Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A bottom-up approach to map land covers as potential green infrastructure hubs for human well-being in rural settings: A case study from Sweden
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 102017 (English)In: Landscape and Urban Planning, ISSN 0169-2046, E-ISSN 1872-6062, Vol. 168, p. 72-83Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Green infrastructure (GI) policy encourages the spatial planning of natural and semi-natural areas to deliver biodiversity conservation and a wide range of ecosystem services (ES) important to human well-being. Much of the current literature relies on expert-led and top-down processes to investigate connections between landscapes' different land covers and ES. Little is known regarding the preferences of residents, and how they connect land covers with the delivery of ES important for their well-being. The aim of this study is to identify and locate such land cover types as GI that provide multiple ES important for human well-being in rural settings. First, we interviewed 400 urban and rural residents to identify ES important for personal well-being and the land covers that deliver multiple ES in three counties that best represent the existing rural-urban gradient in Sweden. Second, to support the inclusion of GI in spatial planning, we identified and located spatial concentrations of individual land covers providing multiple ES (GI hubs) and significant clusters of such land covers (GI hotspots). The majority of urban and rural respondents associated their well-being with lakes, mountains above the tree line, old-growth forests, wooded-pastures, mature pine forests and rural farmsteads. The areal proportion of each type of hub was low, on average 3.5%. At least three land management strategies are needed to sustain GI hubs: maintenance of the composition, structure and function of natural ecosystems in protected areas; support for traditional agroforestry and villages as social-ecological systems; and diversification of the current intensive forest management approach.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 168, p. 72-83
Keywords [en]
Ecosystem services, Spatial planning, Agroforestry, Protected area, Mature forests
National Category
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-149950DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.031ISI: 000414885700008OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-149950DiVA, id: diva2:1170388
Available from: 2018-01-03 Created: 2018-01-03 Last updated: 2018-01-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dawson, LucasManton, Michael
By organisation
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
In the same journal
Landscape and Urban Planning
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 36 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf