Translating policy to place: exploring cultural ecosystem services in areas of Green Belt through participatory mapping

References

• Abercrombie P. 1944. Greater London Plan 1944. London: H.M. Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Amati M. 2008. Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-first Century. Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington (VT): Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Amati M, Taylor L. 2010. From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure. Plann Pract Res. 25(2):143–19. doi: 10.1080/02697451003740122.
   Google Scholar
• Aziz T, Van Cappellen P. 2019. Comparative valuation of potential and realized ecosystem services in Southern Ontario, Canada. Environ Sci Policy. 100:105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.06.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin C, Smith T, Jacobson C. 2017. Love of the land: social-ecological connectivity of rural landholders. J Rural Stud. 51:37–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.012.
   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 Green. 48:126561. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckmann-Wübbelt A, Fricke A, Sebesvari Z, Yakouchen-kova 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. Sustain Cities Soc. 74:103240. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beery T, Stahl Olafsson A, Gentin S, Maurer M, Stålhammar S, Albert C, Bieling C, Buijs A, Fagerholm N, Garcia-Martin M, et al. 2023. Disconnection from nature: expanding our understanding of human–nature relations. People Nat. 5(2):470–488. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10451.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop P, Perez AM, Roggema R, Williams L. 2020. Repurposing the Green Belt in the 21st Century. UCL Press. doi: 10.14324/111.9781787358843.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley Q. 2019a. Combined authorities and material participation: the capacity of Green Belt to engage political publics in England. Local Econ. 34(2):181–195. doi: 10.1177/0269094219839038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley Q. 2019b. Public support for Green Belt: common rights in countryside access and recreation. J Environ Pol Plan. 21(6):692–701. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1670049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broch SW, Vedel SE. 2012. Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in Farmer agri-environmental contract preferences. Environ Resour Econ. 51(4):561–581. doi: 10.1007/s10640-011-9512-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G. 2013. The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. 5:58–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.004.
   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, Hausner VH. 2017. An empirical analysis of cultural ecosystem values in coastal landscapes. Ocean Coast Manag. 142:49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.019.
   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 Geogr Inf Sci. 26(2):231–246. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2011.585139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campaign to Protect Rural England, & Natural England. 2010. Green belts: a greener future. London: CPRE ; Natural England.
   Google Scholar
• Casado-Arzuaga I, Onaindia M, Madariaga I, Verburg PH. 2014. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning. Landsc Ecol. 29(8):1393–1405. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9945-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caspersen OH, Konijnendijk CC, Olafsson AS. 2006. Green space planning and land use: an assessment of urban regional and green structure planning in Greater Copenhagen. Geogr Tidsskr. 106(2):7–20. doi: 10.1080/00167223.2006.10649553.
   Google Scholar
• Caspersen OH, Olafsson AS. 2010. Recreational mapping and planning for enlargement of the green structure in greater Copenhagen. Urban For Urban Green. 9(2):101–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen X, de Vries S, Assmuth T, Dick J, Hermans T, Hertel O, Jensen A, Jones L, Kabisch S, Lanki T, et al. 2019. Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban environments. Sci Total Environ. 651:2118–2129. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortinovis C, Geneletti D. 2018. Ecosystem services in urban plans: what is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy. 70:298–312. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curry N. 1994. Countryside recreation, access and land use planning. Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.4324/9780203992807.
   Google Scholar
• Curry N, Pack C. 1993. Planning on presumption: strategic planning for countryside recreation in England and Wales. Land Use Policy. 10(2):140–150. doi: 10.1016/0264-8377(93)90005-U.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cusens J, Barraclough AMD, Måren IE. 2022. Participatory mapping reveals biocultural and nature values in the shared landscape of a Nordic UNESCO biosphere reserve. People Nat. 4(2):365–381. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10287.
   Google Scholar
• Czepkiewicz M, Jankowski P, Młodkowski M. 2017. Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: Recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci. 44(6):551–567. doi: 10.1080/15230406.2016.1230520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defra, D. for E., Food and Rural Affairs. 2023a. Environmental improvement Plan 2023 first revision of the 25 year Environment Plan. HM Goverment.
   Google Scholar
• Defra, D. for E., Food and Rural Affairs. 2023b. Get funding for farming in protected landscapes. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/funding-for-farmers-in-protected-landscapes.
   Google Scholar
• Eigenbrod F, Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Heinemeyer A, Jackson SF, Parnell M, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2009. Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region. Proc R Soc B. 276(1669):2903–2911. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escobedo FJ, Bottin M, Clerici N, Camargo SG, Feged-Rivadeneira A. 2022. Evaluating the role of spatial landscape literacy in public participation processes and opinions on environmental issues and ecosystem services. Environ Manage. 69(2):244–257. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01591-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, García-Martín M, Torralba M, Bieling C, Plieninger T. 2022. Public participation geographical information systems (PPGIS): participatory research methods for sustainability ‐ toolkit #1. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc. 31(1):46–48. doi: 10.14512/gaia.31.1.10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M. 2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic. 18:421–433. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Martín‐López B, Torralba M, Oteros‐Rozas E, Lechner AM, Bieling C, Olafsson AS, Albert C, Raymond CM, Garcia‐Martin M, et al. 2020. Perceived contributions of multifunctional landscapes to human well-being: evidence from 13 European sites. People Nat. 2(1):217–234. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10067.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Raymond CM, Olafsson AS, Brown G, Rinne T, Hasanzadeh K, Broberg A, Kyttä M. 2021. A methodological framework for analysis of participatory mapping data in research, planning, and management. Int J Geogr Inf Sci. 35(9):1848–1875. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2020.1869747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Moreno G, Girardello M, Herzog F, Aviron S, Burgess P, Crous-Duran J, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Graves A, et al. 2019. Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes. Glob Environ Chan. 56:134–147. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson MJ, Munton RJC. 1979. Informal Recreation Sites in London’s Green Belt. Area. 11(3):196–205.
   Google Scholar
• Filyushkina A, Komossa F, Metzger MJ, Verburg PH. 2022. Multifunctionality of a peri-urban landscape: exploring the diversity of residents’ perceptions and preferences. Ecosyst People. 18(1):583–597. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2131911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallent N, Shoard M, Andersson J, Oades R, Tudor C. 2004. Inspiring England’s urban fringes: multi-functionality and planning. Local Environ. 9(3):217–233. doi: 10.1080/1354983042000219342.
   Google Scholar
• Gant R, Robinson G, Fazal S. 2011. Land-use change in the ‘edgelands’: policies and pressures in London’s rural–urban fringe. Land Use Policy. 28(1):266–279. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Díez V, García-Llorente M, González JA. 2020. Participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services in Madrid: insights for landscape planning. Land. 9(8):Article 8. doi: 10.3390/land9080244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Martin M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Gounaridis D, Kizos T, Printsmann A, Müller M, Lieskovský J, Plieninger T. 2017. Participatory mapping of landscape values in a pan-European perspective. Landsc Ecol. 32(11):2133–2150. doi: 10.1007/s10980-017-0531-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottwald S, Albert C, Fagerholm N. 2022. Combining sense of place theory with the ecosystem services concept: empirical insights and reflections from a participatory mapping study. Landsc Ecol. 37(2):633–655. doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01362-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greater Manchester Walking. 2022. GM ringway—route overview. https://gmwalking.co.uk/walking-routes/gm-ringway-route-overview/.
   Google Scholar
• Greenbelt Foundation. 2020. Learn how the Greenbelt Foundation enhances the natural systems across Ontario’s Greenbelt. Greenbelt Foundation. https://www.greenbelt.ca/natural_systems.
   Google Scholar
• Greenbelt Foundation. (2021). The Greenbelt value of nature survey for recreation in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Working paper series greenbelt foundation). Greenbelt Foundation. https://www.greenbelt.ca/value_of_nature
   Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young M. 2018. Revision of the Common international Classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5.1): a policy brief. One Ecosyst. 3:e27108. doi: 10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison C. 1981. A playground for whom? Informal recreation in London’s Green Belt. Area. 13(2):109–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison C. 1983. Countryside recreation and London’s urban fringe. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 8(3):295–313. doi: 10.2307/622046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. 2014. Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health. 35(1):207–228. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasanzadeh K. 2022. Use of participatory mapping approaches for activity space studies: a brief overview of pros and cons. GeoJournal. 87(4):723–738. doi: 10.1007/s10708-021-10489-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedblom M, Andersson E, Borgström S. 2017. Flexible land-use and undefined governance: from threats to potentials in peri-urban landscape planning. Land Use Policy. 63:523–527. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House of Lords, L. U. in E. C. (2022). Making the most out of England’s land (HL Paper 105; Report of Session 2022–23). Land Use in England Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Kahila-Tani M, Broberg A, Kyttä M, Tyger T. 2016. Let the Citizens map—public participation GIS as a planning support System in the Helsinki master Plan process. Plann Pract Res. 31(2):195–214. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1104203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahila-Tani M, Kytta M, Geertman S. 2019. Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landsc Urban Plan. 186:45–55. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby MG, Scott AJ. 2023. Multifunctional Green Belts: a planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England. Land Use Policy. 132:106799. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby MG, Scott AJ, Luger J, Walsh CL. 2023. Beyond growth management: a review of the wider functions and effects of urban growth management policies. Landsc Urban Plan. 230:104635. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104635.
   Google Scholar
• Kirsop-Taylor N. 2022. Leaping forwards, bouncing forwards, or just bouncing back: resilience in environmental public Agencies through after the austerity decade. Environ Manage. 70(5):697–709. doi: 10.1007/s00267-022-01701-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long Y, Han H, Tu Y, Shu X. 2015. Evaluating the effectiveness of urban growth boundaries using human mobility and activity records. Cities. 46:76–84. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macdonald S, Monstadt J, Friendly A. 2021. Rethinking the governance and planning of a new generation of greenbelts. Reg Stud. 55(5):804–817. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2020.1747608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mace A. 2018. The Metropolitan Green Belt, changing an institution. Prog Plann. 121:1–28. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2017.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maund PR, Irvine KN, Dallimer M, Fish R, Austen GE, Davies ZG. 2020. Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values? Ecosyst Serv. 46:101221. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mell I. 2021. ‘But who’s going to pay for it?’ contemporary approaches to green infrastructure financing, development and governance in London, UK. J Environ Pol Plan. 1–18. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2021.1931064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mell I, Whitten M. 2021. Access to nature in a post covid-19 world: opportunities for Green infrastructure financing, distribution and equitability in urban planning. Int J Env Res Pub He. 18(4):Article 4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MHCLG. 2021. National planning policy framework. London: Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (Ed.). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Munton RJC, Taylor MJ (1981). Management expenditure on informal recreation sites in the London green belt. Management Expenditure on Informal Recreation Sites in the London Green Belt., No.5. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19801869494.
   Google Scholar
• Newcastle City Council. (2023). North East community forest. https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/northeastcommunityforest.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson K, Pauleit S, Bell S, Aalbers C, Sick Nielsen TA, editor. 2013. Peri-urban futures: scenarios and models for land use change in Europe. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30529-0.
   Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics. 2022. The rise of the UK warehouse and the “golden logistics triangle. Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/activitysizeandlocation/articles/theriseoftheukwarehouseandthegoldenlogisticstriangle/2022-04-11.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2001. Strategic gap and green wedge policies in structure plans: main report. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
   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
• Plieninger T, Torralba M, Hartel T, Fagerholm N. 2019. Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 34(7):1565–1581. doi: 10.1007/s10980-019-00775-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pourtaherian P, Jaeger JAG. 2022. How effective are greenbelts at mitigating urban sprawl? A comparative study of 60 European cities. Landsc Urban Plan. 227:104532. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rotherham ID. 2015. The rise and Fall of countryside management: a historical account. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203754214.
   Google Scholar
• Rust NA, Rehackova L, Naab F, Abrams A, Hughes C, Merkle BG, Clark B, Tindale S. 2021. What does the UK public want farmland to look like? Land Use Policy. 106:105445. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott A, Carter C, Reed MR, Larkham P, Adams D, Morton N, Waters R, Collier D, Crean C, Curzon R, et al. 2013. Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Prog Plann. 83:1–52. doi: 10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott A, Christie M, Tench H. 2003. Visitor payback: panacea or pandora’s box for conservation in the UK? J Environ Plan Manag. 46(4):583–604. doi: 10.1080/0964056032000133170.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw BJ, van Vliet J, Verburg PH. 2020. The peri-urbanization of Europe: a systematic review of a multifaceted process. Landsc Urban Plan. 196:103733. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverman BW. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Spyra M, Kleemann J, Calò NC, Schürmann A, Fürst C. 2021. Protection of peri-urban open spaces at the level of regional policy-making: examples from six European regions. Land Use Policy. 107:105480. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan R, Liu P, Zhou K, He Q. 2022. Evaluating the effectiveness of development-limiting boundary control policy: spatial difference-in-difference analysis. Land Use Policy. 120:106229. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thrift J. 2022. Solutions hiding in plain sight—the potential of England’s green belts. Town Country Planning. 164–173.
   Google Scholar
• Vejre H, Jensen FS, Thorsen BJ. 2010. Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecol Complex. 7(3):338–348. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venter ZS, Barton DN, Gundersen V, Figari H, Nowell M. 2020. Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ Res Lett. 15(10):104075. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abb396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh CL, Glendinning S, Dawson RJ, O’Brien P, Heidrich O, Rogers CDF, Bryson JR, Purnell P. 2022. A systems framework for infrastructure business models for resilient and sustainable urban areas. Front Sustain Cities. 4. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.825801.
   Google Scholar
• Weitowitz DC, Panter C, Hoskin R, Liley D. 2019. The effect of urban development on visitor numbers to nearby protected nature conservation sites. J Urban Ecol. 5(1):juz019. doi: 10.1093/jue/juz019.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao W, Wang Y, Chen D, Wang L, Tang X. 2021. Exploring the influencing factors of the recreational Utilization and evaluation of urban ecological Protection Green Belts for urban renewal: a case study in Shanghai. Int J Env Res Pub He. 18(19):Article 19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph181910244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Žlender V, Ward Thompson C. 2017. Accessibility and use of peri-urban green space for inner-city dwellers: a comparative study. Landsc Urban Plan. 165:193–205. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zolyomi A, Franklin A, Smith B, Soliev I. 2023. Ecosystem services as the silver bullet? A systematic review of how ecosystem services assessments impact biodiversity prioritisation in policy. Earth Sys Govern. 16:100178. doi: 10.1016/j.esg.2023.100178.
   Google Scholar
• Zu Ermgassen SOSE, Marsh S, Ryland K, Church E, Marsh R, Bull JW. 2021. Exploring the ecological outcomes of mandatory biodiversity net gain using evidence from early-adopter jurisdictions in England. Conserv Lett. 14(6):e12820. doi: 10.1111/conl.12820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar