1

Article title: What do People Know? Ecosystem Services, Public Perception and Sustainable Management of Urban Park Trees in London, U.K.

ACCEPTED VERSIONArticle reference: UFUG26362Journal title: Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. ELSEVIER

Corresponding author: Dr COLLINS C MatildaAuthors:

COLLINS, C Matilda (Tilly) Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, The Weeks Building, 16-18 Princes Gardens, London SW7 1NE. t.collins@imperial.ac.uk; COOK-MONIE, Iram Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, London SW7 2AZ; RAUM, Susanne Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, The Weeks Building, 16-18 Princes Gardens, London SW7 1NE

First published version available online: 4-JUN-2019DOI information: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.06.005

1

2

3

4

56

78

910111213

1415

Title: What do People Know? Ecosystem Services, Public Perception and Sustainable Management of Urban Park Trees in London, U.K.Word count (excluding abstract, tables and references) = 4767

AbstractEngagement with users and other public stakeholder groups is important when making planning

and planting decisions for urban parks; it ensures the public feel involved and that decisions have

longstanding support. Park trees provide an array of important ecosystem services but are

threatened by pressures such as climate change, diseases and lack of management resources. It is

important to ensure the public appreciate the breadth of services provided, and the challenges

faced, by park trees. To evaluate the baseline public understanding of these issues, we surveyed

344 members of the public in London, U.K. parks to examine their perception of the importance

of park trees and their understanding of the challenges they face. This exploratory study found

that though the term ‘Ecosystem Service’ was largely unfamiliar, the public value park trees

highly. Affluence and other demographic factors appear to have little influence on these

perceptions, however, age and visit frequency slightly influenced the perceived importance of

trees for their contribution to park aesthetics. Urbanisation and proximate human threats,

especially pollution were considered by respondents the most important challenges facing park

trees. Disease and climate change ranked 4th and 15th respectively, indicating that public

education about the challenges facing park trees may be needed in advance of, or as part of plans

for sustainable park management and plantings.

Keywords ecosystem services; urban trees; public perception; stakeholder engagement; survey; climate

change

2

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

1 Introduction1.1 Ecosystem servicesEcosystem services (ES) are benefits humans can obtain from ecosystems (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). They are frequently grouped into four categories: ‘provisioning’

which deliver essential resources such as food, oxygen and water, ‘regulating’ for example

carbon sequestration and flood regulation, ‘cultural’ which include aesthetic and educational

opportunities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Trees, including park trees, provide

many ES (Willis & Petrokofsky, 2017; Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999). In this study, a park is

defined as an area of land containing grass, shrubs and trees, and is accessible to, and managed

for, the benefit of the public.

London’s parks have been colloquially described as the ‘Lungs of London’ due to their role in

enhancing air quality (MacDonald 2007). With high densities of people, cars and buildings, air

pollution in urban areas is frequently harmful to humans and the rest of the urban environment

(Kampa & Castanas, 2008; Pope & Dockery, 2006). Many species of tree can adsob or absorb

particulate atmospheric pollutants, including smoke and aerosols, thereby reducing adverse

effects to human health (Hewitt et al., 2019; Pugh et al., 2012). Urban trees also play a large role

in carbon sequestration and storage (Nowak et al., 2013; Strohbach & Haase, 2012). Total carbon

storage, carbon sequestration and pollution removal in Greater London have been valued at an

estimated £146.9 million, £4.79 million and £126.1 million per annum respectively (Rogers et

al., 2015).

Trees regulate the local climate and affect local temperature by providing shade for people and

buildings, by cooling the air through evapotranspiration and by decreasing wind speed (Smithers

et al., 2018; Huang et al., 1990). The estimated energy saved due to urban tree contributions to

temperature regulation of buildings in Greater London is valued at >£260,000 per annum

(Rogers et al., 2015). Increased density of urban areas is associated with increased temperature

(Tratalos et al., 2007), making the role of trees in temperature regulation a particularly important,

but frequently underappreciated ecosystem service to urban areas (Monteiro et al., 2016; Doick

et al., 2014).

3

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

The role of trees for alleviating the build-up of rainwater is considerable in urban environments

due to the higher proportion of surface run-off from impermeable surfaces; in vegetated areas 5-

15% of rainwater runs-off the ground whilst this figure is 60% in cities (Bernatzky, 1983). Trees

help prevent flooding by increasing the rate of water infiltration into the soil, which reduces the

volume entering river systems and by directly taking up water by capillarity and releasing it into

the atmosphere through evapotranspiration (Berland et al., 2017; Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999).

The value of trees for storm water alleviation in Greater London has been estimated to be £2.8

million per annum (Rogers et al., 2015). They are therefore increasingly used as part of

sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) (Davies & Naumann, 2017; Southwark Council,

2013).

Urban parks provide visitors with an opportunity to experience and appreciate nature in the city

(Ngiam et al., 2017), and green spaces can alleviate stress and aid recovery for hospital patients

(Taylor et al., 2015; Ulrich et al., 1991). These experiences can be enhanced by the visual screen

and traffic noise reduction provided by trees (Fang & Ling, 2005). Trees also contribute

significantly to intrinsic biodiversity in themselves and by providing habitat in urban parks for

mammals, birds and insects (Chalker-Scott, 2015; Jones & Leather, 2012).

1.2 Challenges facing park treesLondon has high diversity of tree species; at least 126 species in Greater London, with parks

containing the highest diversity after residential gardens (Rogers et al., 2015). This diversity,

however, is threatened, by urban development, pests and diseases, climate change, and poor

management (Hill et al., 2018; Durkin et al., 2017; Alvey, 2006).

Pests and diseases can decrease the aesthetic value and functionality of trees and lead to tree

mortality; managers therefore often choose to remove infected individuals to prevent disease

spread and further tree loss (Boyd et al., 2013; Harwood et al., 2011). British park management

may be particularly sensitised to tree disease as ash dieback and Dutch elm diseases caused such

widespread loss of UK trees, significantly altering the landscape (Hill et al., 2018; Gibbs, 1978).

As well as directly reducing trees’ ability to provide ES, the resulting biodiversity loss may

exacerbate problems such as pest and disease outbreaks themselves (Civitello et al. 2015).

4

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Given increased international trade it is essential that park managers create parks resilient to such

threats, and understand how to stop spread of infection effectively (Urquhart et al., 2017a;

Harwood et al., 2011). London plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia and Platanus x hispanica),

which represent a highly-visible estimated 4 - 10% of trees in London, are at risk from canker

stain of plane (Ceratocystis platani) which spreads easily in urban areas (Rogers et al., 2015;

Tsopelas et al., 2017). The spread of pests and diseases such as C. platani could considerably

alter London’s landscape, if they arrive from abroad and are not identified or managed properly.

To prevent such disturbance, proactive planting decisions are required to ensure a diversity of

tree species with resistance to a range of pests and diseases (Montecchio et al., 2017; LTOA,

2017). Lack of financial resources, however, could hamper such pro-active tree management. In

recent years, especially since austerity measures were taken by the UK government partly in

response to the last recession, funds for street and park tree management have dwindled

(Rotherham, 2019; Durkin et al., 2017).

Long-term, the UK’s climate is predicted to become milder and wetter during winter and hotter

and drier during summer (Murphy et al., 2010). Many of the UK’s urban trees are ill-adapted to

withstand these changes, in part due to previous planting decisions assuming a stable climate

(Han & Keeffe, 2019; Sukopp & Wurzel, 2003). This could result directly in a loss of trees or

have indirect effects on tree health through a climate-induced increased susceptibility to pests

and disease (Millar et al., 2007).

1.3 The importance of understanding public perceptionIn recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on stakeholder engagement and public

inclusion when making environmental decisions, including for street tree surveys (e.g. the i-Tree

surveys), and tree planting and park restoration projects (Curșeu & Schruijer, 2017; Baur et al.,

2016; Eden & Tunstall, 2006). Community involvement creates inclusivity, gives voice to the

public’s needs and helps to ensure park design meets their particular requirements ( Stevenson et

al., 2008). Decisions are thus made in a diversely inclusive manner that may face less public

opposition and are likely to be supported for longer (Curșeu & Schruijer, 2017). To ensure

environmentally sound planning decisions, the public must appreciate the value and importance

of park trees, otherwise there is a risk that anticipated future environmental problems will be

5

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

underestimated by stakeholder groups which could impact the quality of future urban life

(Rayner, 2012; Lock & Cole, 2011).

Some studies have tried to quantify public perception of the ES provided by urban trees, with

several attempting to identify important demographic factors (Swapan et al., 2017; Adekunle et

al., 2013; Lock & Cole, 2011). Others have investigated stakeholder perceptions of acceptability

of formal and informal planting in parks (Nam & Dempsey, 2019) or public perception of

challenges faced by trees (Urquhart et al., 2017; Fellner et al., 2019). To our knowledge, there

has been no previous study of public perceptions of the ES provided by park trees in London.

Nor has there been an investigation into how the socio-economic status of the area surrounding

the park may affect these perceptions. Affluence is known to be correlated with many social

determinants of attitude and may reflect demographic features such as cultural background or

approach to climate change (Sasko, 2014). It is thus used here as an easily-estimated proxy for

these features as a better understanding of these factors may assist London park managers in

their decisions.

This exploratory study aimed to increase understanding of public perceptions of park trees (in

London), by:

Examining the extent to which the public understand and appreciate the ES provided by

London’s park trees.

Examining the extent to which the public understand the challenges faced by London’s

park trees

Assessing for differences in these public perceptions between affluent and less-affluent

areas.

Investigating which demographic factors influence public understanding and perception.

We anticipated that the majority of the public would value trees positively but have a more

variable understanding of the ES they provide. There may be a difference in how the ES

provided by trees are appreciated, and the threats understood, between parks located in affluent

and less-affluent areas due to differences in park visitation, park management, local population

stability, culture and demographics. Thus, demographic and socio-economic factors may also

influence perception of the ES provided by trees. Understanding this could reveal the

6

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

demographics of target groups for delivery of specific messages on certain of the ES provided by

trees.

2 Methods2.1 Site selectionTo represent the range, parks were selected based on their size (ha) and the affluence of the

London borough they are located in. In 2017, the average house price for London was £525,000

and the average percentage of people claiming income support in London was 1.5% (Department

for Work and Pensions, 2017; Land Registry, 2017). An affluent borough is defined as one with

above average house prices and a below average percentage of people claiming income support;

a less-affluent borough is the converse. London boroughs with the lowest and highest average

house price were chosen, the majority of these also met the income support criterion. Maps were

then used to locate and compile a list of parks in each borough (Google Maps, 2017). The sizes

(ha) of the parks were obtained from London Parks and Gardens Trust (2017). After considering

the size distribution of London parks they were generalised into three size classes: ‘small’ <

39ha, ‘medium’ > 40ha and < 79ha and ‘large’ > 80ha. Two parks from each size-affluence class

were selected and their managers contacted to seek permission to survey (Table 1).

2.2 Study design and data collectionWe used a face-to-face, paper-based, mixed methods survey (see supplemental information) to

collect qualitative and quantitative data from London park users (Savin-Baden & Howell-Major,

2013). This included demographic information and opinions concerning trees, the ES they

provide, and the challenges faced by trees. Consenting, opportunistically chosen members of the

public were surveyed in the selected parks around lunchtime on weekdays (11 to 2pm) and

weekends (11 to 3pm) from 29th April to 22nd May 2017. Respondents were informed of the

survey topic (trees in parks) before starting and provided with anonymity as names were not

recorded. The interview questions were tested with 20 participants to ensure that the questions

were well-understood and that there were appropriate ranges for multiple choice questions.

The full study contained a range of question and response styles with multiple choice, Visual

Analogue Scale (VAS – see 2.4 for detail) and open-ended questions (see supplemental

information). Respondents were first asked colloquially ‘What do [park] trees do for us?’ and

7

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

later asked more formally ‘What do you believe to be the most important ecosystem service

provided by urban trees?’ This sought to determine whether public perception of the ES provided

by trees changed once the term ‘ecosystem service’ was used and defined to them. Ecosystem

services were defined as “The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These were described as

provisioning services such as oxygen, food, timber, fibre, and water; regulating services that

affect climate, floods, disease, and water quality; and cultural services that provide recreational,

aesthetic, and spiritual benefits, and the provision of habitat” (Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005; TEEB, 2010).

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of an ES on a 10cm continuous line (visual

analogue scale, VAS) from zero ‘not at all important’ to ten ‘essential’. The five ES (air quality

regulation, climate regulation, flood regulation, aesthetic value, and habitat provision) were

chosen because they are frequently considered the most relevant ES in the context of urban parks

(Elmqvist et al. 2015; Haase et al., 2014; Niemelä et al., 2010). The distance from zero was then

measured and used as a proxy for expressed importance. This was selected over a Likert scale to

provide proxy-continuous data and increase the variety of analysis options and offer greater

sensitivity (Reips & Funke, 2008; Grant et al., 1999). Mixing of qualitative and quantitative

questions allows cross tabulation between explanatory factors and perceptions and is rapid for

both the respondent and interviewer, increasing completion rates and survey size.

2.3 Ethics approvalThis survey was evaluated as low-risk and carried-out in accordance with the recommendations

of the Imperial College London approvals process for non-medical studies and was approved at

the Departmental level by Chair’s review. The health and safety of public and surveyors was

considered and this planning approved at Faculty level.

2.4 AnalysesAnalyses were performed in R (v 3.3.2). The visual analogue scale data (VAS) was negatively

skewed, confirmed by Shapiro-Wilks test. For these cases, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were

preferred over t-Tests and, for ANOVAs, the data was transformed by log ( x )+1 (Hollander et al.,

2013). When estimating influence of different levels within factors, ANOVA was used to test

progressive model simplification through stepwise deletion of non-significant terms.

8

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

2.4.1 Perceptions of park trees, their ecosystem services, and challenges Key words and phrases were extracted from the open-ended questions (survey questions 9, 13

and 19) and their frequency calculated. The frequency of the top fifteen words was visualised;

words occurring only once or twice were excluded. Bar plots illustrate quantitative perception of

each ES from the VAS responses. ANOVA was used to estimate variation in public perception

of the importance of each ES.

2.4.2 Effects of affluenceWilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to determine whether the affluence of a park’s surrounding

area affected the public perception of ES. Linear regression was then used to estimate whether

specific affluence of the respondents affected their perceptions. Postcodes were used to

determine their local average house price and used as a linear proxy for specific affluence.

Foreign visitors surveyed (n=12) were excluded from this step.

2.4.3 Factors influencing perceptionsTo determine whether other demographic factors influence perceptions of ES, a series of

Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests and one-way ANOVAs were used. A Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was

used to determine the effect of gender on perception and one-way ANOVAs for education, age

and frequency of visiting London parks.

3 Results3.1 Sample demographic and background informationA total of 344 responses were collected from six selected parks (Table 2a). Women and men

were equally represented, 25-39 years was the modal age range and the sample reflected closely

the age class proportions of the Greater London population (Office for National Statistics, 2016).

A range of education levels was represented, though the sample did have a bias towards higher

education levels; 61% of respondents had attended higher education, more than the 38% in the

broader London population (Table 2b). Most park users were specific and regular visitors who

lived nearby; only 12 (3.4%) lived abroad.

3.2 Perceptions of park trees, their ecosystem services, and challengesRespondents unanimously agreed on the importance of having trees in urban parks. Almost all

(97.7%) believed it important to have a variety of tree species in parks. The majority (76.2%) of

9

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

respondents thought more trees should be planted in London parks, 18.9% believed more trees

may need to be planted in parks other than the one they were currently visiting and the remaining

4.9% believed that no more trees should be planted anywhere in London. ‘Urbanisation’ was the

most common response to ‘What challenges face park trees?’ with ‘pollution’, ‘nothing’ and

‘disease’ also ranking highly (Figure 2c).

The majority of respondents (73%) were unfamiliar with the term ‘ecosystem services’ and most

of those who had heard of it were unable to define it correctly (Figure 1). The most popular key

word responses to ‘What do [park] trees do for us?’ (Figure 2a) and ‘What is the most important

ecosystem service provided by park trees?’ were ‘aesthetics’, ‘oxygen’ and ‘clean air’ (Figure

2b). The order of the words changed with ‘aesthetics’ falling from first to third place and

‘oxygen’ rising to first place after the term ‘ecosystem services’ had been clarified (b).

Trees were perceived to be important for the provision of all listed ES (Figure 3), though the

perceived importance of each varied (F4,1715=54.1, p < 0.001). Their value to climate regulation,

flood prevention and pollution mitigation were perceived as lower than that to aesthetic value (p

<0.001, 0.001 and 0.02 respectively). We detected no difference in the value of park trees to the

provision of habitats for wildlife and to aesthetic value (p=0.49).

3.3 The influence of affluenceNo evidence that general affluence of the park location affected perceptions of tree importance to

any ES was found in this study; pollution mitigation (W=14304, p=0.56), climate regulation

(W=14382, p=0.65), flood prevention (W=13362, p=0.11), provision of habitats for wildlife

(W=14551, p= 0.73) and aesthetic value (W=14588, p=0.78).

Nor was there evidence that the specific affluence associated with the respondents’ home post

code affected the perception of tree importance for pollution mitigation (F1,327=0.046, p= 0.83),

climate regulation (F1,327=0.85, p=0.36), provision of habitats for wildlife (F1,327= 0.013, p=0.91)

or aesthetic value (F1,327=0.42, p= 0.52). Specific affluence may be slightly linked to the

perception of the importance of park trees for flood prevention (F1,327=4.83, p<0.05), though

effect size is small (-0.06 points of importance for each £100,000 rise in property value) and fit is

poor.

10

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

3.4 Other factors influencing perceptions3.4.1 Gender: There is no evidence that women or men perceived the importance of park

trees for providing these ES any differently to each other: pollution mitigation (W= 14016, p=

0.37) climate regulation (W=15613, p=0.34), flood prevention (W=15023, p=0.76), provision of

habitats for wildlife (W=15370, p=0.36) and aesthetic value (W=14736, p=0.98).

3.4.2 Age: Over 40s allocated slightly higher importance to aesthetics than did under 40s

(F1,342=14.64, p<0.001)(Figure 4a), though the age-classes within these groups did not vary from

each other (over 40s: F2,341=0.11, p=0.89; under 40s: F2,341=1.01, p=0.32 ). There was no evidence

that age affected the perception of the importance of trees for pollution mitigation (F4,339=1.21,

p=0.31), climate regulation (F4,339=0.51, p=0.73), flood prevention (F4,339=1.33, p=0.26) or

provision of habitats for wildlife (F4,339=1.77, p= 0.13).

3.4.3 Education: There is no evidence that the education level of respondents influenced the

perceived importance of trees for provision of these ES: pollution mitigation (F3,340=0.18, p=

0.91), climate regulation (F3,340=1.08, p=0.36), flood prevention (F3,340=0.38, p=0.78), provision

of habitats for wildlife (F3,340=0.76, p= 0.52) and aesthetics (F3,340=1.86, p = 0.14).

3.4.4 Frequency of visits: The importance placed on the aesthetic contribution of trees was

sensitive to visit frequency; those who visited at low frequencies (monthly or a few times a year)

had similar perceptions (F1,341=2.11, p=0.15) but scored aesthetics as less important than those

who visited more regularly (daily–weekly). The 20 people in the ‘almost never’ visit category,

were also indistinguishable from the frequent visitors (F1,342=0.19, p=0.66) (Figure 4b).

There was no evidence that frequency of visit influenced perception of the importance of trees

for pollution mitigation (F4,339=2.11, p=0.08), climate regulation (F4,339=0.63, p=0.64), flood

prevention (F4,339=0.34, p=0.85) or the provision of habitats for wildlife (F4,339=2.01, p=0.09).

4 Discussion As people were surveyed in parks, this exploratory study represents the views of a particular, and

important, stakeholder group, park users. An understanding of their views is valuable to park

managers, especially those of more regular park users. While a wider group may have attended

co-incident special events such as a fun fair (Barking Park 20/05/17) and the London Motor

Show (Battersea Park 05/05/17) these less-frequent park visitors could contribute to greater

11

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

representation of the public as a whole. They may also introduce another kind of bias. The

educational bias, that a greater proportion of this sample than in the background population had a

completed higher education, could also influence perception though no effect of such variation

was identified here.

Bias in responses can be common in surveys, particularly social desirability bias - the tendency

for survey respondents to give what they feel is the ‘socially desirable’ or ‘correct’ answer

(Steenkamp et al., 2010). The consistently high importance attributed to all ES in this survey

could indicate this tendency. This effect is, however, likely low as respondents were specifically

asked for their personal opinion and social desirability bias tends to be lower in face-to-face

interviews than in other means of survey (Holbrook et al., 2003).

4.1 Ecosystem servicesEcosystem services, a term in common parlance in academic and conservation circles, was

popularised by the global Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005; the low familiarity with it

in the largely educated demographic of this study was surprising. While there are ongoing

discussions around both terminology and valuation (Costanza et al., 2014; Garcia Rodrigues et

al., 2018; la Notte et al., 2017), the concept that nature ‘does things for us’ appears widely

intuitive with little difference in answers given by public park users before and after the ES

concept was described (figure 2). A clarification of the concept appears to move people to a

more functional view and led to a halving of the number of respondents citing the aesthetic

importance of trees in this context (Figure 2a-b). This fall may also be due to differing

interpretations as some respondents may have assumed that ES applies principally to biological

services, not the less familiar ‘cultural ES’ such as aesthetic contribution. We suggest that

researchers use language that is accessible to describe the multiple benefits trees provide when

working with the public.

4.2 Valuation/Ranking of ecosystem services importanceThe importance placed on ES in this study is similar to findings in other studies (Raum, 2018;

Swapan et al., 2017; Lock & Cole, 2011). In Chengdu, China, however, microclimate regulation

was considered by far the most important ES, suggesting cultural differences may influence

perceptions (Swapan et al., 2017). The majority of our respondents appreciated the importance of

trees for the provision of oxygen and cleaning of the air (Figure 2a-b, 3a) which is in line with

12

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

the findings of a London-wide tree survey and valuation (the i-Tree Eco analysis) (Rogers et al.,

2015). Park trees were also perceived to be important contributors to climate regulation and

flood prevention with average VAS scores of over 7.5. These were, however, the lowest ranking

ES of the five surveyed in this study. This may be due to a lack of awareness of these less-visible

services which has been observed elsewhere (Raum, 2018; Garrido et al., 2017; Oteros-Rozas et

al., 2017). Aesthetics and the provision of habitats for wildlife scored the highest and are easily

observed; whilst pollution mitigation, which cannot be observed, has been widely discussed in

the mainstream media (Harrabin, 2017; Kinver, 2016).

4.3 Challenges faced by park treesThe challenges facing park trees were not that well understood by respondents and do not match

those identified by the academic literature. The top three challenges suggested by interviewees in

this survey were urbanisation, pollution, nothing, and diseases, whilst in pertinent literature,

pests and disease, climate change, reduced biodiversity, developmental pressures, and lack of

resources are considered some of the key challenges facing park trees (Raum et al., 2019;

Rotherham, 2019; Hill et al., 2018). Climate change was ranked as fifteenth in our survey; this

and the high ranking of ‘nothing’ are strongly indicative of a divergence between perception and

substance which should be addressed for effective planting and planning. Disease did rank highly

and was the fourth most common challenge cited, possibly in part due to widespread knowledge

of diseases such as ash dieback, oak processionary moth and Dutch elm diseases (Urquhart et al.,

2017b; Gibbs, 1978). Thus, many of the members of the public are aware of some of the threats

to urban park trees, but may not appreciate the relationship between these, climate change,

reduced biodiversity, and lack of resources.

Another theme was present in the respondents’ views on this topic: the immediate threat posed

by people and management. ‘Removal of trees’, ‘poor management’, ‘humans’, ‘vandalism’ and

‘cutting down’ were in the top ten answers given (Figure 2c). This indicates widespread concern

among park users that their green spaces and trees are under proximal threat from other people

and management institutions rather than being proactively managed with the future in mind. In

the UK, council budget allocations and priorities of the management body determine park

management decisions (Britt & Johnston, 2008). However, in recent years, these have been

severely reduced due to budget cuts (Rotherham, 2019; Durkin et al., 2017). Yet, ecosystem

13

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

service-and resilience focused proactive management is a crucial feature of the sustainability of

urban greenspace (Niemelä et al., 2010). This indicates that there is a substantial information

gap when engaging in consultations with the public regarding long-term park planning decisions.

4.4 Affluence of neighbourhood contextThere is some evidence that in ‘rich’ countries, wealthier people care less about local

environmental concerns; instead they tend to assume local conditions are satisfactory and are

more concerned about long term issues such as climate change (Fairbrother, 2013). In our

exploratory study, we did not identify variation in the views of the importance of trees between

richer and poorer areas/post codes of London. This may indicate that the variation Fairbrother

(2013) observed between countries does not operate at the within-city scale and that informed

public support may be achieved across an urban matrix. Other studies, however, have found links

between income and perception, perhaps indicating that average house price within post code

may not be a reliable proxy for individual affluence or that this study was underpowered to

evaluate subtle effects (Swapan et al., 2017). In London boroughs, there tends to be a

considerable diversity in terms of affluence within a borough which may have influenced our

findings. The ward level may provide a better unit for future studies.

Some of the parks surveyed here, especially those in less-affluent areas, are working actively to

ensure they can provide a key range of ES. A park in a less-affluent urban matrix achieving this

is Mayesbrook Park; it is the ‘UK’s first climate change park’. The park has been redesigned

since 2011 to become more resilient to climate change by creating a new floodplain and wetland

and by appropriate and diverse plantings (Everard et al., 2011; Natural England, 2013).

Extensive public consultation as part of the re-design programme helped to address local

concerns about the park in the restoration masterplan (Natural England, 2013).

4.5 DemographicsTwo demographic factors, age and visit pattern, influenced perception of tree importance to park

aesthetics, but we found no evidence of demographic influence on perception of any other ES in

this study. Older people get considerable enjoyment from green views and verdant vistas/ (Orr et

al., 2016) which is consistent with rating the aesthetics of trees more highly than do younger

people. They also tend to visit parks more often than other age groups. This may also be related

to high subjectivity in aesthetic and ‘beauty’ concepts (Rogge et al., 2007). The higher aesthetic

14

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

appreciation scores of frequent park visitors is an intriguing observation. Whether these people

visit more frequently because of a particular aesthetic appreciation of greenspace or whether the

frequency of their visits creates more sensitivity to seasonal (and other) changes, and this

dynamism in turn raises aesthetic appreciation, is unclear. More intriguing is that very occasional

visitors gave similarly high scores to those of very regular visitors, perhaps suggesting that they

were appreciating this rare natural contact. These relationships between age and visitation

frequency with perception of aesthetics has been noted elsewhere (Swapan et al., 2017).

Contrastingly, the provision of habitats for wildlife is both visible and very objective; perhaps

not coincidently it is also the most highly ranked ES with the least demographic variance (Figure

3).

5 ConclusionThis exploratory study suggests that, although their familiarity with terminology is low,

London’s park users tend to appreciate the ES provided by trees. The perceived importance of

each, however, varied. Park trees’ value for climate regulation, flood prevention and pollution

mitigation were ranked lower than that for aesthetics and the provision of oxygen. In general,

park users believe more trees should be planted and worry about the removal of trees; for the

most part, we did not identify evidence that factors such as demographic parameters affected

these conclusions. Park users appear to be less concerned and informed about the long-term

environmental threats facing urban trees, perceiving instead more immediate threats from both

individuals and institutions. There is thus a substantial opportunity for stakeholder engagement

by park managers to describe and explain planting and planning decisions in the light of long-

term thinking and ES. Few respondents associated climate change, lack of resources, or loss of

biodiversity as a threat to park trees. As it is imperative that park managers consider climate

change and long-term ES provision when making planting and planning decisions, providing

information and supporting education surrounding this would be valuable; it ensures the public

feel involved and that decisions have long-standing support.

6 AcknowledgementsWe would like to give a special thank you to the London Boroughs of Wandsworth, Kensington

& Chelsea, Barking & Dagenham and Tower Hamlets for their support of this project and for

their permissions. We would like to thank Daniyal Raza for his contribution to data collection

15

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

and (with Sabina Nowakowska and Megan Brown) park selection. The authors would also like to

thank Mark Burgman and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier

versions of this article.

7 References1. Adekunle, M., Agbaje, B. & Kolade, V. (2013) Public perception of ecosystem service

functions of peri-urban forest for sustainable management in Ogun State. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 7 (6), 410-416. DOI:10.5897/AJEST2012.1411

2. Alvey, A. A. (2006) Promoting and preserving biodiversity in the urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5 (4), 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.003

3. Baur, J. W., Tynon, J. F., Ries, P. & Rosenberger, R. S. (2016) Public attitudes about urban forest ecosystem services management: a case study in Oregon cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 17 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.01

4. Berland, A., Shiflett, S.A., Shuster, W.D., Garmestani, A.S., Goddard, H.C., Herrmann, D.L. & Hopton, M. (2017) The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landscape and Urban Planning 162, 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.017

5. Bernatzky, A. (1983) The effects of trees on the urban climate. Trees in the 21st Century. Academic Publishers, London.

6. Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics 29 (2), 293-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0

7. Boyd, I. L., Freer-Smith, P. H., Gilligan, C. A. & Godfray, H. C. (2013) The consequence of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science 342 (6160), 1235773. DOI: 10.1126/science.1235773

8. Britt, C. & Johnston, M. (2008) Trees in Towns II. A new survey of urban trees in England and their condition and management. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

9. Chalker-Scott, L. (2015) Nonnative, noninvasive woody species can enhance urban landscape biodiversity. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 41 (4), 173-186.

10. Civitello, D.J., Cohen, J., Fatima, H., Halstead, N.T., Liriano, J., McMahon, T.A., Ortega, C.N., Sauer, E.L., Sehgal, T., Young, S. & Rohr, J.R. (2015) Biodiversity inhibits parasites: broad evidence for the dilution effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (28), 8667–8671. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1506279112

11. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Faber, S. & Turner, R. K. (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26 (1), 152–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

16

420

421

422

423

424425426

427428

429430431

432433434

435436

437438

439440441

442443444

445446

447448449450451

452453454455

12. Curșeu, P. L. & Schruijer, S. G. (2017) Stakeholder diversity and the comprehensiveness of sustainability decisions: the role of collaboration and conflict. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 28, 114-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.007

13. Davies, M. & Naumann, S. (2017) Making the Case for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems as a Nature-Based Solution to Urban Flooding. In: N. Kabisch et al. (eds.), Nature‐based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas, Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_8.Department for Work and Pensions (2017) Income support claimants. Department for Work and Pensions, London.

14. Doick, K.J., Peace, A. & Hutchings, T.R. (2014) The role of one large greenspace in mitigating London’s nocturnal urban heat island. Science of the Total Environment 493, 662–671. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.048

15. Durkin, A., Sankus, M., Quaife, J. (2017) AA’s tree officer’s survey shows need for government action. The ARB Magazine 177, 17-18.

16. Eden, S. & Tunstall, S. (2006) Ecological versus Social Restoration? How Urban River Restoration Challenges but Also Fails to Challenge the Science – Policy Nexus in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 24, 661-680. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0608j

17. Elmqvist, T., Setӓlӓ, H., Handel, S.N., Van der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Blignaut, J.N., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Nowak, D.J., Kronenberg, J., De Groot, R. (2015) Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 101–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001Everard, M., Shuker, L. & Gurnell, A. (2011) The Mayes Brook restoration in Mayesbrook Park, East London: an ecosystem services assessment. Environment Agency Evidence Report. Environment Agency, Bristol.

18. Fairbrother, M. (2013) Rich people, poor people, and environmental concern: evidence across nations and time. European Sociological Review 29 (5), 910-922. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs068

19. Fang, C. & Ling, D. (2005) Guidance for noise reduction provided by tree belts. Landscape and Urban Planning 71 (1), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.01.005

20. Fellner, J., Barnett, J., Potter, C., Urquhart, J., Mumford, J.D., Quine, C.P. & Raum, S. (2018) ‘I’d like to report a suspicious looking tree’: Public concern, public attention and the nature of reporting about ash dieback in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 28, 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518814369

21. Garcia Rodrigues, J, Villasante, S, Drakou E.G., Kermagoret, C. & Beaumont, N. (2017) Operationalising marine and coastal ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13 (3), i-iv. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2018.1433765

22. Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Plieninger, T., Pulido, F. & Morenom G. (2017) Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: a case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60, 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.022

17

456457458

459460461462463464

465466467

468469

470471472473

474475476477478479480

481482483

484485

486487488489

490491492493

494495496

23. Gibbs, J. (1978) Development of the Dutch elm disease epidemic in southern England, 1971‐6. Annals of Applied Biology 88 (2), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1978.tb00699.x

24. Google Maps. (2017) Map of Greater London. Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/London/.

25. Grant, S., Aitchison, T., Henderson, E., Christie, J., Zare, S., McMurray, J. & Dargie, H. (1999) A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest Journal 116 (5), 1208-1217. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.116.5.1208

26. Haase, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Elmqvist, T. (2014) Ecosystem Services in Urban Landscapes: Practical Applications and Governance Implications. Ambio, 43(4), 407-412. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1

27. Han, Q. & Keeffe, G. (2019) Mapping the Flow of Forest Migration through the City under Climate Change. Urban Planning 4(1), 139-151. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1753

28. Harrabin, R. (2017) Cities need 'hedges as well as trees' for environment. BBC News website. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39943197.

29. Harwood, T., Tomlinson, I., Potter, C. & Knight, J. (2011) Dutch elm disease revisited: past, present and future management in Great Britain. Plant Pathology 60 (3), 545-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02391.x

30. Hewitt, C. N., Ashworth, K., & MacKenzie, A. R. (2019) Using green infrastructure to improve urban air quality (GI4AQ). AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01164-3

31. Hill, L., Hemery, G., Hector, A. & Brown, N. (2018) Maintaining ecosystem properties after loss of ash in Great Britain. People and Nature 56(2), 282-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13255

32. Holbrook, A., Green, M.C., Krosnick, J. (2003) Telephone Versus Face-To-Face Interviewing Of National Probability Samples With Long Questionnaires: Comparisons Of Respondent Satisficing And Social Desirability Response Bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67 (1), 79–125. https://doi.org/10.1086/346010

33. Hollander, M., Wolfe, D. A. & Chicken, E. (2013) Nonparametric statistical methods. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

34. Huang, Y., Akbari, H. & Taha, H. (1990) The wind-shielding and shading effects of trees on residential heating and cooling requirements. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. https://www.aivc.org/sites/default/files/airbase_4708.pdf

35. Jones, E. L. & Leather, S. R. (2012). Invertebrates in urban areas: a review. European Journal of Entomology. Czech Academy of Sciences 109 (4), 463-478. DOI: 10.14411/eje.2012.060

18

497498499

500501

502503504505

506507508

509510511

512513

514515516

517518519

520521522

523524525526

527528

529530531532

533534535

36. Kampa, M. & Castanas, E. (2008) Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental Pollution. 151 (2), 362-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012

37. Kinver, M. (2016) Growth of city trees can cut air pollution, says report. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37813709.

38. Land Registry. (2017) Average house prices. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.

39. La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M. L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B., Geneletti, D. & Crossman, N. D. (2017) Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators 74, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030

40. Lock, K. & Cole, L. (2011) Public Perceptions of Landscapes and Ecosystems in the UK. A report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Policy Studies Institute, London. http://www.envirobase.info/PDF/RES15588_review_1.pdf

41. LTOA (2017) Canker stain of plane. Dealing with an outbreak. A guidance note for tree officers/managers and contractors. London Tree Officers Association. https://www.ltoa.org.uk/canker-stain-of-plane-dealing-with-an-outbreak/file

42. London Parks and Gardens Trust (2017) London Gardens Online. http://londongardensonline.org.uk/index.html.

43. MacDonald, J. A. (2007) How cities use parks for climate change management. City Parks Forum.

44. Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L. & Stephens, S. L. (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17 (8), 2145-2151. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1715.1

45. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Reports.html#

46. Montecchio, L.; Fay, N. & Parker, J. (2017) Detecting and identifying Canker stain of plane. London Tree Officers Association. https://www.ltoa.org.uk/docs/LTOA-CSP_Booklet-sample.pdf

47. Monteiro, V., Doick, K.J., Handley, P. & Peace, A. (2016) The impact of greenspace size on the extent of local nocturnal air temperature cooling in London. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.02.008

48. Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D., Jenkins, G., Booth, B., Brown, C., Clark, R., Collins, M., Harris, G., Kendon, E. & Betts, R. (2010) UK climate projections science report: climate change projections. V3 http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media.jsp?mediaid=87893

49. Nam, J. & Dempsey, N. (2019) Understanding stakeholder perceptions of acceptability and feasibility of formal and informal planting in Sheffield’s District Parks. Sustainability 11(2), 360-380. 360; doi:10.3390/su11020360

19

536537

538539

540541

542543544545

546547548

549550551

552553

554555

556557558

559560561

562563564

565566567

568569570571

572573574

50. Natural England (2013) Mayesbrook Park Green Infrastructure Case Study. Creating the UK’s first climate change park in east London. Natural England. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/11909565

51. Ngiam, R. W. J., Lim, W. L. & Collins, C.M. (2017) A balancing act in urban social-ecology: human appreciation, ponds and dragonflies. Urban Ecosystems 20(4), 743–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0635-0

52. Niemelä, J., Saarela, S., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S. & Kotze, D. J. (2010) Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation 19 (11), 3225-3243. DOI:10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8

53. 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), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.01.007

54. Nowak, D. J., Greenfield, E. J., Hoehn, R. E. & Lapoint, E. (2013) Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environmental Pollution 178, 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.019

55. Ocasio-Morales, R. G., Tsopelas, P. & Harrington, T. C. (2007) Origin of Ceratocystis platani on native Platanus orientalis in Greece and its impact on natural forests. Plant Disease 91 (7), 901-904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-91-7-0901

56. Office for National Statistics (2016) Age by highest level of qualification by sex by country of birth.2011 census. Office for National Statistics, London.

57. Orr, N., Wagstaffe, A., Briscoe, S. & Garside, R. (2016) How do older people describe their sensory experiences of the natural world? A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. BMC Geriatrics, 16:116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0288-0

58. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martin-Lopez, B., Fagerholm, N. & Bieling, C. (2017) Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecological Indicators 94 (2), 74-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.009

59. Pope III, C. A. & Dockery, D. W. (2006) Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56 (6), 709-742. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464485

60. Pugh, T., Mackenzie, R., Whyatt, D. & Hewitt, C.N. 2012, 'Effectiveness of green infrastructure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons' Environmental Science and Technology, 46 (14), 7692–7699. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300826w.

61. Raum, S., Hand, K., Edwards, D., O’Brien, L., Hall, C., Doick, K. (2019) Achieving impact from ecosystem assessment and valuation of urban greenspace: The case of i-Tree Eco in Great Britain. Landscape and Urban Planning (in press)

62. Raum, S. (2018) A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK. Ecosystem Services 29, 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001

20

575576577

578579580

581582583584

585586587

588589590

591592593

594595

596597598

599600601602

603604605

606607608

609610611

612613614

63. Rayner, S. (2012) Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Economy and Society, 41(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335

64. Reips, U. & Funke, F. (2008) Interval-level measurement with visual analogue scales in Internet-based research: VAS Generator. Behavior Research Methods 40 (3), 699-704. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.699

65. Rogers, K., Sacre, K., Goodenough, J. & Doick, K. (2015) Valuing London's urban forest: results of the London i-Tree Eco project. Treeconomics, London. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/LONDONI-TREEECOREPORT151202.pdf/

66. Rogge, E., Nevens, F. & Gulinck, H. (2007) Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (4), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006

67. Rotherham, I. (2019) No Stump City: The Contestation and Politics of Urban Street-Trees – A Case Study of Sheffield. People, Place and Policy 12(3), 188-203. https://doi: 10.3351/ppp.2019.8283649746

68. Sasko, D. (2014) Can affluence explain public attitudes towards climate change mitigation policies? A multilevel analysis with data from 27 EU countries (CGP Working Paper Series, 02/2014). Freie Universität Berlin, Center for Global Politics, Berlin.

69. Savin-Baden, M. & Howell-Major, C. (2013) Qualitative Research. The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. Routledge, Abingdon.

70. Smithers, R.J., Doick, K.J., Burton, A. (2018) Comparing the relative abilities of tree species to cool the urban environment. Urban Ecosystems 21(5), 851-862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0761-y

71. Southwark Council (2013) Flood Risk Management Herne Hill and Dulwich. Southwark Council, London. https://www.southwark.gov.uk/environment/flood-risk-management/herne-hill-and-dulwich-flood-alleviation-scheme.

72. Steenkamp, J. E., De Jong, M. G. & Baumgartner, H. (2010) Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research 47 (2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.2.199

73. Stevenson, T. R., Gerhold, H. D. & Elmendorf, W. F. (2008) Attitudes of municipal officials toward street tree programs in Pennsylvania, US. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34 (3), 144-151.

74. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.001

75. Sukopp, H. & Wurzel, A. (2003) The effects of climate change on the vegetation of central European cities. Urban Habitats 1 (1), 66-86. http://urbanhabitats.org/v01n01/climatechange_full.html

21

615616617

618619620

621622623

624625626

627628629

630631632

633634

635636637

638639640641

642643644

645646647

648649650

651652653

76. Swapan, M. S. H., Iftekhar, M. S. & Li, X. (2017) Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: a comparative study of China and Australia. Cities 61, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003

77. Taylor, M.S., Wheeler, B.W., White, M.P., Economou, T. & Osborne, N.J. (2015) Research note: Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—A cross-sectional study in London, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning 136, 174-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.005

78. TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London

79. Tratalos, J., Fuller, R. A., Warren, P. H., Davies, R. G. & Gaston, K. J. (2007) Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (4), 308-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003

80. Tsopelas, P., Santini, A., Wingfield, M.J., De Beer, Z.W. (2017) Canker stain: A lethal disease destroying iconic plane trees. Plant Disease 101(5),645-658. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-09-16-1235-FE

81. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11 (3), 201-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7

82. Urquhart, J., Potter, C., Barnett, J., Fellenor, J., Mumford, J., Quine, C.P. (2017a) Expert risk perceptions and the social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree pests and diseases. Environmental Science & Policy 77, 172-178. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.020.

83. Urquhart, J., Potter, C., Barnett, J., Fellenor, J., Mumford, J., Quine, C.P., Bayliss, H. (2017b) Awareness, concern and willingness to adopt biosecure behaviours: public perceptions of invasive tree pests and pathogens in the UK. Biological Invasions 19(9), 2567-2582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1467-4

84. Willis, K. J. & Petrokofsky, G. (2017) The natural capital of city trees. City trees can help to reduce pollution and improve human health. Science 356, 374-376. DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9724

85.

22

654655656

657658659660

661662

663664665

666667668

669670671672

673674675

676677678679

680681682

683

TablesTable 1: Descriptors of parks in which surveys took place.

Park Borough ManagementArea

(Ha)

Average

house price

2014 (£‘000)

People claiming

income support

August 2016 (%)

Above average affluence

Battersea Park Wandsworth Wandsworth Council 81 681,000 1.2

Wandsworth Common Wandsworth Wandsworth Council 69 681,000 1.2

Holland Park Kensington & Chelsea

Kensington & Chelsea Council

22.5 1,949,000 1.0

Below average affluence

Victoria Park Tower Hamlets Tower Hamlets Council 86 444,000 1.8

Mayesbrook Park

Barking and Dagenham

Barking and Dagenham Council

43 215,000 2.7

Barking Park Barking and Dagenham

Barking and Dagenham Council

30 215,000 2.7

Table 2: top a) Number of respondents across the parks surveyed; bottom b) Demographic

descriptors given as percentages of total responses.

Area Park No. of respondents Total

Affluent

Battersea Park 65

174Wandsworth Common 57

Holland Park 52

Less-affluent

Victoria Park 82

170Mayesbrook Park 42

Barking Park 46

Total 6 344 344

Variable Percentage (%) Variable Percentage (%)

Gender Visiting specifically

Male 47.4 Yes 83.4

23

684

685

686

687

688

Female 52.6 No 16.6

Education Frequency of visiting London parks

None 2.9 Almost never 5.8

GCSEs 13.1 A few times a year 18.3

A-Levels 20.3 Monthly 13.7

Vocational training 0.9 Weekly 33.7

Higher education 61.0 Daily 28.5

Age class (years) Reason for visiting areaLess than 25 14.8 Resident 54.6

25 to 39 39.8 Work 7.6

40 to 54 23.3 Visitor 37.8

55 to 69 16.0

Over 70 6.1

Figures

Figure 1: Responses to the question ‘what do you understand the term ‘ecosystem services’ to

mean?’ from all members of the public surveyed (N=344).

24

689

690

691

692

693

Figure 2: Popularity of the top 15 terms given in response to being asked for a) what urban park

trees do for us b) what are the most important ecosystem services provided by these trees and c)

what are the greatest challenges they face. Lower ranking terms were excluded as they were only

given once or twice.

Figure 3: Public perception of ecosystem service value provided by urban trees. Mean visual

analogue score (0-10) values ± 95%CIs (N=344).

25

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

Figure 4: Perception score in response to the question ‘how important is the aesthetic value of

urban park trees?’ by a) age group and b) frequency of visitation to London parks. Mean visual

analogue score (0-10) values ± 95%CIs (N=344).

26

702

703

704

705

706