Geography of disservices in urban forests: public participation mapping for closing the loop

References

• Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J. 2009. Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy. 26(3):551–557. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agimass F, Lundhede T, Panduro TE, Jacobsen JB. 2017. The choice of forest site for recreation: a revealed preference analysis using spatial data. Ecosyst Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnberger A. 2006. Recreation use of urban forests: an inter-area comparison. Urban For Urban Greening. 4(3–4):135–144. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.004.
   Google Scholar
• Bagstad KJ, Cohen E, Ancona Z, McNulty G, Sun G. 2018. The sensitivity of ecosystem service models to choices of input data and spatial resolution. Appl Geogr. 93:25–36. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baro F, Chaparro L, Gomez-Baggethun E, Langemeyer J, Nowak DJ, Terradas J. 2014. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: the case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio. 43(4):466–479. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister CF, Gerstenberg T, Plieninger T, Schraml U. 2020. Exploring cultural ecosystem service hotspots: linking multiple urban forest features with public participation mapping data. Urban For Urban Greening. 48:126561. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckmann-Wübbelt A, Fricke A, Sebesvari Z, Yakouchenkova IA, Fröhlich K, Saha S. 2021. High public appreciation for the cultural ecosystem services of urban and peri‑urban forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable Cities Soc. 74:103240. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.103240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bethmann S, Simminger E, Baldy J, Schraml U. 2018. Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology. For Policy Econ. 69:93–101. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.005.
   Google Scholar
• Bieling C, Plieninger T. 2013. Recording manifestations of cultural ecosystem services in the landscape. Landscape Res. 38(5):649–667. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.691469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bieling C, Plieninger T, Pirker H, Vogl CR. 2014. Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecol Econ. 105:19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bivand RS, Pebesma E, Gomez-Rubio V. 2013. Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bixler RD, Carlisle CL, Hammltt WE, Floyd MF. 1994. Observed fears and discomforts among urban students on field trips to wildland areas. J Environ Educ. 26(1):24–33. doi:10.1080/00958964.1994.9941430.
   Google Scholar
• Blanco J, Dendoncker N, Barnaud C, Sirami C. 2019. Ecosystem disservices matter: towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosyst Serv. 36:100913. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100913.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Donovan S. 2013. Escaping the national forest planning quagmire: using public participation GIS to assess acceptable national forest use. J For. 111(2):115–125. doi:10.5849/jof.12-087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Fagerholm N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv. 13:119–133. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K. 2012. Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc Nat Resour. 25(7):633–651. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.621511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Pullar DV. 2012. An evaluation of the use of points versus polygons in public participation geographic information systems using quasi-experimental design and Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Geog Inf Sci. 26(2):231–246. doi:10.1080/13658816.2011.585139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Reed P. 2009. Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national forest planning. For Sci. 55(2):166–182.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Strickland-Munro J, Kobryn H, Moore SA. 2017. Mixed methods participatory GIS: an evaluation of the validity of qualitative and quantitative mapping methods. Appl Geogr. 79:153–166. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.12.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler JS, Shanahan J, Decker DJ. 2003. Public attitudes towards wildlife are changing: a trend analysis of New York residents. Wildl Soc Bull. 31(4): 1027–1036. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camacho-Cervantes M, Schondube JE, Castillo A, MacGregor-Fors I. 2014. How do people perceive urban trees? Assessing likes and dislikes in relation to the trees of a city. Urban Ecosyst. 17(3):761–773. doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0343-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campagne CS, Roche PK, Salles J-M. 2018. Looking into Pandora’s Box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv. 30:126–136. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ. 74:8–18. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Sun B, Liao S, Chen L, Luo S. 2016. Landscape perception based on personal attributes in determining the scenic beauty of in-stand natural secondary forests. Ann For Res. 59(1). doi:10.15287/afr.2015.440.
   Google Scholar
• Ciesielski M, Sterenczak K. 2017. What do we expect from forests? The European view of public demands. J Environ Manage. 209:139–151. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway TM, Yip V. 2016. Assessing residents’ reactions to urban forest disservices: a case study of a major storm event. Landsc Urban Plan. 153:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Amato G. 2000. Urban air pollution and plant-derived respiratory allergy. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 30(5):628–636. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00798.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KM, von der Dunk A, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109(23):8812–8819. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delshammar T, Östberg J, Öxell C. 2015. Urban trees and ecosystem disservices–a pilot study using complaints records from three Swedish cities. Arboric Urban For. 41(4). doi:10.48044/jauf.2015.018.
   Google Scholar
• Derks J, Giessen L, Winkel G. 2020. COVID-19-induced visitor boom reveals the importance of forests as critical infrastructure. For Policy Econ. 118:102253. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Destefano S, Deblinger RD. 2005. Wildlife as valuable natural resources vs. intolerable pests: a suburban wildlife management model. Urban Ecosyst. 8(2):179–190. doi:10.1007/s11252-005-4379-5.
   Google Scholar
• Dobbs C, Kendal D, Nitschke CR. 2014. Multiple ecosystem services and disservices of the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape structure and sociodemographics. Ecol Indic. 43:44–55. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas I. 2012. Urban ecology and urban ecosystems: understanding the links to human health and well-being. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 4(4):385–392. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn RR, Davies TJ, Harris NC, Gavin MC. 2010. Global drivers of human pathogen richness and prevalence. Proc Biol Sci. 277(1694):2587–2595. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrmann S, Ruyts SC, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bauhus J, Brunet J, Cousins SAO, Liira J, Decocq G, De Frenne P, De Smedt P. 2018. Habitat properties are key drivers of Borrelia burgdorferi (s.l.) prevalence in Ixodes ricinus populations of deciduous forest fragments. Parasit Vectors. 11(1):23. doi:10.1186/s13071-017-2590-x.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenreich D. 2015. Income and consumption expenditure of private households in Baden-Württemberg: results of the income and consumption survey 2013. Mon Stat Bull Baden-Württemberg, Germany. 12:43–47.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson L, Nordlund AM, Olsson O, Westin K. 2012. Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban For Urban Greening. 11:321–328. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE. 2011. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut. 159(8–9):2078–2087. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESRI. 2019. ArcGIS desktop version 10.7.1. Environmental systems. Redlands (CA): Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Statistical Office. 2019. Year’s statistics–Germany and international affairs, Wiesbaden (Germany).
   Google Scholar
• Federal Statistical Office. 2020a. Education level of the population–results of the microcensus 2019 Wiesbaden (Germany).
   Google Scholar
• Federal Statistical Office. 2020b. Population and employment –Population update based on the 2011 census - Subject-matter series 1 series 1.3 - 2018. Wiesbaden (Germany).
   Google Scholar
• Fischer A, Eastwood A. 2016. Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—An analytical framework. Land Use Policy. 52:41–50. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fish R, Church A, Willis C, Winter M, Tratalos JA, Haines-Young R, Potschin M. 2016a. Making space for cultural ecosystem services: insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative. Ecosyst Serv. 21:329–343. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fish R, Church A, Winter M. 2016b. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst Serv. 21:208–217. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flannigan J. 2012. An evaluation of residents’ attitudes to street trees in Southwest England. Arboric J. 28(4):219–241. doi:10.1080/03071375.2005.9747428.
   Google Scholar
• Gerstenberg T, Baumeister CF, Schraml U, Plieninger T. 2020. Hot routes in urban forests: the impact of multiple landscape features on recreational use intensity. Landsc Urban Plan. 203. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN. 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ. 86:235–245. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greider T, Garkovich L. 1994. Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociol. 59(1):1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Clarke N, Dramstad W, Fjellstad W. 2015. Effects of bioenergy extraction on visual preferences in boreal forests: a review of surveys from Finland, Sweden and Norway. Scand J For Res. 31(3):323–334. doi:10.1080/02827581.2015.1099725.
   Google Scholar
• Hegetschweiler KT, de Vries S, Arnberger A, Bell S, Brennan M, Siter N, Olafsson A, Voigt A, Hunziker M. 2017a. Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: a review of European studies. Urban For Urban Greening. 21:48–59. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegetschweiler KT, Fischer C, Moretti M, Hunziker M. 2020. Integrating data from National Forest Inventories into socio-cultural forest monitoring – a new approach. Scand J For Res. doi:10.1080/02827581.2020.1799066.
   Google Scholar
• Hegetschweiler KT, Plum C, Fischer C, Brändli U-B, Ginzler C, Hunziker M. 2017b. Towards a comprehensive social and natural scientific forest-recreation monitoring instrument—A prototypical approach. Landsc Urban Plan. 167:84–97. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C. 2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Indic. 29:434–444. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog TR, Kropscott LS. 2016. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environ Behav. 36(5):659–677. doi:10.1177/0013916504264138.
   Google Scholar
• Jorgensen A, Hitchmough J, Calvert T. 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preferences. Landsc Urban Plan. 60(3):135–150. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00052-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick JB, Davison A, Daniels GD. 2013. Sinners, scapegoats or fashion victims? Understanding the deaths of trees in the green city. Geoforum. 48:165–176. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J. 2005. Urban forests and trees. A reference book. 1st ed. City of Heidelberg (Germany): Springer International. (Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrupp TB, Schipperijn J, editors).
