Perception of ecosystem services and disservices in the urban forest: a comparative systematic reviewAbstract
Traditionally, research on urban forests has focused more on ecosystem services (ES) than ecosystem disservices (EDS). This study analyzed how the simultaneous perception of ES and EDS of urban forests has been approached in countries with different human development indices (HDI). The search was conducted in four online databases. For each article included, the ES and EDS were classified into four and five categories, respectively. The first article was published in 2006, and by December 2024, 101 articles had been published in 48 countries. Most articles focused on countries with a very high HDI (~61%), while approximately 11% dealt with countries with a low/medium HDI. The category most frequently mentioned in the studies for ES was culture (~ 97%), while for EDS, it was security & health (~ 85%). The geographical inequality in the studies must be addressed to enhance the understanding of the perception of ES and EDS.
Keywords:
Green infrastructure; quality of life; mental health; urbanization, well-being; environmental justice
Resumo
Tradicionalmente, as pesquisas sobre florestas urbanas têm se concentrado mais nos serviços ecossistêmicos (SE) do que nos desserviços ecossistêmicos (DSE). Este estudo analisou como a percepção simultânea dos SE e dos DSE das florestas urbanas foi abordada em países com diferentes índices de desenvolvimento humano (IDH). Para cada artigo incluído, o SE e o DSE foram classificados em quatro e cinco categorias, respectivamente. O primeiro artigo foi publicado em 2006 e, até 2024, 101 artigos haviam sido publicados em 48 países. A maioria dos artigos tratava de países com um IDH muito alto (~ 61%), enquanto apenas ~ 11% tratavam de países com IDH baixo/médio. A categoria mais mencionada nos estudos dos SE foi a cultural, com ~ 97% dos artigos, enquanto para os DSE foi a segurança e saúde, com ~ 85%. A desigualdade geográfica dos estudos deve ser superada para melhorar a compreensão da percepção dos SE e DSE.
Palavras-chave:
Infraestrutura verde; qualidade de vida; saúde mental; urbanização; bem-estar; justiça ambiental
Resumen
Tradicionalmente, la investigación sobre los bosques urbanos se ha centrado más en los servicios ecosistémicos (SE) que en los perjuicios ecosistémicos (PE). Este estudio analizó cómo se ha abordado la percepción simultánea de los SE y los PE de los bosques urbanos en países con diferentes índices de desarrollo humano (IDH). La búsqueda fue conducida en cuatro bases de datos online. Para cada artículo incluido, los SE e PE se clasificaron en cuatro y cinco categorías, respectivamente. El primer artículo encontrado se publicó en 2006 y hasta diciembre de 2024 se habían publicado 101 artículos en 48 países. La mayoría de los artículos fue sobre países con un IDH muy alto (~ 61%), mientras que ~ 11% sobre países con un IDH bajo/medio. La categoría más mencionada en los estudios para los SE fue cultural (~ 97%) y para los PE fue seguridad y salud (~ 85%). La desigualdad geográfica de los estudios debe superarse para mejorar la comprensión de la percepción de la SE y la PE.
Palabras-clave:
Infraestructura verde; calidad de vida; salud mental; urbanización; bienestar; justicia ambiental
Introduction
The significant population growth between the middle of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century resulted in an increase in urban areas and, in turn, in a rapid decline in vegetation cover due to urbanization (Noszczyk et al., 2022). Although the growth rate varies between countries and continents, projections indicate that by 2050, there will be an increase of 2.5 billion people, demanding more physical space and urban infrastructure (De Meo et al., 2022; Stroud et al., 2022). In fact, many cities in developing countries are expanding at an unprecedented rate, making fragmentation and loss of natural and semi-natural ecosystems one of the biggest challenges for achieving sustainable development (Puplampu & Boafo, 2021). Another major challenge for cities is how to ensure long-term quality of life for urban residents (Dou et al., 2017). Addressing these and other challenges has increasingly demanded the adoption of nature-based solutions, which has driven a significant increase in research related to the urban forest and its ecosystem services (Hanna & Comín, 2021).
Ecosystem services (ES) refer to the processes by which ecosystems and species enrich human life, and are grouped into four categories: provision, regulation, support or habitat, and cultural (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services - CICES). Ecosystem disservices (EDS) refer to the functions, processes, and attributes of ecosystems that are perceived to have or actually harm human well-being, and are grouped into five categories: visual and aesthetic, ecological, economic, safety and health risk, and cultural (Shackleton et al., 2016; Shackleton & Mograbi, 2020). These ES and EDS can appear in various landscape places, including several public green and blue spaces (Lapointe et al., 2020; Pineda-Guerrero et al., 2021). They can also be seen from a different perspective, depending on the income level, gender, age, or needs of the residents (Delshammar et al., 2o15; Hegetschweiler et al., 2022; Pinto et al., 2021). In theory, ES and EDS have had a similar connection and importance, but the former has received less political and scientific attention (Davoren et al., 2021; Stroud et al., 2022). Furthermore, despite notable advances in research on EDS in urban forests over the last decade, they are still often analyzed in isolation (Drillet et al., 2020; Pistón et al., 2022).
It is necessary to evaluate the quality of the ES and EDS provided by urban forests, as this balance influences the population’s perception of their impact on quality of life (Barona et al., 2020; Piwowarczyk et al., 2013). Less socioeconomically favored areas typically have less forest cover and quality, providing less ES and more EDS (Escobedo et al., 2023). Over the last 30 years, research on urban forestry has expanded globally, but much less in Latin America, Africa, and Asia (except for China) despite the large urban metropolises in these regions (Barona et al., 2020; Macedo et al., 2021; Ordoñez et al., 2022). Perception involves how people mentally process information about their environment. Therefore, the perception of ES and EDS becomes essential for urban planners and managers to incorporate community needs more effectively into urban forest management (Barona et al., 2020; Wei et al., 2022). Given that social and economic characteristics influence the perception of ES and EDS, determining whether this trend is affected by the level of human development would be useful for more efficient forest planning.
However, a clear knowledge gap remains regarding how ES and ESD are simultaneously perceived in countries with different human development indices. This review addresses this gap by synthesizing the state of knowledge from research on perceptions of ES and EDS in urban forests around the world. In doing so, it contributes to a better understanding of how socioeconomic and developmental contexts influence the planning and management of urban forests. In this context, this review article aims to answer the question: How has the perception of ES and EDS of the urban forest been addressed more recently in countries with different levels of human development? To this end, various temporal, spatial, and geographical variables were analyzed, as well as aspects related to the methodologies and tools used to collect data.
Materials and methods
Review procedure
This study adopted the definition of urban forest as encompassing all vegetation present in the urban environment, including publicly and privately owned trees as well as other forms of vegetation of different sizes and typologies located within and around cities, such as green and blue spaces, street trees, forest remnants, green roofs, vacant lots, among other green/natural components (Mouratidis et al., 2019). The systematic review was done in four online databases - Web of Science, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, and Scielo - following the PRISMA methodology (Figure 1).
The search was limited to original articles (except for review articles) published in any language up to December 2024. Humanities, social sciences, and interdisciplinary disciplines were included with the following combination of search terms in the title, abstract, and keywords: (“ecosystem” OR “disservices”) AND (“urban forest” OR “urban forestry” OR “urban greening” OR “urban tree” OR “perception”). To account for terminological variation, studies referring to “green areas,” “urban green spaces,” or equivalent concepts were also considered, provided they addressed ES or EDS in urban contexts. The research followed four methodological steps: in the first stage, 1,792 articles were identified. The second stage included reading the title and abstract and, if necessary, the methodology and results to exclude duplicate articles or those that did not include the public’s simultaneous perception of ES and EDS in the urban forest. The ES and EDS categories did not need to be explicitly described. Therefore, to address this categorization, the data were inferred and classified based on the four categories of ES and the five of EDS (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013; Lapointe et al., 2020). Three authors revised the categorization of each study to reduce interpretive bias. Additionally, we did not exclude articles where perception was not the main objective, but which evaluated ES and EDS using some method of data collection from the target audience (the seven variables recorded for each article are shown below).
The articles selected in the third stage were checked in their entirety and were categorized based on the Human Development Index (HDI) for the year 2022 of the target countries (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2025). The HDI is a summary measure of a country’s long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: income, education, and health. These three indicators are combined to create a composite index (UNDP, 2025). In this study, the low and medium HDI categories were merged, as only one original article was identified in the HDI low category. Thus, the HDI was categorized as very high (0.800 - 1.000), high (0.700 - 0.799), and low/medium (0.350 - 0.699).
Analysis of articles and metrics evaluated
Seven variables were recorded for each article: 1) temporal and geographical characterization of the study (Africa, America - subdivided into North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean - Asia, Europe, and Oceania), 2) HDI category; 3) target audience of the interviews divided into three groups: general public (citizens, visitors, users, residents, households, or homeowners); public or private stakeholders (gardeners, urban forest professionals, administrative staff, or local authorities), and the both; 4) data collection method: remote (online, e-mail, or telephone); face-to-face, and both; 5) social and economic characterization of the general public group; 6) urban forest typology classified into four categories: brownfield, urban or forest park; sidewalk or street tree; residential yard, private or community garden; and natural or artificial waterbodies; 7) the four categories of ES and the five categories of EDS.
Statistical analysis
The biomes, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), were identified using ArcGIS online Global Biomes software (ArcGIS online, 2025). When an article included urban areas in different countries, each country was counted separately as a study. To facilitate classification, a bi-code system was used: zero (0) and one (1) to indicate the absence or presence of a given attribute, respectively. Alluvial diagrams were used to connect the category and number of EDS and ES with the country’s HDI categories. The information was analyzed using descriptive statistics and graphical representation with the alluvial diagram and ggplot2 open-source packages of the R language environment, R.4.2.2 version (R Core Development Team, 2025). We used the alluvial diagram to show the relationship between ES/EDS categories, countries’ HDI, and the number of ES/EDS evaluated, facilitating the identification of patterns and knowledge gaps between socioeconomic contexts.
Results and discussion
Temporal, spatial, and ecological distribution
The systematic literature review found 101 articles published in 44 journals (Table S1, Supplementary Material). The first study was published in 2006 and evaluated the perception of green spaces of residents of the city of Bari, Italy (Sanesi & Chiarello, 2006). In fact, it coincides with the definition of SE adopted in 2005 by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment book (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Very few articles were published in the period between 2006 and 2012, an average of 0.7 articles year-1. In the last three years (2021 - 2023), the annual average of 12.2 articles year-1 was 3.7 times higher than in the period between 2006 and 2018, representing half of the publications found (Figure 2).
Annual and cumulative number of articles published on the simultaneous perception of ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (EDS) in urban forests
The increase in scientific publications on the ES and EDS of the urban forest,as evidenced in this review, followed the general trend of other systematic reviews related to the urban forest (Barona et al., 2020; Macedo et al., 2021; Stroud et al., 2022). Interest in understanding urban forests and their potential to solve environmental, ecological, housing, and social issues has grown since 2010 (Barona et al., 2020). The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio+20, held in 2012, as well as the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), served as additional stimuli for research in this area (Shackleton et al., 2020). The increase in research over the last three years may have been driven by a reassessment of the importance of urban forests in providing spaces for relaxation, recreation, and rest, due in large part to the restrictions on access to urban green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic that emerged in December 2019. Specifically, three articles from Poland, Italy, and the United States reported a significant increase in visitation just after the restrictions were lifted (De Meo et al., 2022; Dou et al., 2017; Mustafa et al., 2023). The importance of urban forests for the physical and mental health of residents has been highlighted as an outlet to reduce stress levels, particularly in this period of global crisis. However, the studies also showed that a second group of respondents was wary of visiting green spaces for fear of becoming infected, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.
The geographical distribution showed a predominance of articles published in Europe (~ 35%) and Asia (~ 22%), with considerably smaller proportions in North America (~ 14%), Latin America and the Caribbean (~ 13%), Africa (~ 11%), and Oceania (~ 6%) (Figure 3). Also, in an urban forest review conducted across 513 locations in 89 countries, the largest number of studies was conducted in Europe (39%), Asia (23%), and North America (22%) (Stroud et al., 2022).
Global distribution of peer-reviewed articles focusing on the simultaneous perception of ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) in urban forests
Analysis of the data revealed a highly uneven distribution of scientific research on ES and EDS in relation to the country’s HDI. Countries with a very high HDI accounted for ~ 61% (32 countries) of the articles, followed by high HDI (~ 28%; eight countries) and low/medium HDI (~ 11%; nine countries). China was responsible for ~ 40% of the articles in the high HDI countries. The low prioritization of research, especially in less-developed countries, is worrying, as it indicates a gap in knowledge about how populations in countries with lower levels of development face and are affected by EDS (Allegretto et al., 2022; Dobbs et al., 2019).
The results indicated a low representation of research in regions with high tropical biodiversity, such as South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Few studies were located in the world’s biodiversity hotspots (Hanna & Comín, 2021). The most studied was the temperate broadleaf and mixed forests biome, with ~ 48% of the articles, of which ~ 62% were from countries with a high HDI. The second most studied biome was tropical moist forest, with ~ 22% of the articles, of which 50% were from high HDI countries (Figure S1, Supplementary Material). The most threatened and least resilient biomes, such as tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests, deserts, xeric shrublands, and montane grasslands and shrublands, accounted for ~13% of the articles (Kefale et al., 2023; Plieninger et al., 2022). Recent studies on biodiversity and global ecology indicate that protected areas in rich and temperate regions are often overestimated, similar to the trends observed in urban forests (Lautenbach et al., 2019; Stroud et al., 2022).
Categories of Ecosystem Services and Disservices
The distribution of the four categories of ES was similar among countries with different HDIs. The cultural category was the main one, with an average of ~ 37% of articles, while the support category was the least important (Figure 4a). The number of ES categories reported per article was mostly three (~ 35% of articles) or four (~ 43% of articles), especially for countries with very high HDI. Contrastingly, countries with low/medium HDI reported mainly one or two categories per article (Figure 4a). Regarding ecosystem disservices, the distribution of the five categories indicated that economics was emphasized in countries with high and low HDI/medium (average = ~ 28% of articles). The aesthetic category had the highest proportion in countries with a very high HDI, with ~ 22% of articles (Figure 4b). Overall, security & health were the most and least mentioned categories. EDS that impact everyday life (more physical effects) are more recognized than those that are aesthetic (subjective) or linked to cultural ones (Baumeister et al., 2022; Ngulani & Shackleton, 2019; Palliwoda & Priess, 2021), as demonstrated in this review.
Match between the perception of a) ecosystem services categories - ES (right) and number of ecosystem services (left) - and b) ecosystem disservices categories - EDS (right) and number of ecosystem disservices (left) in urban forest. In both figures (a, b), the width of the lines indicates how many times it was applied to the country’s Human Development Index (HDI) categories
Types of urban forest
Most articles (~ 90%) evaluated exclusively terrestrial urban forest habitats (Figure 5a). Of the 10 articles that included in their analysis aquatic habitats such as lakes, mangroves, wetlands, marine ecosystems, rivers, and other natural or artificial bodies of water in the area of urban influence, half were carried out in countries with very high HDI (Delshammar et al., 2015; Pinto et al., 2021; Toledo-Gallegos et al., 2022). The patterns of landscape preferences in the urban forest by users are variable and can be difficult to predict. In urban parks, well-developed vegetation, especially planted trees, is generally more appreciated. However, when residents recognize their ES, this appreciation can quickly shift to favor wild vegetation (De Val, 2023). Ideally, urban planners would include different types of urban forests to satisfy the demands of various population groups.
Distribution of a) types of urban forests from published articles on the simultaneous perception of ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) according to the country’s Human Development Index (HDI) category, b) collection method and b) interviewed on the simultaneous perception of ES and ESD in articles published on urban forests according to HDI category. group 1: general public (citizens, visitors, users, residents, households, and homeowners). group 2: stakeholders (gardeners, urban forest professionals, administrative staff, and local authorities)
Although developing “blue infrastructure” is a more recent concept in urban forests (Palliwoda & Priess, 2021; Pinto et al., 2021), the present review evidenced the absence of studies on urban aquatic habitats or ecosystems. A review between 2015 and 2019 for developing countries found that none of the 283 articles on urban forestry mentioned the term “blue infrastructure” exclusively in the abstract (Macedo et al., 2021). At the beginning of the 21st century, around 65% of the urban population lived in coastal areas, which is why they are strongly affected by the development of cities (Piwowarczyk et al., 2013). Waterbodies are of vital importance to society for their countless ES (food provision, biotechnological and pharmaceutical use, prevention of floods and storms, tourism and recreation on beaches, or cultural inspiration for literature and cinema, but also for EDS (dangers from tsunamis and hurricanes or algae invasion, infectious diseases).
Thus, the lack of knowledge about urban water bodies makes implementing protective and restorative measures difficult, especially in less developed countries [35]. Among terrestrial habitats, regardless of the country’s HDI, articles about brownfield, urban, or forest parks (~ 75%) were the most common, followed by the other two categories with similar values. Countries with low/medium HDI concentrate more studies on residential yards, private and community gardens (~ 73%). Research on urban forest typology shows uniformity across different countries.
Methods and tools employed
Almost all the articles analyzed collected data by means of questionnaires or interviews. Three articles (two with very high HDI countries and one with a high HDI country) used alternative methods: 1) strategic town hall documents from the 10 largest Polish coastal towns and cities to assess how marine ES and EDS are perceived in planning practice and long-term management (Piwowarczyk et al., 2013); 2) reports published in two newspapers to examine the communication of EDS and ES by residents of the city of Winnipeg, Canada (Martin & Doucet, 2022); and 3) association between plant diversity and emotions perceived by visitors in 49 urban parks in 13 cities in China through facial photos obtained from microblogs (Wei et al., 2022). Data collection was mainly in-person in low/medium HDI countries with ~ 91% of articles, and the remainder combined with remote tools (Figure 5b).
As the country’s HDI increased, remote or combined data collection, although less common than in-person, became more frequent, using tools such as emails, telephone calls, online platforms, and applications (Figure 5b). Some authors of research in less developed countries, such asthe Solomon Islands and Ethiopia, reported difficulties in employing remote methods and technologies due to a lack of connectivity, travel to study locations, low educational level of the population, or distrust in interviewers (Delshammar et al., 2015; Kefale et al., 2023). Remote data collection brings advantages such as the ease of collecting large samples in a short time and anonymously, which increases the accuracy of the analysis of the information collected. Articles with the largest sample sizes were conducted across countries or even within the same country and used remote tools. Future studies in less developed countries should include new data collection technologies, and interviewers must be adequately trained.
Regardless of the country’s HDI, many respondents were from group 1, with ~ 89% of the articles, including citizens, visitors, users, residents, households, and homeowners. In countries with very high and high HDI, ~ 11% of the articles were from group 2, composed of stakeholders (gardeners, urban forest professionals, administrative staff, and local authorities) (Figure 5c). The target audience for collecting information is extremely relevant, since public urban planning policies, including those related to urban forests, must consider the perception of ES and EDS by both technical professionals and beneficiaries. Ideally, the needs and preferences of both groups should be the same, from planning to the day-to-day management and handling of these infrastructures, but this is not always observed (Roy et al., 2017).
Extensive research carried out in five European countries showed that professionals in public urban green spaces generally underestimated the fears experienced by night users, especially women (Ugolini et al., 2022). Aspects such as nature and tranquility were identified as factors that improved users’ sense of well-being, but they were largely neglected in almost all countries by responsible professionals (Ugolini et al., 2022). Another survey carried out in the city of Accra, Ghana, grouped decision-makers into four categories: government agencies, academics and researchers, civil society, and landscape architects. The results showed that an overwhelming majority of stakeholders understand and are aware of the beneficial values of green spaces, but highlighted poor planning (Hanna & Comín, 2021). In general, the articles indicated that decision-makers were more concerned about the economic aspects of EDS compared to the ecological or aesthetic aspects.
Most articles in each HDI category (average = ~95%) considered the social and economic characterization of general public respondents (Supplementary material, Figure S2). Studies reinforced thatsocioeconomic factors - age, gender, ethnicity, social and economic position, level of education, and familiarity with urban vegetation - have a great impact on the perception of interviews (Pistón et al., 2022; Roy et al., 2017; Ugolini et al., 2022). In other words, it is almost mandatory that the studies include socioeconomic characterization because it will help to better understand the results obtained. The distribution of urban forest quality is quite uneven, as demonstrated in a recent review (Dobbs et al., 2019). This research precisely concluded that, although the literature was geographically diverse, it could focus in the future on countries in Africa, South America, and Asia that have diverse needs and uses for urban forests.
Conclusions
There is a growing interest in research on the simultaneous perception of ES and EDS in the urban forest, probably as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020, which revalued its importance. However, the scarce participation in studies of aquatic habitats makes their conservation or restoration difficult. The numerical superiority of studies developed in countries with very high HDI and located in the temperate regions of North America (USA), Western Europe, and Asia (China) is evident. Large urban areas of tropical biodiversity remain poorly represented in research. A greater frequency of studies was found to include the cultural in the ED category and security & health in the EDS category. However, we recognize that large socio-economic inequalities between countries and between cities, especially in the Global South, can make analysis difficult. We suggest that future urban forest studies should select cities with similar HDI from different countries or even neighborhoods for greater accuracy. For example, perception surveys could adapt questionnaires to local cultural contexts. Similarly, comparative studies could apply standardized indicators of cultural services (e.g., recreation, aesthetics) and dis-services (e.g., safety issues, allergenic species) in neighborhoods with different socioeconomic profiles, facilitating comparisons between cities and countries.
Acknowledgments
Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Capes), attached to Ministério da Educação of Brazil, for providing doctoral scholarships in the Postgraduate Program in Forestry Science at the Federal University of Viçosa. Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (Agrosavia) attached Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural de Colombia of Colombia for financial support.
References
-
Allegretto, G., Kendal, D., & Flies, E. J. (2022). A systematic review of the relationship between urban forest quality and socioeconomic status or race. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127664
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127664 -
ArcGIS Online. (2025). Global biomes https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=144b1d74a5964d728b25aeb0542de485
» https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=144b1d74a5964d728b25aeb0542de485 -
Barona, C., Devisscher, T., Dobbs, C., Aguilar, L., Baptista, M., Navarro, N., De la Barrera, F., & Escobedo, F. J. (2020). Trends in urban forestry research in Latin America and the Caribbean: A systematic literature review and synthesis. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 47, 126544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126544
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126544 -
Baumeister, C. F., Gerstenberg, T., Plieninger, T., & Schraml, U. (2022). Geography of disservices in urban forests: Public participation mapping for closing the loop. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 44-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.2021289
» https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.2021289 - Davoren, E., & Shackleton, C. M. (2021). Urban ecology in the Global South. En P. Newman, C. Desha, & A. Sanches-Pereira (Eds.), Cities and nature (pp. 265-292). Springer.
-
Delshammar, T., Östberg, J., & Öxell, C. (2015). Urban trees and ecosystem disservices: A pilot study using complaints records from three Swedish cities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 41(4), 187-193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.018
» https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.018 -
De Meo, I., Becagli, C., Cantiani, M. G., Casagli, A., & Paletto, A. (2022). Citizens’ use of public urban green spaces at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 77, 127624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127739
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127739 -
De Val, G. (2023). The effect of spontaneous wild vegetation on landscape preferences in urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 81, 127807. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127863
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.127863 -
Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F. J., Clerici, N., Barrera, F., Eleuterio, A. A., MacGregor-Fors, I., Reyes-Paecke, S., & Hernández, H. J. (2019). Urban ecosystem services in Latin America: Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities. Urban Ecosystems, 22(1), 173-187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0805-3
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0805-3 -
Dou, Y., Zhen, L., De Groot, R., Duan, B., & Yu, Y. (2017). Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality. Ecosystem Services, 24, 79-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011 -
Drillet, Z., Fung, T., Leong, R., Sachidhanandam, U., Edwards, P., & Edwards, D. (2020). Urban vegetation types are not perceived equally in providing ecosystem services and disservices. Sustainability, 12(5), 2076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052076
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052076 -
Escobedo, F. J., Dobbs, C., Tovar, Y., & Cariñanos, P. (2023). Neotropical urban forest allergenicity and ecosystem disservices can affect vulnerable neighborhoods in Bogotá, Colombia. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104343
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104343 -
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 -
Hanna, E., & Comín, F. A. (2021). Urban green infrastructure and sustainable development: A review. Sustainability, 13(20), 11398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011498
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011498 -
Hegetschweiler, K. T., Wartmann, F. M., Dubernet, I., Fischer, C., & Hunziker, M. (2022). Urban forest usage and perception of ecosystem services: A comparison between teenagers and adults. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127624
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127624 -
Kefale, A., Fetene, A., & Desta, H. (2023). Users’ preferences and perceptions towards urban green spaces in rapidly urbanized cities: The case of Debre Berhan and Debre Markos, Ethiopia. Heliyon, 9(4), e14831. DOI. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15262
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15262 -
Lapointe, M., Gurney, G. G., & Cumming, G. S. (2020). Urbanization alters ecosystem service preferences in a Small Island Developing State. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101109
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101109 -
Lautenbach, S., Mupepele, A. C., Dormann, C. F., Lee, H., Schmidt, S., Scholte, S. S. K., & Seppelt, R. (2019). Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 2151-2172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9 -
Macedo, L. M., Picavet, M. E., Oliveira, J. A., & Shi, W. (2021). Urban green and blue infrastructure: A critical analysis of research on developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 313, 127898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127898
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127898 -
Martin, A. J., & Doucet, T. (2022). Communication of ecosystem services and disservices in local newspapers in Winnipeg, Canada. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, 127653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127653
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127653 - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis Island Press.
-
Mouratidis, K. (2019). The impact of urban tree cover on perceived safety. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, 126434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126434
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126434 -
Mustafa, A., Kennedy, C., Lopez, B., & McPhearson, T. (2023). Perceived and geographic access to urban green spaces in New York City during COVID-19. Cities, 143, 104572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104572
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104572 -
Ngulani, T., & Shackleton, C. M. (2019). Use of public urban green spaces for spiritual services in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 97-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.009
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.009 -
Noszczyk, T., Gorzelany, J., Kukulska-Kozieł, A., & Hernik, J. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the importance of urban green spaces to the public. Land Use Policy, 113, 105925. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105925
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105925 -
Ordoñez, C., Wolf, K. L., Kowalski, J. M., Kendal, D., Byrne, J. A., & Conway, T. M. (2022). Diversity in public perceptions of urban forests and urban trees: A critical review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 226, 104482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104466
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104466 -
Palliwoda, J., & Priess, J. A. (2021). What do people value in urban green? Linking characteristics of urban green spaces to users’ perceptions of nature benefits, disturbances, and disservices. Ecology and Society, 26(1), 28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12204-260128
» https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12204-260128 -
Pineda-Guerrero, A., Escobedo, F. J., & Carriazo, F. (2021). Governance, nature’s contributions to people, and investing in conservation influence the valuation of urban green areas. Land, 10(1), 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010014
» https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010014 -
Pinto, L. V., Ferreira, C. S. S., & Pereira, P. (2021). Environmental and socioeconomic factors influencing the use of urban green spaces in Coimbra (Portugal). Science of the Total Environment, 792, 148293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148293
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148293 -
Pistón, N., Silva Filho, D. F., & Dias, A. (2022). Social inequality deeply affects people’s perception of ecosystem services and disservices provided by street trees. Ecosystem Services, 58, 101480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101480
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101480 -
Piwowarczyk, J., Kronenberg, J., & Dereniowska, M. (2013). Marine ecosystem services in urban areas: Do the strategic documents of Polish coastal municipalities reflect their importance?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 85-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.009
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.009 -
Plieninger, T., Thapa, P., Bhaskar, D., Nagendra, H., Torralba, M., & Zoderer, B. M. (2022). Disentangling ecosystem services perceptions from blue infrastructure around a rapidly expanding megacity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 222, 104399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104399
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104399 -
Puplampu, A., & Boafo, Y. (2021). Exploring the impacts of urban expansion on green spaces availability and delivery of ecosystem services in the Accra metropolis. Environmental Challenges, 5, 100256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100283
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100283 -
R Core Team. (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing https://www.r-project.org
» https://www.r-project.org -
Roy, S., Davison, A., & Östberg, J. (2017). Pragmatic factors outweigh ecosystem service goals in street tree selection and planting in Southeast Queensland cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 21, 166-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.003
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.003 -
Sanesi, G., & Chiarello, F. (2006). Residents and urban green spaces: The case of Bari. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3-4), 125-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.12.001
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2005.12.001 -
Shackleton, C. M., Ruwanza, S., Sanni, G. K., Bennett, S., De Lacy, P., Modipa, R., Mtati, N., & Thondhlana, G. (2016). Unpacking Pandora’s box: Understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems, 19, 587-600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z -
Shackleton, & M., Mograbi, P. J. (2020). 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 Forestry & Urban Greening, 48(126507), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126507
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126507 -
Stroud, S., Peacock, J., & Shackleton, M., & Mograbi, P. J. (2020). 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 Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126507
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126507 -
Toledo-Gallegos, V. M., My, N. H. T., Tuan, T. H., & Börger, T. (2022). Valuing ecosystem services and disservices of blue/green infrastructure: Evidence from a choice experiment in Vietnam. Economic Analysis and Policy, 75, 114-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.04.015
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.04.015 -
United Nations Development Programme. (2022). Human development report 2021-2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2021-22
» https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2021-22 -
Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Calaza-Martínez, P., Cariñanos, P., Dobbs, C., Ostoić, S. K., Marin, A. M., Pearlmutter, D., Saaroni, H., Šaulienė, I., Vuletić, D., & Sanesi, G. (2022). Understanding the benefits of public urban green space: How do perceptions vary between professionals and users?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 228, 104575. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104575
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104575 -
Wei, H., Zhang, J., Xu, Z., Hui, T., Guo, P., & Su, X. (2022). The association between plant diversity and perceived emotions for visitors in urban forests: A pilot study across 49 parks in China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 73, 127613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127613.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127613.
The complete dataset supporting the findings of this study has been published within the article itself.
Source: the author, 2025.
Source: the author, 2025.
Source: the author, 2025.
Source: the author, 2025.
Source: the author, 2025.