Green in grey: ecosystem services and disservices perceptions from small-scale green infrastructure along a rural-urban gradient in Bengaluru, India

Figures & data

Figure 1. a. Map of India with state borders. Bengaluru Metropolitan Region is highlighted inside a box in the state of Karnataka, and b. the three districts of the metropolitan region showing the study towns along the rural-urban gradients.

Figure 2. Types of small-scale green infrastructure and tree species considered in this study.

Table 1. The ecosystem (dis)services of green infrastructure assessed in the study.

Ecosystem service category	Individual ecosystem services or disservices	Definitions
Provisioning services	Food/feed	Food for humans or domesticated animals
	Ornamental flowers	Flowers or other plant parts used for decorative or ornamental purposes
	Timber/firewood	Wood used as construction materials or firewood
	Medicinal resources	Medicinal, veterinary, and pharmacological resources
Regulating services	Air/climate regulation	Mitigating air pollution, cooling air
	Water purification	Water purifying or filtering water from unwanted particles, pathogens, and excess nutrients
	Soil improvement	Maintenance or enhancement of soil fertility, and soil retention
Cultural services	Social interaction	Spend time with other people or join social events
	Aesthetic values	Visual appreciation of natural scenery/beauty
	Spiritual values	Meditative, religious, and reflective values
	Sense of place	A sense of attachment, belonging, or connectedness to the place
Ecosystem disservices	Crop damage	Damage to crops by tree-dwelling monkeys or birds
	Dangerous animals	Encroachment by dangerous or unpleasant animals such as snakes or rodents
	Space for nuisances	Open defecation/dumping of garbage/sewage
	Space for anti-social activities	Noise, alcohol/drug consumption in groups, etc.

Table 2. Respondents’ perception of ecosystem (dis)services from the five green infrastructure types. Significant differences were tested using Wilcoxon signed rank tests with Bonferroni correction.

	Domestic tree	Farm tree	Street tree	Platform tree	Temple tree	Overall	Friedman test	Effect size (Kendall’s W)
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	X^2
Provisioning services
Overall provisioning services	2.51^a (1.03)	3.42^b (1.28)	1.91^c (0.90)	1.30^d (.54)	1.33^d (.54)	2.09 (0.67)	1312.96***	0.51
Food/feed	2.55^a (1.55)	4.01^b (1.57)	1.95^c (1.35)	1.33^d (.86)	1.35^d (.88)	2.24 (0.68)	1160.72***	0.45
Firewood/timber	1.78^a (1.24)	3.69^b (1.74)	2.06^b (1.42)	1.07^d (.40)	1.06^d (.39)	1.93 (0.62)	1231.31***	0.47
Ornamental flowers	2.85^a (1.58)	3.17^b (1.74)	1.94^c (1.36)	1.33^d (.87)	1.52^e (1.09)	2.16 (0.66)	712.01***	0.27
Medicinal resources	2.85^a (1.63)	2.79^a (1.74)	1.68^b (1.16)	1.47^c (1.03)	1.39^c (.94)	2.04 (0.71)	637.64***	0.25
Regulating services
Overall regulating services	3.13^a (1.12)	3.83^b (1.26)	2.21^c (1.09)	2.81^d (1.08)	2.89^d (1.00)	2.97 (0.83)	644.10***	0.25
Air/climate regulation	3.02^a (1.47)	3.62^b (1.54)	2.39^c (1.45)	3.81^d (1.44)	3.58^b (1.32)	3.28 (0.72)	386.27***	0.15
Water purification	3.25^a (1.63)	3.55^b (1.67)	1.96^c (1.36)	2.11^d (1.41)	2.52^e (1.50)	2.68(0.88)	563.58***	0.22
Soil improvement	3.13^a (1.47)	4.32^b (1.33)	2.29^c (1.42)	2.51^d (1.48)	2.56^d (1.43)	2.96 (0.89)	807.33***	0.31
Cultural services
Overall cultural services	3.21^a,c (1.17)	3.17^a (1.18)	1.79^b (0.69)	3.15^c (1.19)	3.61^a (.99)	2.99 (0.73)	769.37***	0.30
Social interaction	3.46^a (1.55)	2.93^b (1.58)	1.52^c (1.05)	2.78^b (1.62)	3.46^d (1.46)	2.83 (0.69)	593.23***	0.23
Aesthetic values	3.23^a (1.48)	3.85^b (1.50)	2.57^c (1.47)	3.51^c (1.43)	3.72^b (1.25)	3.38 (0.68)	332.06***	0.13
Spiritual values	2.64^a (1.60)	2.22^b (1.46)	1.37^c (1.00)	3.36^d (1.62)	3.70^e (1.54)	2.66 (0.71)	758.46 ***	0.29
Sense of place	3.52^a,b (1.66)	3.68^a,c (1.65)	1.71^d (1.15)	2.93^e (1.60)	3.57^b,c (1.47)	3.08 (0.83)	719.27***	0.28
Overall ecosystem services	2.95 (0.91)	3.47 (1.10)	1.97 (0.63)	2.42 (.61)	2.61 (.72)	2.68 (0.74)	844.45***	0.33
Disservices
Overall disservices	2.07^a (0.87)	2.32^b (1.14)	2.25^c (0.95)	1.48^d (.62)	1.41^d (.60)	1.41 (0.82)	825.03***	0.32
Crop damage	2.31^a (1.64)	2.79^b (1.81)	1.57^c (1.12)	1.70^c (1.25)	1.75^d (1.25)	1.75 (0.99)	405.19***	0.16
Threat posed by dangerous animals	2.93^a(1.59)	2.89^a (1.71)	1.97^b (1.24)	1.53^c (.95)	1.55^c (.98)	1.55(0.88)	715.08***	0.28
Space for nuisances	1.65^a(1.23)	1.58^a (1.18)	3.03^b (1.80)	1.25^c (.77)	1.23^c (.77)	1.23 (0.69)	811.86***	0.31
Space for anti-social activities	1.39^a (0.93)	2.03^b (1.52)	2.42^c (1.66)	1.43^a (1.07)	1.12^d (.53)	1.12 (0.72)	515.26***	0.20

X² presents the Z value of the Friedman Test at the level of significance ***p value < 0.001. For each ecosystem (dis)service, mean values marked with a different letter are significantly different (p < 0.05) between the types of green infrastructure.

Figure 3. Perception of ecosystem (dis)services from green infrastructures along rural, transitional, and urban areas.

Table 3. Results from generalized linear regression model to test for the main effect of socio-economic factors on the perception of each ecosystem (dis)services category from green infrastructure.

	Provisioning service		Regulating service		Cultural service		Disservice
	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR	B (SE)	OR
Gender
Male	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Female	0.01 (0.02)	1.01	−0.06 (0.03)	0.94*	−0.05 (0.03)	0.94	−0.03 (0.03)	0.96
Age
Middle-aged: 30–59 years old	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Elderly: > 59 years old	−0.06 (0.03)	0.93	−0.06 (0.04)	0.93	−0.05 (0.04)	0.94*	0.02 (0.04)	1.02
Young: 19–29 years old	−0.05 (0.03)	0.943	0.00 (0.04)	1.00	−0.04 (0.04)	0.961	0.03 (0.04)	1.03
Education
Up to 12th grade	-	-	-	-	-	-		-
Higher education: diploma or more	0.07 (0.03)	1.07*	0.03 (0.04)	1.03	0.03 (0.04)	1.03	−0.05 (0.04)	0.94
Illiterate/no formal education	0.02 (0.03)	1.02	−0.01 (0.03)	0.09	0.04 (0.03)	1.05	0.02 (0.08)	1.02
Caste
Scheduled caste or scheduled tribe	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
General	−0.07 (0.03)	0.93*	−0.08 (0.03)	0.92*	−0.01 (0.03)	0.98	0.07 (0.04)	1.07
Other backward class (OBC)	−0.06 (0.02)	0.93*	0.11 (0.03)	1.12***	0.06 (0.03)	1.06*	−0.02 (0.03)	0.97
Income source: agriculture
Agriculture as income source	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Agriculture not as an income source	−0.07 (0.02)	0.92**	−0.09 (0.03)	0.90***	−0.18 (0.02)	0.83***	0.00 (0.03)	1.03

B = coefficient, SE = standard error (in brackets), or = Odds Ratio. Coefficients and odds ratios are shown in bold and marked with *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, or * p < 0.05 levels of significance.

Annex 1. Results from cross-tabulation showing that mean values of ecosystem (dis)services were similarly perceived among tree species within the green infrastructure types among the tree species per green infrastructure. The scientific names are mentioned in italics in parenthesis against the common names.

Green infrastructure	Tree species	Provisioning services	Regulating services	Cultural services	Disservices
Domestic trees	Coconut (Cocos nucifera)	2.14	2.98	3.03	2.09
	Drumstick (Moringa oleifera)	2.05	2.94	2.93	2.05
	Mango (Mangifera indica)	2.08	3.01	3.00	2.06
Farm trees	Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus)	3.38	3.83	3.13	2.27
	Silver Oak (Grevillea robusta)	3.50	3.80	3.20	2.46
	Teak (Tectona grandis)	3.37	3.86	3.19	2.22
Street trees	Pongemia (Millettia pinnata)	1.87	2.22	1.79	2.20
	Raintree (Albizia saman)	1.94	2.20	1.81	2.33
	Tamarind (Tamarindus indica)	1.92	2.22	1.79	2.20
Temple trees	Banyan (Ficus benghalensis)	1.34	2.92	3.61	1.37
	Neem (Azadirachta indica)	1.36	2.95	3.71	1.50
	Peepal (Ficus religiosa)	1.29	2.79	3.52	1.37
Platform trees	Banyan (Ficus benghalensis)	1.31	2.84	3.19	1.60
	Neem (Azadirachta indica)	1.28	2.77	3.08	1.44
	Peepal (Ficus religiosa)	1.30	2.83	3.17	1.39