   Google Scholar
• Koprowska K, Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J, Marcińczak S. 2018. Subjective perception of noise exposure in relation to urban green space availability. Urban For Urban Greening. 31:93–102. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson KL, Corley EA, Andrade R, Hall SJ, York AM, Meerow S, Coseo P, Childers DL, Hondula DM. 2019. Subjective evaluations of ecosystem services and disservices: an approach to creating and analyzing robust survey scales. Ecol Soc. 24(2). doi:10.5751/es-10888-240207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Hu Y, Li F, Yuan L. 2018a. Associations of multiple ecosystem services and disservices of urban park ecological infrastructure and the linkages with socioeconomic factors. J Clean Prod. 174:868–879. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J, Wang Y, Zimmer C, Kang J, Yu T. 2017. Factors associated with soundscape experiences in urban green spaces: a case study in Rostock, Germany. Urban For Urban Greening. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu J, Xiong Y, Wang Y, Luo T. 2018b. Soundscape effects on visiting experience in City Park: a case study in Fuzhou, China. Urban For Urban Greening. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livesley SJ, McPherson GM, Calfapietra C. 2016. The urban forest and ecosystem services: impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale. J Environ Qual. 45(1):119–124. doi:10.2134/jeq2015.11.0567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Tarnai J, Dillman DA. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. J Arboric. 30(1):28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Lyytimäki J. 2014. Bad nature: newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices. Urban For Urban Greening. 13(3):418–424. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyytimäki J. 2015. Ecosystem disservices: embrace the catchword. Ecosyst Serv. 12:136. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P. 2008. Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci. 5(3):161–172. doi:10.1080/15693430802055524.
   Google Scholar
• Lyytimäki J, Sipilä M. 2009. Hopping on one leg – the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For Urban Greening. 8(4):309–315. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madge C. 1997. Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie. 88(3):237–250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.1997.tb01601.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mak BKL, Jim CY. 2018. Examining fear-evoking factors in urban parks in Hong Kong. Landsc Urban Plan. 171:42–56. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mak BKL, Jim CY. 2019. Linking park users’ socio-demographic characteristics and visit-related preferences to improve urban parks. Cities. 92:97–111. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring P. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt (Austria). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
   Google Scholar
• McPherson EG, van Doorn N, de Goede J. 2016. Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA. Urban For Urban Greening. 17:104–115. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer MA, Rathmann J, Schulz C. 2019. Spatially-explicit mapping of forest benefits and analysis of motivations for everyday-life’s visitors on forest pathways in urban and rural contexts. Landsc Urban Plan. 185:83–95. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer MA, Schulz C. 2017. Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe? Ecol Soc. 22(3). doi:10.5751/es-09372-220306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Microsoft® BingTM Maps. 2018. https://www.bing.com/maps.
   Google Scholar
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell A. 1999. The ESRI guide to GIS analysis. Volume 1: geographic patterns & relationships, Vol. 1. Redlands (CA): ESRI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mullaney J, Lucke T, Trueman SJ. 2015. A review of benefits and challenges in growing street trees in paved urban environments. Landsc Urban Plan. 134:157–166. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nesbitt L, Meitner MJ, Girling C, Sheppard SRJ, Lu Y. 2019. Who has access to urban vegetation? A spatial analysis of distributional green equity in 10 US cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 181:51–79. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 For Urban Greening. 18:268–276. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OpenStreetMap contributors. 2018. Planet dump. openstreetmap.org. https://planet.osm.org.
   Google Scholar
• Ostfeld RS, Keesing F. 2017. Is biodiversity bad for your health? Ecosphere. 8(3):1–12. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palm T, Wirth K. 2020. Waldfunktionenkartierung in Baden-Württemberg [Forest function maps in Baden-Wuerttemberg]. City of Freiburg (Germany). https://www.fva-bw.de/daten-und-tools/geodaten/waldfunktionenkartierung.
   Google Scholar
• Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U. 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Adv Ecol Res. 245–283. doi:10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C. 2013. National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv. 4:12. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietilä M, Neuvonen M, Borodulin K, Korpela K, Sievänen T, Tyrväinen L. 2015. Relationships between exposure to urban green spaces, physical activity and self-rated health. J Outdoor Recreation Tourism. 10:44–54. doi:10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.006.
   Google Scholar
• Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy. 33:118–129. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocewicz A, Nielsen-Pincus M, Brown G, Schnitzer R. 2012. An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Trans GIS. 16(1):39–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01287.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potschin-Young M, Haines-Young R, Görg C, Heink U, Jax K, Schleyer C. 2017. Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst Serv. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulighe G, Fava F, Lupia F. 2016. Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosyst Serv. 22:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2020. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rall E, Bieling C, Zytynska S, Haase D. 2017. Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem service perceptions and use. Ecol Indic. 77:80–95. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107:5242–5247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S. 2017. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plann Manage. 61(5–6):778–799. doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Morales B., Roces-Díaz JV, Kelemen E, Pataki G, Díaz-Varela, E. 2020. Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Are landowners’ and visitors’ perspectives dissimilar? Ecosyst Serv. 43. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy S, Byrne J, Pickering C. 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban For Urban Greening. 11(4):351–363. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandbrook CG, Burgess ND. 2015. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: not all positive. Ecosyst Serv. 12:29. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders ME, Lemasson A. 2020. Conceptual ambiguity hinders measurement and management of ecosystem disservices. J Appl Ecol. 57:1840–1846. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaubroeck T. 2017. A need for equal consideration of ecosystem disservices and services when valuing nature; countering arguments against disservices. Ecosyst Serv. 26:95–97. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder HW, Anderson LM. 1984. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. J Leisure Res. 16(2):178–187. doi:10.1080/00222216.1984.11969584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackleton CM, Mograbi PJ. 2019. Meeting a diversity of needs through a diversity of species: urban residents’ favourite and disliked tree species across eleven towns in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Urban For Urban Greening. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sanni GS, Bennett S, De Lacy P, Modipa R, Mtati N, Sachikonye M, Thondhlana G. 2016. Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems. 19(4):587–600. doi:10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackleton S, Chinyimba A, Hebinck P, Shackleton C, Kaoma H. 2015. Multiple benefits and values of trees in urban landscapes in two towns in northern South Africa. Landsc Urban Plan. 136:76–86. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro J, Báldi A. 2014. Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst Serv. 7:201–202. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skår M. 2010. Forest dear and forest fear: dwellers’ relationships to their neighbourhood forest. Landsc Urban Plan. 98(2):110–116. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song X, Lv X, Yu D, Wu Q. 2018. Spatial-temporal change analysis of plant soundscapes and their design methods. Urban For Urban Greening. 29:96–105. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spangenberg JH, Von Haaren C, Settele J. 2014. The ecosystem service cascade: further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol Econ. 104:22–32. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stedman RC. 2003. Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Soc Nat Resour. 16(8):671–685. doi:10.1080/08941920309189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydenham MAK, Häusler LD, Moe SR, Eldegard K. 2016. Inter-assemblage facilitation: the functional diversity of cavity-producing beetles drives the size diversity of cavity-nesting bees. Ecol Evol. 6:412–425. doi:10.1002/ece3.1871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiemann A, Ring I. 2018. Challenges and opportunities of aligning forest function mapping and the ecosystem service conept in Germany. Forests. 9:691. doi:10.3390/f9110691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torralba M, Oteros-Rozas E, Moreno G, Plieninger T. 2018. Exploring the role of management in the coproduction of ecosystem services from Spanish Wooded Rangelands. Rangeland Ecol Manage. 71(5):549–559. doi:10.1016/j.rama.2017.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For Urban Greening. 1(3):135–149. doi:10.1078/1618-8667-00014.
   Google Scholar
• Ungaro F, Häfner K, Zasada I, Piorr A. 2016. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: connecting visual landscape quality to cost estimations for enhanced services provision. Land Use Policy. 54:399–412. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaz AS, Kueffer C, Kull CA, Richardson DM, Vicente JR, Kühn I, Schröter M, Hauck J, Bonn A, Honrado JP. 2017. Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosyst Serv. 23:94–107. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Völker S, Heiler A, Pollmann T, Claßen T, Hornberg C, Kistemann T. 2018. Do perceived walking distance to and use of urban blue spaces affect self-reported physical and mental health? Urban For Urban Greening. 29:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Döhren P, Haase D. 2015. Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecol Indic. 52:490–497. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinborn C, Ariel B, Sherman LW, O’ Dwyer E. 2017. Hotspots vs. harmspots: shifting the focus from counts to harm in the criminology of place. Appl Geogr. 86:226–244. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams TG, Logan TM, Zuo CT, Liberman KD, Guikema SD. 2020. Parks and safety: a comparative study of green space access and inequity in five US cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 201:103841. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103841.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winthrop RH. 2014. The strange case of cultural services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. Ecol Econ. 108:208–214. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirth K, Wurster M, Waldenspuhl T. 2015. Leitfaden zur Kartierung der Schutz- und Erholungsfunktion des Waldes [guidlines for mapping forest functions]. City of Freiburg (Germany). https://www.fva-bw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Daten_und_Tools/Geodaten/Waldfunktionenkartierung/geodaten_waldfunktionenkartierung_leitfaden_wfk_2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic. 55:159–171. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar