated CP even though, in the general sample, its input was quite low (Table 2). There is a high correlation between GOS use (marker count) and CPs, such as listening to nature, meditation, running, and walking (Table 6). The GOSs’ qualities that correlate strongly with a higher marker count are closeness, safety, accessibility, and cleanliness. Regarding the GOSs’ attributes, the regression analysis showed that GOSs with cafés/restaurants and toilets are visited more frequently. Thus, it can be suggested that the aforementioned CP groups’ qualities, and attributes are important factors in the transformation of a GOS into a CES hot spot. Although GOSs that facilitate playing and exercising CPs tend to have more hits, the regression analysis output showed that GOSs with sporting facilities have a strong negative correlation. In other words, the results indicate that a GOS that focuses strongly on playing and exercising activities through the provision of sporting facilities is not a CES hot spot. However, it should be noted that this negative correlation may result from pandemic restrictions.

Table 6. Regression output of green open space use vs. activities (cultural practices), qualities, and attributes.

Linear regression GOS use (marker count)	Coef.	St.Err.	t-value	p-value	[95% Conf	Interval]	Sig
Cultural practices
Fishing	2,305	0.989	2.33	0.02	0.364	4,247	**
Listening nature	0.332	0.068	4.88	0	0.198	0.465	***
Meditation	0.365	0.107	3.4	0.001	0.154	0.575	***
Paddling/canoeing	−4,808	0.904	−5.32	0	−6,584	−3,032	***
Painting	2.39	0.27	8.86	0	1,861	2.92	***
Running	0.179	0.062	2.9	0.004	0.058	0.3	***
Sitting	−0.207	0.078	−2.64	0.009	−0.361	−0.053	***
Socializing with new people	−0.201	0.107	−1.87	0.062	−0.412	0.01	*
Walking	0.15	0.069	2.19	0.029	0.015	0.285	**
Walking the dog	−0.197	0.089	−2.2	0.028	−0.373	−0.021	**
Qualities
Accessibility	0.075	0.02	3.78	0	0.036	0.113	***
Size (large)	0.011	0.024	0.45	0.651	−0.036	0.058
Cleanliness	0.079	0.033	2.38	0.018	0.014	0.143	**
Closeness	0.441	0.14	3.14	0.002	0.165	0.717	***
Cultural heritage	−0.285	0.098	−2.9	0.004	−0.478	−0.092	***
Safety	0.91	0.196	4.64	0	0.525	1,295	***
Pleasant view	0.056	0.027	2.04	0.041	0.002	0.11	**
Attributes
Bench	−0.034	0.015	−2.36	0.019	−0.063	−0.006	**
Café/restaurant	0.059	0.019	3.06	0.002	0.021	0.096	***
Fauna	−0.028	0.011	−2.64	0.009	−0.049	−0.007	***
Seeing other people	−0.025	0.015	−1.66	0.098	−0.055	0.005	*
Paths	−0.068	0.01	−6.75	0	−0.087	−0.048	***
Playground	−0.032	0.016	−1.96	0.05	−0.064	0	*
Sport facilities	−0.063	0.017	−3.71	0	−0.096	−0.03	***
Toilets	0.113	0.026	4.38	0	0.062	0.163	***
Constant	0.111	0.091	1.22	0.224	−0.068	0.289
Mean dependent var		4.55		SD dependent var		8,564
R-squared		0.995		Number of obs		698
F-test		1,746.398		Prob > F		0
Akaike crit. (AIC)		1,435.805		Bayesian crit. (BIC)		1,758.729

Note. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Another outcome of the regression analysis relates to gathering and consuming CPs. Although gathering and consuming was the second-highest CP group, no (negative) correlation was found between this CP group and GOS use.

Although the top five CES hot spots are mainly used for playing and exercising CPs, part of these GOSs’ success lies in facilitating CPs from other CP groups, especially gathering and consuming. Across hot spots, key attributes related to multiple CP groups were identified by respondents to various extents: café/restaurant (related to gathering and consuming), sporting facilities (related to playing and exercising), water elements and accessibility. Since this study aims to provide guidelines for the (re)development of a green-blue network along the Woluwe River, it also analyzes how water elements present in CES hot spots influence the use of GOS.

3.1.2. Water elements and hot spot analysis

First, all the GOSs in this case study were considered, and the interplay between water elements and the GOSs’ top CPs, qualities and attributes were analyzed. Subsequently, the CPs, qualities, and attributes of GOSs with water elements were analyzed through regression analysis. The case study area has 478 GOSs, and most GOSs are without water elements; only 19% (94) have one or more water elements within or near their boundaries. Nevertheless, within this 19% of GOSs lies 52% of the total respondents (Table 7).

Table 7. Top 10 green open spaces with the highest water elements count within their surface and use count (marker count).

GOS name	GOS type	Use count	Water elements count
Sonian Forest – Zoniënwoud	Forest	54	152
Rood Klooster	Park	35	34
Reigerbospark	Park	3	23
Witte Kinderwandelbos	Forest	4	22
Maloupark	Park	35	17
Woluwepark	Park	90	15
Jardin botanique Jean Massart	Garden	19	11
Vijvers van Watermaal-Bosvoorde	Park	7	10
Parc Hof Ter Musschen	Park	21	9
Parc de la Royale Belge	Park	8	9
Total		276	302

Similar to the general sample, those GOSs with water elements show a strong presence of playing and exercising CPs, with gathering and consuming and producing and caring in second and third place. Considering the strong presence of water elements, a logical assumption would be that CPs related to water are popular in these GOSs. However, water-related CPs, including fishing, swimming, and paddling/canoeing, were at the bottom of the list with little to no input, even though the analysis focused on GOSs with water elements. An analysis of the top qualities and attributes in these GOSs with water elements showcases the importance of a pleasant view and the presence of fauna and water elements. This appreciation of pleasant views and the presence of fauna and water elements may indicate that the water elements are enjoyed passively (e.g. the scenic view), rather than actively facilitating water-related CPs. This passive use is confirmed by a detailed quadrat analysis of the Woluwepark, a hot spot with diverse water elements, including a section of the Woluwe River and artificial ponds. Figure 4 shows that the areas with the highest concentration of CPs partly overlap with these water elements, while Figure 5 provides a detailed look at the CPs surrounding these water elements.

Figure 4. Woluwepark quadrat analysis.

Figure 5. Woluwepark cultural practices (CPs) detail of water elements.

3.1.3. Woluwepark quadrat analysis

The quadrat analysis of the Woluwepark was based on the input of 88 respondents and showcased the GOS’s most used areas: the western and northern periphery of the park and, to a lesser degree, the southeast corner where a greenhouse is located (Figure 4). This quadrat analysis of the Woluwepark concurs with and refines the previous findings of this study. Its dense perimeter shows the strong prevalence of playing and exercising CPs (Figures 5 and 6). However, it is noteworthy that the park’s restaurant and café were not CES hot spots, even though many respondents visited the park for gathering and consuming CPs. Instead, areas surrounding the water elements were frequently marked, thus supporting the idea of other forms of gathering and consuming, including picnics, BBQs, or meet-ups with friends. The users of the Woluwepark indicated that they appreciated qualities such as cleanliness, security, pleasant views, safety and tranquility and attributes such as paths, flora, benches, fauna and water elements.

Figure 6. Cultural practices (CPs) preferred by respondents in the Woluwepark. Color coding is used to differentiate CPs across CP groups.

3.2. How does the distance between the respondents’ residence and a green open space influence its use?

3.2.1. Travel distance and green open space use

The results indicate a strong negative correlation between the distance travelled and people with access to a garden or a balcony at their residence (Table 8). Hence, respondents with access to a GOS at their residence travelled shorter distances than those with it. Likewise, a strong negative correlation exists between travel distance and home as the departure point. This negative correlation indicates that people who leave home to visit a GOS travel shorter distances than those departing from work or school. This research also showed that people travel longer distances during spring when using an electric scooter; in summer when using a bike, car, electric bike, or on foot; in fall when using a bike; and in winter when using an electric bike. Conversely, the output showed a strong negative correlation among those respondents travelling by bike and foot in spring and by car in winter. Regarding their GOS visits, people who stayed longer during summer and fall travelled shorter distances than those visiting in spring.

Table 8. Regression output of travel distance (km) against various means of transportation (Visiting by) during different seasons across the year and specifications about the respondent’s company at the time of the visit (Visiting with).

Travel distance (km)	Coef.	St.Err.	t-value	p-value	[95% Conf	Interval]	Sig
Travel distance > Distance to the Woluwe	6,683	0.673	9.94	0	5.36	8,006	***
Going from home	−8,555	1,502	−5.69	0	−11,509	−5,601	***
Balcony/garden within residence	−2,592	0.922	−2.81	0.005	−4,405	−0.78	***
Spring
Visit frequency	3,358	0.598	5.61	0	2,181	4,534	***
Visit duration	0.141	0.033	4.31	0	0.076	0.205	***
•Visiting with
Alone	−7,008	1,619	−4.33	0	−10,191	−3,825	***
Children	−8,611	3,388	−2.54	0.011	−15,273	−1,948	**
Family member	−12,864	2,882	−4.46	0	−18.53	−7,198	***
Friends	10,268	1,517	6.77	0	7,285	13,251	***
Grandchild(ren)	−17,108	6,549	−2.61	0.009	−29,985	−4.23	***
•Visiting by
Bike	−25,861	3.2	−8.08	0	−32,153	−19.57	***
Electric step	12.75	3,537	3.61	0	5,796	19,705	***
Foot	−22,842	8,911	−2.56	0.011	−40,365	−5,319	**
Summer
Visit frequency	1,817	0.423	4.3	0	0.986	2,648	***
Visit duration	−0.116	0.021	−5.59	0	−0.156	−0.075	***
•Visiting with
Alone	8,742	1,728	5.06	0	5,344	12,141	***
Children	9.15	4,776	1.92	0.056	−0.241	18.54	*
Dog	−18,265	6,174	−2.96	0.003	−30,404	−6,125	***
Family member	50,043	1,643	30.46	0	46,813	53,273	***
Partner	4,724	1,754	2.69	0.007	1,275	8,173	***
•Visiting by
Bike	12,385	2,711	4.57	0	7,055	17,716	***
Car	17,243	3,954	4.36	0	9,467	25,018	***
Electric bike	13,149	3,069	4.28	0	7,114	19,183	***
Foot	20,058	4,126	4.86	0	11,944	28,171	***
Skates	−34,379	6,791	−5.06	0	−47,732	−21,026	***
Fall
Visit frequency	−1,331	0.616	−2.16	0.031	−2,543	−0.119	**
Visit duration	−0.063	0.017	−3.8	0	−0.095	−0.03	***
•Visiting with
Dog	18,467	4,818	3.83	0	8,992	27,941	***
Family member	−29,763	3,536	−8.42	0	−36,715	−22,811	***
Friends	−12,194	1,865	−6.54	0	−15.86	−8,527	***
•Visiting by
Electric bike	−17,116	3,365	−5.09	0	−23,732	−10.5	***
Bike	12,398	2,157	5.75	0	8,158	16,638	***
Winter
Visit frequency	−3.36	0.598	−5.62	0	−4,536	−2,185	***
•Visiting with
Alone	−8,237	2,549	−3.23	0.001	−13.25	−3,224	***
Friends	3,516	1.14	3.08	0.002	1,274	5,759	***
Grandchild(ren)	12,442	1,801	6.91	0	8,901	15,983	***
Partner	−16.18	2,254	−7.18	0	−20,613	−11,747	***
•Visiting by
Car	−17,968	8,008	−2.24	0.025	−33,713	−2,222	**
Electric bike	13,171	2,235	5.89	0	8,776	17,566	***
Foot	−3,137	1,694	−1.85	0.065	−6,468	0.194	*
Constant	8,193	1,912	4.29	0	4,433	11,952	***
Mean dependent var.	3,653		SD dependent var			9,733
R-squared	0.905		Number of obs.			432
F-test	61,528		Prob > F			0
Akaike crit. (AIC)	2,290.49		Bayesian crit. (BIC)			2,530.529

Note. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

3.2.2. Woluwe buffer

The Woluwe buffer analysis provided a sample of 87 GOSs and input from 185² respondents (Table 9). While only 60% of these GOSs are located in the Brussels Capital Region, 90% of the respondents marked one of these Brussels GOSs (Figure 7). As previously seen in RQ1, the most popular GOS typology was parks, followed by meadows. Likewise, respondents showed a preference for playing and exercising CPs (121/185), followed by producing and caring (35/185), gathering and consuming (27/185) and creating and expressing (2/185). The top five CPs include walking (132), listening to nature (82), biking (76), meeting friends (68) and running (59).

Figure 7. Use count in green open spaces along the Woluwe buffer (300 m). Color coding per neighborhood (statistical sector) distinguishes those with higher and lower use counts. Colour online.

Table 9. Types of green open spaces within 300 m of the Woluwe River.

GOS region	Park	Meadow	Forest	Cemetery	Garden	Total
Brussels	18	–	2	2	–	49
Flanders	11	15	9	1	2	38
Total	29	15	11	3	2	87

The previous section has demonstrated the added value of water elements, yet the analysis of GOSs along or near the Woluwe River highlights the importance of water elements in a GOS. The GOSs with the highest use (marker count) are mostly located in those (Brussels) sections where the river is visible, while those GOSs where the Woluwe River is situated underground (or above ground in Flanders) had low to no input.

3.2.3. Flemish cold spots

Looking into the Flemish Region, a clear imbalance in the input collected from the respondents can be seen. This imbalance suggests that this region has many “cold spots”: GOSs with little to no use. To better understand why these Flemish GOSs along the Woluwe did not receive similar input to their Brussels counterparts, this study filtered those respondents who lived in the Flemish municipalities and whose travelled distance to their GOS was longer than the distance to the closest point of the Woluwe River (and its surrounding GOS). Of the 527 respondents, 108 were residents of a Flemish municipality within the case study area. Seventy-one out of those 108 visited a GOS within the Flemish Region. Furthermore, of those 71, 58% (41) preferred to travel longer distances to a GOS rather than visit the nearest Woluwe GOS.

The analysis of CPs shown in Table 10 and Figures 8–10 confirms the previous findings where GOSs’ qualities and attributes are of such importance that respondents would travel further for them. Like the general sample, cold spots’ respondents use GOSs mainly for playing and exercising CPs and, to a lesser extent, for producing and caring activities (Figure 8). Moreover, these respondents favor accessibility, security, pleasant views, safety, and cleanliness in a GOS (Figure 9). The top five preferred attributes are flora, paths, benches, fauna, and water elements (Figure 10).

Figure 8. Preferred cultural practice groups by Flemish locals around the Woluwe River.

Figure 9. Preferred qualities by Flemish locals around the Woluwe River.

Figure 10. Preferred attributes by Flemish locals around the Woluwe River.

Table 10. Breakdown of usage of green open spaces in the Woluwe vicinity.

Municipality	Use count	Use residents	tdist > WLWdist	Avg. tdist
Kraainem	14	6	5	0.72
Machelen	14	10	9	1.27
Vilvoorde	26	21	4	1.28
Zaventem	54	34	23	1.17
Total	108	71	41	1.18

Note. “Use count” refers to the total number of users of green open spaces per municipality regardless of the location of their residence. “Use residents” refer to those users whose home address is within the Flemish municipalities of the case study. “tdist > WLWdist” refers to those residents whose travelled distance to their green open space is longer than to the closest point of the Woluwe from their residence. “Avg. tdist” refers to the average distance travelled (km) to a green open space by the residents of those municipalities.

3.3. How has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced green open space use?

While the general sample used for the previous research questions is based on 527 participants, the following results are based on the answers of 388 out of the 527. This is because participants could voluntarily decline to respond to these questions, which 139 did. Nonetheless, based on the total population of the study area, which according to STATBEL (2021) is 270,591, 388 respondents deliver a 95% confidence level and 4.97% margin of error.

Of the total 527 markings in the study, 72% and 73% answered the questions about the appreciation for and changes in GOS visits, respectively, due to COVID-19. Of these 384 respondents, 56% replied that they appreciated GOS more, or considerably more, due to the pandemic. Likewise, 56% of respondents replied that they visited GOSs more or considerably more than before the pandemic (Figure 11). The main reasons for the increase in visits to a GOS during the pandemic include the enjoyment of nature, physical exercise, and the lack of alternative leisure (other leisure venues were closed due to sanitary measures) (Figure 12). The enjoyment of nature comprises both the necessity to cope with the pandemic restrictions and the impossibility of accessing any leisure activities within respondents’ residence due to a lack of a balcony or garden.

Figure 11. Green open space appreciation and visits increase due to COVID-19.

Figure 12. Reasons behind the increase in green open spaces visits during the pandemic.

The regression output showed that the strongest positive correlation was between the dependent variable (COVID-19’s influence on GOS use) and “GOS within walking distance” (Table 11). The correlation indicates that having access to a GOS within walking distance predicts increased GOS use during the pandemic. A strong negative correlation with “traveled distance” also supports this finding. Remarkably, the respondents with access to a balcony or a garden visited GOSs more or considerably more. It was expected that local inhabitants with private balconies or gardens would visit GOSs less during the pandemic. However, the regression proves the contrary; respondents with access to a balcony or garden within their residence visited their local public GOSs more and appreciated them more due to the pandemic.

Table 11. Regression output of the influence of COVID-19 on green open space use.

COVID-19’s influence on GOS use	Coef.	St.Err.	t-value	p-value	[95% Conf	Interval]	Sig
Average visit time	−0.003	0.001	−4.34	0	−0.004	−0.001	***
Average visit frequency	0.086	0.016	5.22	0	0.054	0.118	***
Traveled distance	−0.008	0.003	−3	0.003	−0.014	−0.003	***
GOS appreciation	0.488	0.03	16.5	0	0.43	0.547	***
GOS access within residence	0.469	0.066	7.07	0	0.339	0.599	***
GOS access walking distance	2,004	0.169	11.84	0	1,672	2,336	***
Teenager	−0.857	0.145	−5.91	0	−1,142	−0.573	***
Young adult	−0.49	0.087	−5.61	0	−0.662	−0.319	***
Middle adult	0.151	0.089	1.69	0.092	−0.024	0.326	*
Female	1.8	0.521	3.45	0.001	0.778	2,822	***
Male	1,807	0.523	3.46	0.001	0.782	2,833	***
Employed	0.329	0.09	3.64	0	0.152	0.506	***
At home	0.702	0.183	3.84	0	0.343	1.06	***
Invalidity	−0.109	0.553	−0.2	0.844	−1,194	0.976
Retired	0.595	0.125	4.77	0	0.35	0.84	***
Student	0.293	0.119	2.45	0.014	0.058	0.527	**
Unemployed	−0.206	0.369	−0.56	0.577	−0.929	0.518
Alone	−1,207	0.155	−7.8	0	−1.51	−0.903	***
Married	−1,512	0.145	−10.45	0	−1,796	−1,228	***
Married with kids	−1,118	0.147	−7.59	0	−1,407	−0.829	***
Sharing	−1,462	0.155	−9.45	0	−1,766	−1,159	***
Middle school	−1.23	0.235	−5.24	0	−1,691	−0.77	***
College	−1,481	0.231	−6.42	0	−1,933	−1,028	***
University	−0.676	0.227	−2.98	0.003	−1,122	−0.231	***
CPG_Creating and expressing	0.621	0.393	1.58	0.115	−0.15	1,391
CPG_Gathering and consuming	0.541	0.084	6.42	0	0.376	0.707	***
CPG_Playing and exercising	0.044	0.068	0.64	0.521	−0.09	0.177
Constant	−0.576	0.62	−0.93	0.353	−1,793	0.64
Mean dependent var.	3,615		SD dependent var.		1,244
R-squared	0.445		Number of obs.		2.121
F-test	62,252		Prob > F		0
Akaike crit. (AIC)	5,749.55		Bayesian crit. (BIC)		5,908.017

Note. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Of the 27 independent variables, 21 showed strong correlations with the dependent variable with 99% confidence.

Unlike previous research questions, which showed a clear dominance of the playing and exercising CP group (CPG), the regression analysis of COVID-19’s influence on GOS use showed no correlation. However, the gathering and consuming CPG displayed a strong positive correlation (Table 11). The latter may indicate that respondents were actively looking for a place to gather and consume during the pandemic when many other gathering and consuming spaces (e.g. restaurants and cafés) were closed.

The demographic factors correlated with COVID-19’s influence on GOS use are household and education. Household status (alone, married, married with kids, and sharing) and education variables (secondary, college, and university) showed strong negative correlations. However, the variables “married” and “college” showed the highest negative coefficients for their variable group. These negative coefficients imply that respondents who were either married or in college tended to use GOSs less due to the pandemic.

4. Discussion

The online PPGIS tool mygreenplace.be (Aranda et al. 2021) was used to map CES in GOSs along the Woluwe River, analyzing how CPs, qualities and attributes define CES hot spots. In addition, this study examined the importance of travel distance and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on GOS use and appreciation.

Stessens et al. (2017, 338) demonstrated that GOSs in “Brussels shows a clear concentric pattern of low proximity and quality in the central parts of the region, and high proximity and quality in the periphery.” This case study, situated at the periphery of Brussels, confirms the high quality of GOSs in the outer parts of the Brussels Capital Region. It also highlights a clear distinction between the GOSs in the two regions: CES hot spots in the Brussels Capital Region versus CES cold spots in the Flemish Region (Figure 3). This distinction is in line with Stessens et al. (2017), who found that the Woluwe River (in Brussels) offers high-quality and proximal GOSs. However, Stessens also points out that innovative strategies are required to connect to the remaining problem areas: the Flemish part of the Woluwe River. Regarding addressing problem areas, Andreucci, Russo, and Olszewska-Guizzo (2019) have remarked that creating a purely physical connection will not suffice. Instead, the problem areas require a redesign and the inclusion of “relevant design qualities and characteristics” that make them visible and interlinked, allowing a holistic nature “unit” (as opposed to close but unconnected links) of CES (Plieninger et al. 2013; Gottwald, Albert, and Fagerholm 2022).

In order to transform cold spots into CES hot spots through qualities and characteristics, this research highlights the pivotal role that water elements such as the Woluwe may play in this transformation. The Woluwe and the water elements along it are crucial for turning a GOS into a CES hot spot. Nevertheless, respondents mainly valued water elements as an “aesthetic” component rather than for the CPs they enable (e.g. swimming and fishing). This aesthetic valuation is in line with the earlier findings (Aranda et al. 2021) and conforms with the research of Brown, Barton, and Gladwell (2013), Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), and Ulrich (1984), demonstrating the multiple benefits of water elements in GOSs, including human exposure to nature, increased physical activity, and improvement of mental health.

Furthermore, it was found that CES hot spots are valued and used because they offer multiple facilities that encourage and allow active use by diverse users. This result is consistent with the studies by Giles-Corti et al. (2005), Kaczynski, Potwarka, and Saelens (2008), and Gottwald, Albert, and Fagerholm (2022). Likewise, Hahn and Craythorn (1994) and Knobel et al. (2021) have argued that GOSs with fewer attributes attract fewer people, and, therefore, a GOS should seek to facilitate multiple types of activities appealing to a diverse base: from organized sports to informal exercise, recreational, and consuming CPs. The results show that a CES hot spot facilitates a variety of CPs from different groups, giving particular attention to those in the playing and exercising and gathering and consuming groups. Moreover, it should provide qualities and attributes that enable the aforementioned CPs while also prioritizing cleanliness, pleasant views, security, safety, accessibility, and attributes such as pathways, flora, benches, fauna, and water elements.

The predominance of CPs, qualities, and attributes enabling playing and exercising and gathering and consuming CES is not only supported by this study’s results but also by previous research by Hernández-Morcillo, Plieninger, and Bieling (2013), Milcu et al. (2013) and Munro et al. (2017). Their results showed that “recreation and ecotourism” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), which corresponds to the playing and exercising and gathering and consuming CP groups, is the most accounted for CES category. While the combination of the concepts of CES, qualities, and attributes offers a valuable guideline for planning practitioners who aim to intervene in the area, further research should explore the relationships among these concepts to sharpen potential interventions, which was not possible in this study due to the sample size and the constant COVID-19 restrictions.

Another pathway for new research could further elaborate the tool setup to include aspects that allow better assessment of the user profile, which has been previously claimed by authors such as Costigan et al. (2017), Knobel et al. (2021) and Shan (2014) to affect the frequency and choice of the GOS in addition to the factors discussed here.

This research maps CES hot spots and cold spots, demonstrating the usage difference between various GOSs. Authors such as Grahn (1994), Herzele and Wiedemann (2003), Knobel et al. (2021) and Stessens et al. (2017) agree that distance and safety are key qualities that determine whether people will visit certain GOSs. Although this study’s results strongly correlate with distance and safety, these were not always the most important determinants. The analysis of Flemish cold spots showed that 58% of the local respondents used a GOS that was not the closest one to their residence.

This behavior is in line with the findings of Giles-Corti et al. (2005), who emphasized that supply (quantity) and closeness do not increase visits to GOSs. This relationship between supply and closeness is all the more important because the effects of the pandemic have severely limited the amount of time spent outdoors (Day 2020; Venter et al. 2020; Grima et al. 2020; Lopez, Kennedy, and McPhearson 2020). Despite this additional factor driving the use of GOSs, people of different age groups may still overlook proximity when looking for areas with a better offer of multiple CES, qualities, and attributes.

Authors such as Aranda et al. (2021), Field (2000), Peters, Elands, and Buijs (2010), Skjœveland (2001), and Aalst and Brands (2021) have noted that GOSs are a magnet for social participation. Meeting people and recreation through playing, picnicking, or simply chatting form the core of the social cohesion services provided by a GOS, and therefore, they are extremely valuable CPs. However, the results showed a shift in the preference from more social CPs to solo ones, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Even though there were restrictions, respondents still sought GOSs for what Aalst and Brands (2021, 14) call “being apart together.” The Woluwe case study found that most respondents visit a GOS for individual exercising rather than gathering and consuming in groups. These results align with authors such as Grima et al. (2020), Grzyb et al. (2021) and Ugolini et al. (2020), who also identified a significant rise in interest in physical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Grzyb et al. (2021) remarked that their research on the rise in physical activities during the pandemic was limited to people younger than 45 years old. However, this study looked at participation across all age groups, and its results confirmed that the rise in physical activities extends to older ages. The difference between Grzyb et al. (2021) and this study’s results might be due to the different data collection approaches. As Grzyb et al. (2021) looked primarily at young and middle adults via social media, this study was able to balance age representativeness by using alternative methods (e.g. postcard invitations to the tool) to reach the rest of the population.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of data collection cannot be ignored as a factor in this study. The sanitary measures, particularly the “bubble” approach implemented in Belgium (Willem et al. 2021) that limited group gatherings, and the so-called lockdowns, triggered the need for places where people could escape from home confinement; indeed, half of the respondents increased their use of and appreciation for GOSs. Further research is needed to determine the long-term effects of the pandemic on GOS use and valuation; especially since the increase in teleworking from home and online courses most likely impacts peoples’ needs, making GOS close to home more important than ever.

Another limitation of this study was the respondents’ honesty. When filling out a survey, honesty is an intrinsic limitation that comes with anonymized studies. Nonetheless, we strived to disclaim the research intentions and how the results would be used at the start of the survey. To this end, a brief message and an animated video were used to motivate people to participate voluntarily and honestly while always keeping the option open to withdraw at any point if they wished to do so. Moreover, due to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within the European Union, private information from participants could not be collected to verify their addresses or demographics. This restriction meant calculating traveling distance in Section 3.2 by proxy, using the center of their neighborhood (statistical sector) as a starting point instead of their precise address.

An anonymized approach was chosen for this study to conform to the European Union privacy limitations and also to maximize entries since, in this way, everyone, regardless of age, could participate. Future research venues seeking more precise data on residence and distance could explore non-anonymized surveys where verification and validation of responses are possible.

5. Conclusion

This research maps the CES along the Woluwe River and feeds into current policy-making processes about the redevelopment of different GOSs. It should be emphasized that the future green-blue network along the Woluwe must reflect users’ interests and needs. Such needs include a vast combination of CPs as well as qualities and attributes that enable playing, exercising, gathering, and consuming. Moreover, GOS management and preservation should focus on qualities such as cleanliness, pleasant views, security, safety, and accessibility and attributes such as pathways, flora, benches, fauna, and water elements. Furthermore, the results highlight that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the use and appreciation for GOSs.

Through GIS maps, hot and cold spot analysis, heat maps, and regressions, valuable information was produced to help managers and policy around the Woluwe vision. Moreover, insight was provided into how to map CES and the qualities and attributes of GOSs using a recently introduced geographic entity (marker). This insight, combined with this study’s use of mixed methods of assessment and interpretation of CES, such as online questionnaires, interactive maps, multiple stakeholder meetings, and participatory mapping, can hopefully aid not only field practitioners but both the CES and PPGIS community to draw lessons for their future projects.

While there is no cure-all solution to capture the total cultural value of any ecosystem, the methodologies presented here are proposed as part of a complementary strategy that aims to do so more accurately. As science and technology advance, the integration of previously opposed disciplines will play a key role in improving the understanding of the abstract attributes that people attach to space, the things they value, and the ones they do not, beyond the limitations of current methodologies.

Acknowledgements

We, the authors, would like to thank Mr. Bart de Wit for his invaluable help in coding the tool that was the centerpiece of this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 765389, RECOMS.

Notes

1 Overpass turbo is a web-based data filtering tool for OpenStreetMap that allows an updated view of green open spaces that otherwise would be missed if using the official green space Flemish service “Groenkaart,” which dates from 2015.

2 Note that this is from respondents without duplicates generated by the municipal divisions. Given the nature of the GOS polygon, there were several cases where a respondent marked a GOS that extended beyond the limits of a municipality. In this case, there would be two IDs for that specific GOS section, each corresponding to the municipality in which it is located, and thus the marking made by one respondent would also be counted twice. For the purpose of these figures, however, we report respondents count without these duplications.