The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America: A review and suggestions for future research

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005Get rights and content

Abstract

With the majority of the world’s human population now living in cities, urban forests provide an increasingly important range of ecosystem services, from improved air quality and climate change adaptation to better public health outcomes and increased tourism revenues. The importance of these ecosystem services in urban environments, and the central role that cities play in the lives of people around the world, have motivated various attempts to quantify the value of ecosystem services provided by urban forests. This paper reviews existing research in the fields of urban forestry, economics, sociology, and health on the value of urban ecosystem services, with a focus on cultural services, a category of ecosystem services that is of key importance to human well-being but that has suffered from a lack of empirical research. The review identified 38 studies that examined the value of mixed vegetation, 31 studies that examined the value of trees, and 43 studies that examined the value of green spaces. Psychological health is the most-studied ecosystem service category, with most research in this area focusing on the services of mixed vegetation. Social health, community economic development, and tourism are the least-studied, with most research in these areas focusing on mixed vegetation and trees. Multiple metrics were used to quantify the value of urban greenery within each ecosystem service category but only 11 metrics were assigned a monetary value. Gaps in the literature that present strong opportunities for future research include: the value of urban forests for improving social health, equitable access to ecosystem services, the impact of urban forests on community economic development, and economic valuation and green exposure metrics. We hope that this review stimulates future research in the areas highlighted and that municipalities consider including evaluations of a broad range of ecosystem services during land use planning and budgeting processes.

Introduction

Cities are where billions of us live – and cities are growing. They are social, financial and educational centres that attract increasing numbers of residents around the world. This trend towards urbanization is particularly strong in Canada and the United States of America (U.S.), where approximately 80 percent of the population now lives in urban areas (McPhearson et al., 2013). As cities grow, urban forests can play a role in maintaining quality of life for urban residents by providing various ecosystem services, including improving the urban environment (Goddard et al., 2009, Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013, Landry and Chakraborty, 2009, Morimoto, 2011, Savard et al., 2000); supporting good physical, mental, and social health (de Vries et al., 2003, Groenewegen et al., 2006, Hartig, 2008, Maas et al., 2006, Mitchell and Popham, 2008, Mitchell and Popham, 2007); and providing economic benefits (Anderson and Cordell, 1988, Anderson and Cordell, 1985, Morales, 1980, Payne and Strom, 1975, Schroeder, 1989, Wolf, 2009). To maximize these benefits through urban forest planning and management, the costs and benefits of urban forests must be understood and managed by urban planners, city managers and decision makers, and even private citizens, during land use planning and city building processes (Livesley et al., 2016, Vandermeulen et al., 2011). Urban forest planning and management is most effective when the services and costs of urban forests are understood and can be compared directly with other city infrastructure and services during budget analysis and priority setting (Jim and Chen, 2008). Urban foresters, planners, academics, communities, and governments all have opportunities to create liveable environments that promote environmental sustainability, human health, and economic productivity.

In recent years, the public and various levels of government in Canada and the U.S. have become increasingly aware of the importance of urban forests and the benefits they provide, leading to renewed investment in urban forests by municipalities such as Phoenix (City of Phoenix, 2009, Harnik, 2010), Toronto (City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation, Urban Forestry, 2013), and Vancouver (City of Vancouver et al., 2014, Poudyal et al., 2009). As cities and other levels of government invest in urban forests in Canada and the U.S., they will need guidance on how to evaluate the benefits and costs of urban forests to prioritize urban forest investments.

While much work has been done to quantify some of the values of urban forests in North America, evaluations to date tend to focus on regulating services such as microclimatic improvements and carbon sequestration (Alexander and DePratto, 2014, Alexander and McDonald, 2014, McPherson et al., 1997, Nowak, 1994). The benefits of urban forests are more complex and wide-ranging than suggested by evaluations completed to date (Livesley et al., 2016). This paper goes beyond previous assessments to present a review and synthesis of relevant and accessible research on valuing the cultural ecosystem services of urban forests, an emerging area of ecosystem services research that is of key importance to human well-being in cities (Livesley et al., 2016, Wolf et al., 2015). It is the authors’ hope that this review will expand the understanding of the value of urban forest services and support including the full range of urban forest values in urban forest planning and management.

It is important to note that this review does not seek to measure the costs of managing and maintaining urban forests. These costs are highly context-specific and will vary by municipality and region. Rather, this paper focuses on the value of urban forest services and highlights knowledge gaps in how to evaluate these services. By clarifying the evaluation of services, this analysis highlights areas for further research and may help municipalities include such evaluations during their own management planning and budgeting processes.

Section snippets

Ecosystem services

Within the context of urban forests, the term “ecosystem services” refers to the benefits provided to humans through functional processes and interactions with the surrounding environment and local ecology (Livesley et al., 2016). Urban forest ecosystem services are highly interrelated. For example, access to urban green space can provide recreation opportunities, which in turn can provide physical health benefits and increased social cohesion (Konijnendijk et al., 2013). Despite this

Results

Urban residents experience a wide range of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban greenery. Cultural ecosystem services include some more measurable services such as health outcomes and direct economic benefits, while other cultural ecosystem services are more intangible and experiential, such as spiritual experiences, education, and aesthetics. The nature of cultural ecosystem services makes them difficult to define and measure; valuing cultural ecosystem services is still an emerging

Discussion: gaps and future research

A review of our findings highlights key gaps in the research on the evaluation of urban forest benefits. Understanding is particularly limited in the areas of (1) social health; and (2) community economic development, offering important opportunities for future research in these fields (Table 1). While this review found relatively few studies that quantified the value of cultural ecosystem services in the area of tourism, the majority of tourism research reviewed included financial estimates of

Conclusion

This paper describes the social and economic values of several important cultural ecosystem services associated with urban forests based on a growing body of literature. Some ecosystem services, such as the effects of urban trees on property values, have been the focus of extensive research over the past 40 years and their value is relatively well understood (Anderson and Cordell, 1988, Anderson and Cordell, 1985, Morales, 1980, Payne and Strom, 1975, Schroeder, 1989). Recently, researchers

Authors’ contribution

LN co-led study design, performed the literature search and quality assessment, and drafted the manuscript.

NH, SB, and JC participated in study design, literature search, and application of inclusion criteria.

SS was project leader, co-led on study design and supervised the review.

All authors assisted with the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

We thank Stephen Mitchell, Harry Nelson, Sara Gergel, Gary Bull and Howie Harshaw, for valuable feedback on the manuscript. This review was partially funded by the Canadian Forest Service.

References (142)

  • E. Gómez-Baggethun et al.

    Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • P. Grahn et al.

    Landscape planning and stress

    Urban For. Urban Green.

    (2003)
  • H.F. Guite et al.

    The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being

    Public Health

    (2006)
  • R. Hansmann et al.

    Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks

    Urban For. Urban Green.

    (2007)
  • T. Hartig

    Green space, psychological restoration, and health inequality

    Lancet

    (2008)
  • R.B. Hull et al.

    Place identity: symbols of self in the urban fabric

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (1994)
  • Å. Jansson

    Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • B. Jiang et al.

    A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2014)
  • R. Kaplan

    The role of nature in the context of the workplace

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (1993)
  • R. Kaplan

    Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: the wild and the tame

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2007)
  • R. Lafortezza et al.

    Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress

    Urban For. Urban Green.

    (2009)
  • S.W. Lee et al.

    Moderating effect of forest cover on the effect of proximity to chemical facilities on property values

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2008)
  • L. Lottrup et al.

    Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2013)
  • J. Luttik

    The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2000)
  • J. Maas et al.

    Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health

    Heal. Place

    (2009)
  • S. Majumdar et al.

    Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: a study in Savannah

    Georgia. Urban For. Urban Green

    (2011)
  • C. Mansfield et al.

    Shades of Green: measuring the value of urban forests in the housing market

    J. For. Econ.

    (2005)
  • D. Martens et al.

    Walking in wild and tended urban forests: the impact on psychological well-being

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (2011)
  • R. Mitchell et al.

    Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study

    Lancet

    (2008)
  • E. Morita et al.

    Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy adults: Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of stress reduction

    Public Health

    (2007)
  • T.S. Nielsen et al.

    Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators

    Heal. Place

    (2007)
  • Y. Ogneva-Himmelberger et al.

    Concrete evidence & geographically weighted regression: a regional analysis of wealth and the land cover in Massachusetts

    Appl. Geogr.

    (2009)
  • R.B. Palmquist

    Measuring environmental effects on property values without hedonic regressions

    J. Urban Econ.

    (1982)
  • J. Alcamo et al.

    Ecosystems and Human Well-being: a Framework for Assessment

    (2003)
  • C. Alexander et al.

    Special Report Urban Forests: the Value of Urban Forests in Cities Across Canada

    (2014)
  • C. Alexander et al.

    Urban Forests: the Value of Trees in the City of Toronto

    (2014)
  • L.M. Anderson et al.

    Residential property values improve by landscaping with trees

    South. J. Appl. For.

    (1985)
  • M. Annerstedt et al.

    Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health – results from a longitudinal cohort study in Southern Sweden

    BMC Public Health

    (2012)
  • S. Anthon et al.

    Værdisætning af statslig skovrejsning (Valuation of state afforestation)

    Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskr.

    (2002)
  • S. Anthon et al.

    Urban-fringe afforestation projects and taxable hedonic values

    Urban For. Urban Green.

    (2004)
  • K.G. Arano et al.

    Economic impact analysis of tree festivals: the case of the national cherry blossom festival, wWashington, D.C.

  • G.J. Ashworth

    The Blue – Grey Transition: Heritage in the Reinvention of the Tourism Resort

    (2004)
  • D. Barboza

    Chicago, Offering Big Incentives, Will Be Boeing’s New Home

    (2001)
  • B. Bender et al.

    Choice of functional form and the demand for air quality

    Rev. Econ. Stat.

    (1980)
  • T.C. Bergstrom et al.

    Demands for public goods

    Am. Econ. Rev.

    (1973)
  • T.E. Borcherding et al.

    The demand for the services of non-federal governments

    Am. Econ. Rev.

    (1972)
  • D.E. Bowler et al.

    A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments

    BMC Public Health

    (2010)
  • W.D. Browning et al.

    The Economics of Biophilia: Why Designing with Nature in Mind Makes Financial Sense

    (2012)
  • M. Carley et al.

    Retailing, Sustainability and Neighbourhood Regeneration

    (2001)
  • Central Park Conservancy, 2015. Rules and Regulations [WWW Document]. URL...
  • Cited by (144)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text