Submitted:
12 January 2023
Posted:
13 January 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Study Design and Data Collection
2.2. Econometric Model
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
3.2. Quality and Usage of UGSs
3.3. Respondents’ Perception on ESs Provided by UGSs
3.4. Factors Associated with the Urban Residents’ Positive Perception on ESs of UGSs
3.4.1. Regulating ESs
3.4.2. Cultural and Supporting ESs
4. Discussion
4.1. Perceptions about the Quality of UGSs and Usage
4.2. Factors Associated with the Urban Residents’ Perceptions
5. Limitations of the Study
6. Conclusions and Implications
References
- Akpinar, A. (2016). Factors influencing the use of urban greenways: A case study of Aydin, Turkey. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 16, 123–131. [CrossRef]
- Aminrad, Z., Sayed Zakariya, S. Z. B., Samad, A. H., & Sakari, M. (2013). Relationship between awareness, knowledge and attitudes towards environmental education among secondary school students in Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(9), 1326– 1333. [CrossRef]
- Andersson, E., Barthel, S., & Ahrné, K. (2007). Measuring social-ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 17(5), 1267– 1278. [CrossRef]
- Andrew, V. D., Yusof, M. J., & Kasim, J. A. (2020). Relationship between physical activity in urban green space and dietary patterns among obese children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 28(1), 633–645.
- Armson, D., Stringer, P., & Ennos, A. R. (2013). The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester, UK. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(3), 282–286. [CrossRef]
- Arnold, J., Kleemann, J., & Fürst, C. (2018). A differentiated spatial assessment of urban ecosystem services based on land use data in Halle, Germany. Land, 7(3), 1–29. [CrossRef]
- Aronson, M. F. J., Lepczyk, C. A., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B., MacIvor, J. S., Nilon, C. H., & Vargo, T. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4), 189–196. [CrossRef]
- Arvanitidis, P. A., Lalenis, K., Petrakos, G., & Psycharis, Y. (2009). Economic aspects of urban green space: A survey of perceptions and attitudes. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 11(1–3), 143–168. [CrossRef]
- Aylor, D. (1972). Noise reduction by vegetation and ground. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(1B), 197–205. [CrossRef]
- Aziz, N. A. A., Bosch, K. V. D., & Nillson, K. (2018). Recreational use of urban green space in Malaysian cities. International Journal of Business & Society, 19, 1–16.
- Aziz, N. A. A., Konijnendijk, C. C., Sreetheran, M., & Nilsson, K. (2011). Greenspace planning and management in Klang Valley, Peninsular Malaysia. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 37(3), 99–107. [CrossRef]
- Aziz, N. A. A., Konijnendijk, C. C., Stigsdotter, U. K., & Nillson, K. (2012). Malaysian case studies on the relation between use of green space and health promotion. ALAM CIPTA, International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research & Practice, 5(1), 3–14.
- Bakhtiari, F., Jacobsen, J. B., Strange, N. & Helles, F. (2014). Revealing lay people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity value components and their application in valuation method. Global Ecological Conservation, 1, 27–42. [CrossRef]
- Baur, J. W. R. (2018). Urban green spaces, recreation and spiritual experiences. Leisure/ Loisir, 42(2), 205–229. [CrossRef]
- Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12, 187–199. [CrossRef]
- Blair, R. B. (1996). Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications, 6(2), 506–519. [CrossRef]
- Blair, R. B., & Launer, Alan, E. (1997). Butterfly diversity and human land use: Species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation, 80(1), 113–125. [CrossRef]
- Bodnaruk, E. W., Kroll, C. N., Yang, Y., Hirabayashi, S., Nowak, D. J., & Endreny, T. A. (2017). Where to plant urban trees? A spatially explicit methodology to explore ecosystem service tradeoffs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 457–467. [CrossRef]
- Brun, M., Di Pietro, F., & Bonthoux, S. (2018). Residents’ perceptions and valuations of urban wastelands are influenced by vegetation structure. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 29, 393–403. [CrossRef]
- Campos, M., Velázquez, A., Verdinelli, G. B., Priego-Santander, Á. G., McCall, M. K., & Boada, M. (2012). Rural people’s knowledge and perception of landscape: A case study from the Mexican Pacific Coast. Society and Natural Resources, 25(8), 759–774. [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y., Ke, X., Min, M., & Cheng, P. (2020). Disparity in perceptions of social values for ecosystem services of urban green space: A case study in the East Lake Scenic Area, Wuhan. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 1–11. [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. [CrossRef]
- Donelli, A. (2017). Draw to restore and represent urban green space in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. UPLanD-Journal of Urban Planning, Landscape & Environmental Design, 2(1), 117–135. [CrossRef]
- Enssle, F., & Kabisch, N. (2020). Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older people—An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environmental science & policy, 109, 36-44. [CrossRef]
- Fairbrother, M. (2013). Rich people, poor people, and environmental concern: Evidence across nations and time. European sociological review, 29(5), 910-922. [CrossRef]
- Fatiah, A. A., Ponrahono, Z., & Zakariya, K. (2021). Quality of design and features of small urban green spaces in Petaling Jaya Town, Malaysia. Planning Malaysia, 19(1), 138– 149. [CrossRef]
- Foo, C. H. (2016). Linking forest naturalness and human wellbeing-A study on public’s experiential connection to remnant forests within a highly urbanized region in Malaysia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 16, 13–24. [CrossRef]
- Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–394. [CrossRef]
- Gashu, K., Gebre-Egziabher, T., & Wubneh, M. (2020). Local communities’ perceptions and use of urban green infrastructure in two Ethiopian cities: Bahir Dar and Hawassa. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2), 287–316. [CrossRef]
- Gill, S. E., Handley, J. F., Ennos, A. R., & Pauleit, S. (2007). Adapting cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), 115–133. [CrossRef]
- Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban forestry & urban greening, 2(1), 1-18. [CrossRef]
- Grote, R., Samson, R., Alonso, R., Amorim, J. H., Cariñanos, P., Churkina, G., Fares, S., Thiec, D. Le, Niinemets, Ü., & Mikkelsen, T. N. (2016). Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10), 543–550. [CrossRef]
- Gunnarsson, B., Knez, I., Hedblom, M., & Sang, O. (2017). Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space. Urban Ecosystems, 20(1), 37–49. [CrossRef]
- Hafner, J. W., Bleess, B. B., Famakinwa, M. F., Wang, H., & Coleman, M. (2019). The effect of a community crash reenactment program on teen alcohol awareness and behavior. Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics, 10, 83. [CrossRef]
- Hartter, J. (2010). Resource use and ecosystem services in a forest park landscape. Society and Natural Resources, 23(3), 207–223. [CrossRef]
- Israel, G. D. (1992). Determining Sample Size. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
- James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M. D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K. L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A. E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemelä, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M. H., … Ward Thompson, C. (2009). Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8(2), 65–75. [CrossRef]
- Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green space: Cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2), 1–15. [CrossRef]
- Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environmental Management, 38(3), 338–349. [CrossRef]
- Jim, C. Y., & Chen, W. Y. (2008). Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees in Guangzhou (China). Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 665–676. [CrossRef]
- Jim, C. Y., & Shan, X. (2013). Socioeconomic effect on perception of urban green spaces in Guangzhou, China. Cities, 31(2013), 123–131. [CrossRef]
- Karuppannan, S., Baharuddin, Z. M., Sivam, A., & Daniels, C. B. (2014). Urban green space and urban biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 1–16. [CrossRef]
- Kasim, J. A., Yusof, M. J. M., & Shafri, H. Z. M. (2019). Monitoring urban green space (UGS) changes by using high resolution aerial imagery: A case study of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 27(4), 1971–1990.
- Kibria, A. S. M. G., Behie, A., Costanza, R., Groves, C., & Farrell, T. (2017). The value of ecosystem services obtained from the protected forest of Cambodia: The case of Veun Sai-Siem Pang National Park. Ecosystem services, 26, 27-36. [CrossRef]
- Kragh, J. (1981). Road traffic noise attenuation by belts of trees. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 74(2), 235–241. [CrossRef]
- Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. [CrossRef]
- Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., & Davies, C. (2009). Benefits and well-being perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8(2), 97–108. [CrossRef]
- Luttik, J. (2000). The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3–4), 161–167. [CrossRef]
- Macura, B., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Grau-Satorras, M., Demps, K., Laval, M., Garcia, C. A. & Reyes-García, V. (2011). Local community attitudes toward forests outside protected areas in India. Impact of legal awareness, trust, and participation. Ecology & Society, 16(3), 10. [CrossRef]
- Malek, N. A., Mariapan, M., & Rahman, N. I. A. A. (2015). Community participation in quality assessment for green open spaces in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168(2015), 219–228. [CrossRef]
- Mansor, M., & Harun, N. Z. (2014). Health issues and awareness, and the significant of green space for health promotion in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 209–220. [CrossRef]
- Mansor, M., & Harun, N. Z. (2018). Health issues and green space as reinforcement for a healthy lifestyle in Malaysia. Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies, 3(9), 69–77. [CrossRef]
- Mansor, M., Said, I., & Mohamad, I. (2012). Experiential contacts with green infrastructure’s diversity and well-being of urban community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 257–267. [CrossRef]
- Mao, Q., Wang, L., Guo, Q., Li, Y., Liu, M., & Xu, G. (2020). Evaluating cultural ecosystem services of urban residential green spaces from the perspective of residents’ satisfaction with green space. Frontiers in Public Health, 8(226), 1–16. [CrossRef]
- Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D. G., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J. A., Santos-Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One, 7(6). [CrossRef]
- Maryanti, M. R., Khadijah, H., Uzair, A. M., & Ghazali, M. A. R. M. M. (2017). The urban green space provision using the standards approach: issues and challenges of its implementation in Malaysia. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 210, 369–379. [CrossRef]
- Melles, S., Glenn, S., & Martin, K. (2003). Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: Species-environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conservation Ecology, 7(1). [CrossRef]
- Misiune, I., Julian, J. P., & Veteikis, D. (2021). Pull and push factors for use of urban green spaces and priorities for their ecosystem services: Case study of Vilnius, Lithuania. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 58, 126899. [CrossRef]
- Molla, M. B., Ikporukpo, C. O., & Olatubara, C. O. (2018). Utilization patterns of urban green infrastructure in southern Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 21(7), 1227. [CrossRef]
- Morancho, A. B. (2003). A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 66(1), 35–41. [CrossRef]
- Moutouama, F. T., Biaou, S. S. H., Kyereh, B., Asante, W. A., & Natta, A. K. (2019). Factors shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1-10. [CrossRef]
- Moutouama, F. T., Sorotori, S., Biaou, H., Kyereh, B., Asante, W. A., & Natta, A. K. (2019). Factors shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 15(1), 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Muhamad, D., Okubo, S., Harashina, K., Parikesit, Gunawan, B., & Takeuchi, K. (2014). Living close to forests enhances people’s perception of ecosystem services in a forest– agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosystem Services, 8, 197–206. [CrossRef]
- Nath, T. K., & Magendran, M. (2021). Urban community forest in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Current management, public uses and willingness toward conservation. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 40(8), 749–766. [CrossRef]
- Nath, T. K., Dahalan, M. P. Bin, Parish, F., & Rengasamy, N. (2017). Local peoples’ appreciation on and contribution to conservation of peatland swamp forests: Experience from Peninsular Malaysia. Wetlands, 37(6), 1067–1077. [CrossRef]
- Nath, T. K., Zhe Han, S. S., & Lechner, A. M. (2018). Urban green space and well-being in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 36, 34–41. [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2006). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4(3–4), 115–123. [CrossRef]
- Ostoić, S.K., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C, Vuletic´, D., Stevanov, M., ˇZivojinovic´, I., Mutabdˇzija-Bec´irovic´c, S., Lazarevi´c, J., Stojanova, B., Blagojevi´c, D., Stojanovska, M., Neveni´c, R. & Malovrh, S.P. (2017). Citizens’ perception of and satisfaction with urban forests and green space: Results from selected Southeast European cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 23, 93–103. [CrossRef]
- Paletto, A., De Meo, I., Cantiani, M. G. & Maino, F. (2013). Social perceptions and Forest management strategies in an Italian alpine community. Mountain Research & Development, 33(2), 152–160. [CrossRef]
- Paquet, C., Orschulok, T. P., Coffee, N. T., Howard, N. J., Hugo, G., Taylor, A. W., Adams, R. J., & Daniel, M. (2013). Are accessibility and characteristics of public open spaces associated with a better cardiometabolic health? Landscape and Urban Planning, 118, 70–78. [CrossRef]
- Pataki, D. E., Alig, R. J., Fung, A. S., Golubiewski, N. E., Kennedy, C. A., Mcpherson, E. G., Nowak, D. J., Pouyat, R. V., & Lankao, P. R. (2006). Urban ecosystems and the North American carbon cycle. Global Change Biology, 12(11), 2092–2102. [CrossRef]
- Paul, A., Nath, T. K., Noon, S. J., Islam, M. M., & Lechner, A. M. (2020). Public open space, green exercise and well-being in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 55, 126825. [CrossRef]
- Poppenborg, P., & Koellner, T. (2013). Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural land use practices? An analysis of farmers’ decision-making in a South Korean watershed. Land Use Policy, 31, 422–429. [CrossRef]
- Qiu, L., Lindberg, S., & Nielsen, A. B. (2013). Is biodiversity attractive?-On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 136–146. [CrossRef]
- Rasidi, M. H., Jamirsah, N., & Said, I. (2012). Urban green space design affects urban residents’ social interaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 464–480. [CrossRef]
- Ridzuan, N. H., Farouk, S. A., Razak, S. A., Avicor, S. W., Talb, N., & Hamzah, S. N. (2021). Insect biodiversity of urban green spaces in Penang Island, Malaysia. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 42(1), 275–284. [CrossRef]
- Rupprecht, C. D. D., Byrne, J. A., Ueda, H., & Lo, A. Y. (2015). “It’s real, not fake like a park”: Residents’ perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 205–218. [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U. K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130–137. [CrossRef]
- Sen, S., & Guchhait, S. K. (2021). Urban green space in India: Perception of cultural ecosystem services and psychology of situatedness and connectedness. Ecological Indicators, 123, 107338. [CrossRef]
- Sheikhi, A., Kanniah, K. D., & Ho, C. H. (2015). Effect of land cover and green space on land surface temperature of a fast growing economic region in Malaysia. Earth Resources and Environmental Remote Sensing/GIS Applications, 9644, 215–222. [CrossRef]
- Sheng, W., Zhen, L., Xiao, Y., & Hu, Y. (2019). Ecological and socioeconomic effects of ecological restoration in China's Three Rivers Source Region. Science of the total environment, 650, 2307-2313. [CrossRef]
- Siddique, G., Roy, A., Hasan, M., Ghosh, S., Basak, A., Singh, M., & Mukherjee, N. (2020). An assessment on the changing status of urban green space in Asansol city, West Bengal. GeoJournal, 1–23. [CrossRef]
- Sreetheran, M., & Adnan, M. R. (2007). Green Network Development of Kuala Lumpur City: From the perspective of Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan. Journal of Postgraduate Studies in Architecture, Planning and Landscape, 7, 38–41.
- Strohbach, M. W., & Haase, D. (2012). Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in Leipzig, Germany: Analysis of patterns in a European city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 95–104. [CrossRef]
- Syafiqah, A. S. N., Rahim, A. S. A., & Johari, M. Y. M. (2014). Economic valuation of urban green space in Kuala Lumpur: A preliminary study. National Research & Innovation Conference for the Graduate Students in Social Sciences 2014, 455–469.
- Thomas, I., Lane, R., Ribon-Tobon, L., & May, C. (2007). Careers in the environment in Australia: surveying environmental jobs. Environmental Education Research, 13(1), 97-117. [CrossRef]
- Tommasi, D., Miro, A., Higo, H. A., & Winston, M. L. (2004). Bee diversity and abundance in an urban setting. Canadian Entomologist, 136(6), 851–869. [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K., & James, P. (2004). Finding links between urban biodiversity and human health and well-being. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(12), 913–916.
- United Nations. (2017). World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world- population-prospects-2017.html. Accessed on March 27, 2022.
- van Zanten, B. T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M. J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2016). A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17, 87-98. [CrossRef]
- Wang, W., Mu, J. E., & Ziolkowska, J. R. (2021). Perceived Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in the US Rio Grande Basin. Sustainability, 13(24), 13798. [CrossRef]
- Wey, Y. E., Sarma, V., Lechner, A. M., & Nath, T. K. (2022). Malaysians’ perception on the contribution of urban green spaces to the UN sustainable development goals. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 78, 127792. [CrossRef]
- Winpenny, E. M., Smith, M., Penney, T., Foubister, C., Guagliano, J. M., Love, R.,... & Corder, K. (2020). Changes in physical activity, diet, and body weight across the education and employment transitions of early adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 21(4), e12962. [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. [CrossRef]
- Wolf, K. L. (2003). Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. Journal of Arboriculture, 29(3), 117–126. [CrossRef]
- Xie, M., Wang, Y., Chang, Q., Fu, M., & Ye, M. (2013). Assessment of landscape patterns affecting land surface temperature in different biophysical gradients in Shenzhen, China. Urban Ecosystems, 16(4), 871–886. [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y. E., Passarelli, S., Lovell, R. J., & Ringler, C. (2018). Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 31, 58-67. [CrossRef]
- Zhan, D., Kwan, M. P., Zhang, W., Fan, J., Yu, J., & Dang, Y. (2018). Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities, 79, 92–101. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B., Xie, G., Li, N., & Wang, S. (2015). Landscape and Urban Planning Effect of urban green space changes on the role of rainwater runoff reduction in Beijing, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 140, 8–16. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H., Pang, Q., Long, H., Zhu, H., Gao, X., & Li, X. (2019). Local residents’ perceptions for ecosystem services: A case study of Fenghe River Watershed. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3602), 1–19. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L., Cao, H., & Han, R. (2021). Residents’ preferences and perceptions toward green open spaces in an urban area. Sustainability, 13(3), 1–23. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W., Kato, E., Bhandary, P., Nkonya, E., Ibrahim, H. I., Agbonlahor, M., Ibrahim, H. Y., & Cox, C. (2016). Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria. Ecosystem Services, 22, 150–160. [CrossRef]
- Zsóka, Á., Szerényi, Z. M., Széchy, A., & Kocsis, T. (2013). Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro- environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 126–138. [CrossRef]


| Variables | Frequency (N= 645) | Percentage of responses |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 192 | 29.8 |
| Female | 453 | 70.2 |
| Age | ||
| 18-30 years | 457 | 70.9 |
| 31-5 years | 129 | 20.0 |
| 46 and above | 59 | 9.1 |
| Educational level | ||
| University (Environmental) | 104 | 16.1 |
| University (Non-environmental) | 401 | 62.2 |
| Others | 140 | 21.7 |
| Occupation | ||
| Environmental sector | 35 | 5.4 |
| Non-environmental sector | 177 | 27.4 |
| Student | 381 | 59.1 |
| Others (Retired person, homemaker, and unemployed) | 52 | 8.1 |
| Household income | ||
| B40 (Up to RM5,000) | 373 | 57.8 |
| M40 (RM5,001- RM10,000) | 158 | 24.5 |
| T20 (RM10,001 and above) | 114 | 17.7 |
| Duration of stay in current residence | ||
| Less than 5 years | 197 | 30.6 |
| More than 5 years | 448 | 69.4 |
| Distance to the nearest UGSs | ||
| Up to 1km | 414 | 64.2 |
| 1 to 5km | 121 | 18.8 |
| More than 5km | 110 | 17.0 |
| Frequency of visits to UGSs | ||
| Few days a week | 137 | 21.2 |
| Once a week | 123 | 19.1 |
| Occasional | 385 | 59.7 |
| Features | Yes | No | ||
| Frequency (N= 645) | Percentage of respondents | Frequency (N= 645) | Percentage of respondents | |
| Periodical maintenance | 306 | 47.4 | 339 | 52.6 |
| Diverse and well-organized landscape | 413 | 64.1 | 232 | 35.9 |
| Well-designed paths | 380 | 58.9 | 265 | 41.1 |
| Cleanliness | 382 | 59.2 | 263 | 40.8 |
| Safety | 372 | 57.7 | 273 | 42.3 |
| Aesthetically pleasant | 388 | 60.2 | 257 | 39.8 |
| Sufficient parking space | 297 | 46.1 | 348 | 53.9 |
| Independent Variables | Odds ratio (95% CI) | ||||||||
| Global climate regulation (GCR) | Microclimate regulation (MR) | Air filtration (AF) | Water cycle regulation (WCR) | Runoff reduction (RR) | Noise buffering (NB) | Pest regulation (PR) | Erosion control (EC) | Biodiversity conservation (BC) | |
| Gender | |||||||||
| Male (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Female | 1.07 (0.73-1.56) | 0.86 (0.58-1.26) | 1.27 (0.83-1.93) | 0.95 (0.65-1.37) | 1.25 (0.87-1.8) | 0.94 (0.65-1.35) | 1.17 (0.82-1.67) | 1.01 (0.7-1.46) | 1.15 (0.79-1.67) |
| Age | |||||||||
| 18-30 years (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 31-45 years | 2.06 (1.1-3.86)* | 1.43 (0.76-2.66) | 1.42 (0.71-2.84) | 1.36 (0.74-2.49) | 1.04 (0.57-1.89) | 1.86 (1.02-3.38)* | 1.19 (0.66-2.12) | 1.02 (0.56-1.87) | 1.38 (0.75-2.53) |
| 46 and above | 3.08 (1.29-7.36)** | 2.96 (1.2-7.33)* | 1.72 (0.65-4.51) | 1.56 (0.71-3.46) | 1.52 (0.69-3.32) | 3.69 (1.57-8.67)** | 2.08 (1-4.35)* | 1.13 (0.51-2.53) | 2.38 (1.02-5.55)* |
| Education level | |||||||||
| University (Environmental) (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| University (Non- environmental) | 0.77 (0.45-1.3) | 0.48 (0.27-0.85)** | 1.07 (0.61-1.9) | 0.67 (0.4-1.12) | 0.73 (0.45-1.2) | 0.76 (0.46-1.24) | 1.09 (0.68-1.75) | 0.79 (0.48-1.3) | 0.85 (0.51-1.41) |
| Others | 0.40 (0.22-0.73)** | 0.31 (0.17-0.58)*** | 0.86 (0.45-1.65) | 0.63 (0.35-1.13) | 0.71 (0.4-1.24) | 0.68 (0.39-1.2) | 1.13 (0.66-1.95) | 0.7 (0.4-1.24) | 0.61 (0.34-1.08) |
| Occupation | |||||||||
| Environmental sector (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Non-environmental sector | 0.57 (0.21-1.55) | 0.79 (0.29-2.17) | 0.55 (0.19-1.64) | 0.25 (0.08-0.79)* | 0.44 (0.17-1.13) | 0.42 (0.15-1.13) | 0.6 (0.27-1.34) | 0.44 (0.16-1.18) | 0.97 (0.4-2.36) |
| Student | 0.67 (0.24-1.83) | 0.7 (0.25-1.94) | 0.69 (0.23-2.08) | 0.28 (0.09-0.87)* | 0.3 (0.11-0.78)** | 0.37 (0.14-1.02)* | 0.81 (0.36-1.86) | 0.36 (0.13-0.98)* | 0.91 (0.37-2.26) |
| Others | 0.4 (0.13-1.25) | 0.42 (0.13-1.31) | 0.69 (0.19-2.47) | 0.18 (0.05-0.62)** | 0.41 (0.14-1.18) | 0.31 (0.1-0.97)* | 0.45 (0.18-1.14) | 0.4 (0.13-1.22) | 0.48 (0.17-1.34) |
| Monthly household income | |||||||||
| B40 (Up to RM5,000) (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| M40 (RM5,001-RM10,000) | 1.1 (0.72-1.68) | 1.55 (1.01-2.39)* | 1.62 (0.97-2.69)* | 1.18 (0.78-1.77) | 0.77 (0.52-1.16) | 0.96 (0.64-1.44) | 0.97 (0.65-1.43) | 1.08 (0.72-1.62) | 0.97 (0.64-1.47) |
| T20 (RM10,001 and above) | 0.99 (0.61-1.63) | 1.39 (0.84-2.29) | 1.1 (0.63-1.91) | 1.07 (0.67-1.72) | 0.8 (0.5-1.27) | 0.85 (0.53-1.37) | 0.85 (0.54-1.34) | 1.57 (0.96-2.56)* | 1.13 (0.69-1.84) |
| Duration of stay in current residence | |||||||||
| Less than 5 years (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| More than 5 years | 0.95 (0.65-1.4) | 0.89 (0.6-1.31) | 0.99 (0.64-1.52) | 0.67 (0.46-0.97)* | 0.67 (0.46-0.96)* | 0.77 (0.53-1.12) | 0.94 (0.66-1.34) | 0.96 (0.66-1.39) | 1.06 (0.72-1.54) |
| Distance to the nearest UGSs | |||||||||
| Up to 1km (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1-5 km | 0.87 (0.55-1.37) | 0.91 (0.58-1.44) | 1.08 (0.63-1.83) | 0.92 (0.59-1.42) | 1.1 (0.72-1.7) | 1.31 (0.85-2.03) | 1.1 (0.72-1.68) | 1.11 (0.72-1.72) | 1.42 (0.89-2.27) |
| More than 5km | 0.67 (0.42-1.06) | 0.58 (0.36-0.93)* | 0.61 (0.37-1.01)* | 0.74 (0.47-1.17) | 1.01 (0.64-1.6) | 0.91 (0.58-1.44) | 1.41 (0.9-2.2) | 0.83 (0.53-1.31) | 0.84 (0.53-1.34) |
| Frequency of visits to UGSs | |||||||||
| Few days per week (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Once a week | 0.49 (0.28-0.87)** | 0.79 (0.45-1.39) | 1.07 (0.54-2.13) | 0.7 (0.41-1.19) | 0.79 (0.46-1.34) | 0.61 (0.36-1.05) | 0.67 (0.4-1.11) | 0.57 (0.33-0.99)* | 0.84 (0.48-1.48) |
| Occasional | 0.58 (0.35-0.94)* | 0.81 (0.51-1.3) | 0.68 (0.39-1.16) | 0.7 (0.45-1.1) | 0.61 (0.4-0.95)* | 0.6 (0.38-0.94)* | 0.69 (0.45-1.06) | 0.56 (0.35-0.89)** | 0.67 (0.42-1.06) |
| Independent Variables | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |||||
| Cultural services | Supporting service | |||||
| Spiritual values (SV) | Aesthetic values (AV) | Outdoor recreation (ON) | Ecotourism (EM) | Education and research (ER) | Habitat provision for wildlife (HW) | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Female | 0.99 (0.69-1.43) | 1.03 (0.69-1.54) | 1.21 (0.76-1.93) | 1.04 (0.72-1.49) | 1.15 (0.8-1.63) | 0.95 (0.53-1.69) |
| Age | ||||||
| 18-30 years (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 31-45 years | 1.37 (0.76-2.47) | 0.85 (0.44-1.66) | 1.75 (0.8-3.83) | 0.93 (0.51-1.67) | 1.62 (0.91-2.88) | 1.25 (0.5-3.09) |
| 46 and above | 2.11 (0.94-4.7)* | 1.21 (0.48-3.05) | 2.51 (0.8-7.92) | 1.05 (0.49-2.25) | 2.75 (1.28-5.89)** | 1.72 (0.53-5.58) |
| Education | ||||||
| University (Environmental) (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| University (Non-environmental) | 0.86 (0.52-1.4) | 0.55 (0.31-0.98)* | 0.49 (0.24-1.01)* | 0.7 (0.43-1.15) | 0.74 (0.46-1.19) | 1.29 (0.64-2.61) |
| Others | 0.53 (0.3-0.93)* | 0.42 (0.22-0.8)** | 0.42 (0.19-0.93)* | 0.56 (0.32-0.99)* | 0.64 (0.37-1.11) | 1.69 (0.71-4.03) |
| Occupation | ||||||
| Environmental sector (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Non-environmental sector | 0.94 (0.4-2.18) | 0.69 (0.24-2) | 1.53 (0.5-4.68) | 0.68 (0.29-1.64) | 1.09 (0.49-2.45) | 1.06 (0.3-3.76) |
| Student | 1.02 (0.43-2.44) | 0.5 (0.17-1.48) | 1.41 (0.46-4.32) | 0.62 (0.25-1.53) | 1.25 (0.54-2.87) | 1.1 (0.3-4.02) |
| Others | 1.14 (0.42-3.11) | 0.6 (0.18-2.01) | 1.12 (0.3-4.21) | 0.46 (0.17-1.25) | 1.15 (0.44-2.96) | 0.41 (0.11-1.61) |
| Monthly household income | ||||||
| B40: Up to RM5,000 (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| M40: RM5,001 – RM10,000 | 1.02 (0.68-1.53) | 2.17 (1.35-3.49)*** | 1.45 (0.84-2.49) | 1.17 (0.78-1.75) | 0.84 (0.56-1.24) | 0.94 (0.48-1.85) |
| T20: RM10,001 and above | 0.69 (0.44-1.1) | 1.35 (0.81-2.25) | 1.39 (0.73-2.65) | 0.94 (0.59-1.49) | 0.72 (0.45-1.13) | 0.44 (0.23-0.83)* |
| Duration of stay in current residence | ||||||
| Less than 5 years (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| More than 5 years | 0.94 (0.65-1.36) | 0.88 (0.58-1.31) | 1.02 (0.63-1.63) | 0.92 (0.64-1.33) | 0.89 (0.62-1.28) | 1.06 (0.6-1.89) |
| Distance to the nearest UGSs | ||||||
| Up to 1km (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 1-5 km | 1.12 (0.72-1.73) | 0.88 (0.55-1.4) | 0.8 (0.46-1.39) | 1.19 (0.77-1.84) | 1.09 (0.72-1.67) | 1.67 (0.78-3.6) |
| More than 5km | 1.09 (0.69-1.73) | 0.82 (0.5-1.33) | 0.73 (0.41-1.29) | 1.18 (0.74-1.86) | 1.31 (0.83-2.06) | 0.98 (0.48-1.99) |
| Frequency of visits to UGSs | ||||||
| Few days per week (Ref.) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Once a week | 0.59 (0.34-1.01)* | 0.68 (0.36-1.25) | 0.78 (0.39-1.56) | 0.62 (0.37-1.05) | 0.89 (0.53-1.49) | 0.75 (0.33-1.75) |
| Occasional | 0.55 (0.35-0.87)** | 0.5 (0.3-0.83)** | 0.9 (0.5-1.61) | 0.66 (0.42-1.02) | 0.84 (0.55-1.29) | 0.74 (0.36-1.52) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
