4.7 Article

Public perception and preferences of small urban green infrastructures: A case study in Guangzhou, China

期刊

URBAN FORESTRY & URBAN GREENING
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126700

关键词

Contingent valuation method; Nonmarket value; Questionnaire; Travel cost; Willingness to pay

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFC0502803]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41701598, 41703071]
  3. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2019A1515011580, 2017A030310532]
  4. Research Funds for the Central Universities [19lgpy163, 17lgpy92]
  5. 111 Project [B18060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the growing demand for small urban green infrastructures (UGIs), knowing the public perception of small UGIs is important for future urban planning and decision-making. This study focusing on three small UGIs (a green roof, green wall, and small green lane in Guangzhou) explored residents' willingness to pay (WTP) for the maintenance of small UGIs and estimated their nonmarket value via travel cost method (TCM). Among 409 respondents from different neighborhoods, 80% were willing to pay for using and maintaining these UGIs. The aggregated annual WTP for investigated UGIs was approximately RMB 72.3 million per household, and the annual nonmarket value that the UGIs provided to human well-being was about RMB 74.5 million per household. Young respondents who might have lower incomes would like to pay more compared to elderly respondents. Among the five environmental issues investigated, people took air pollution as the most severe issue, and they preferred to pay more for air quality regulation services. To improve public understanding of small UGIs and their urban ecosystem services, education and publicity programs should be launched for various groups of people in the future. These findings will help city planners identify more effective designs for small UGIs, thus meeting societal preferences and demands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据