Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes

An Assessment of the Knowledge and Demand of Young Residents regarding the Ecological Services of Urban Green Spaces in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

“…The ratings were different from one service to another (the highest was 60.5% on O 2 release, while the lowest was 15.9% on increasing property value). Although the population of this study consisted only of young residents, which thus does not represent the points of view of the entire population of the city, this result is consistent with many other studies on the perceptions and attitudes toward UGS's indicating that perceptions and attitudes toward UGS's are complex and have different psychological points of view related to age, race, religion, gender, education, income, and experience [5,[39][40][41]50]. Realistically, the different social contexts and backgrounds of respondents would also influence the perceptions and attitudes toward UGS's.…”

“…Chen and W. Y. Chen in Guangzhou, China, indicated that, although the importance of ecosystem services to wildlife habitat and species conservation were rated very low, and the use of green spaces to demarcate the different types of landscape and land use was hardly noticed or appreciated by the residents, UGS's were strongly recognized by Guangzhou residents [1]. Another study of urban park use in England and Wales pointed out that the overwhelming popularity of natural features were reminiscent of an ideal rural arcadia [5,51]. A study of the urban forest in Finland revealed that the benefits related to nature were valued most, outdoor activities were rated important, and climate and environmental quality such as pollution mitigation and noise abatement were the least important [52].…”

“…Consistently, a study in Mandeville city in New Orleans, USA, about residents' attitudes toward urban forestry showed that aesthetic value and shading were rated the most important, whereas wildlife habitat, the amelioration of urban climate, and the increase in property values were rated important. The benefits related to environmental quality, such as the control of dust, wind, and storm water, were ranked low, while economic values of UGS's were rated the least important in both Finland and Mandeville [5,52,53].…”

“…The phenomena have raised numerous challenges including the loss of urban green spaces (UGS's). Urban green spaces (UGS's) are key components of the ecosystem services that clearly contribute to the improvement of quality of life, public health, landscape design, and environmental quality [1][2][3][4][5]. There are many studies that affirm the benefits of ecological services of UGS's to residents [6][7][8][9][10][11].…”

“…There are many studies that affirm the benefits of ecological services of UGS's to residents [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Some important ecological services of UGS's are the promotion of the well-being of people [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], recreational activities [20,21], the mitigation of high temperatures [6,[22][23][24], the abatement of air pollution [25], the sequestration of CO 2 and release of more O 2 [5,26], noise reduction [22], the provision of wildlife habitats [27][28][29][30], the prevention of flood and soil erosion [31], the improvement of city amenities [32,33], and an increase in property (land and house) values [34][35][36][37]. However, many of these benefits are determined by the different levels of species group, canopy cover, size, and shape of UGS's [38].…”