Next Article in Journal
Measuring Radial Variation in Basic Density of Pendulate Oak: Comparing Increment Core Samples with the IML Power Drill
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Controlled Mycorrhization and Deficit Irrigation in the Nursery on Post-Transplant Growth and Physiology of Acer campestre L. and Tilia cordata Mill.
Previous Article in Journal
Alleviation of Salt Stress via Habitat-Adapted Symbiosis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/f13040587
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perception of Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change: Mirador Sur Park in Santo Domingo

by
Solhanlle Bonilla-Duarte
1,2,3,
Yolanny Rojas Mancebo
2,
Alma Liz Vargas-de la Mora
3 and
Agustín García-García
4,*
1
Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (INTEC), Ave. de Los Proceres, Santo Domingo 10100, Dominican Republic
2
Tropical Agricultural and Higher Education Center (CATIE), Turrialba 30501, Costa Rica
3
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP)-CIRPAS, Ocozocuautla de Espinosa 29140, Mexico
4
Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Extremadura, Av. Elvas s/n, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2022, 13(4), 587; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040587
Submission received: 9 March 2022 / Revised: 27 March 2022 / Accepted: 5 April 2022 / Published: 8 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue How Urban Trees Grow and Survive under Environmental Changes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The rapid urbanization of cities has resulted in the deterioration of urban forests and the loss of important benefits from green infrastructure, such as the removal of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and carbon sequestration. The Mirador Sur Park is one of the main green spaces in the city of Santo Domingo. The objective of this research was to identify citizen participation in the design and management of urban forests as a strategy for guiding cities towards a more sustainable and resilient model in the face of climate change. In this study, changes in the park’s land use were identified, 136 park users were interviewed to find out their perception of the benefits of forest cover, and the ecosystem services of Mirador Sur Park were quantified using the i-Tree Canopy tool. It was found that the ecosystem services related to the removal of atmospheric pollutants are clearly perceived by the users of the park. However, there are other services that could not be identified if there is no relationship with the users of the park, such as those related to the benefits of human well-being. Citizens’ perception and appropriation are important elements for the co-management of the park, and it would be appropriate for them to become involved in the design and implementation of environmental public policies, as well as nature-based solutions, that contribute to adequate and inclusive urban planning aimed at adapting to climate change.

1. Introduction

More than half the world’s population currently lives in urban areas, and according to projections, urbanization will continue to increase. It is estimated that there is a world population of 7.674 billion people, and it is expected that by the middle of this century, two-thirds of this population will live in cities [1,2,3].
One of the main consequences of this urban expansion is the pressure it exerts on urban and peri-urban ecosystems [4,5,6]. In cities, networks or systems made up of trees (stands), groups of trees, and individual trees located in urban and peri-urban areas are categorized as urban forests; they provide a wide range of ecosystem goods and services and contribute greatly to the livelihoods and quality of life of the inhabitants [7,8,9,10].
Some of these ecosystem services are microclimate regulation and the mitigation of the effects of the so-called heat islands, biodiversity conservation, urban hydrology, air and water filtration, and noise reduction, among others [11,12,13,14,15].
In addition to the ecosystem benefits, green spaces are important to improve the standard of living, human health and well-being, or cultural identity in cities, as well as increasing the social cohesion of the community, as proposed by the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [4,16,17]. However, most of the world’s cities are experiencing environmental challenges such as deteriorating air quality, water pollution, street noise, and heat island effects that undermine urban environmental quality, development, and sustainability [15,18,19,20,21].
From the above arises the need to create adequate public policies to restore, create, and/or maintain urban forests. One proposal for the creation, design, and management of urban green spaces is to integrate citizens as an essential part of the development of these spaces, thus spatially promoting co-responsibility for urban forests in developing countries, as well as avoiding attracting undesirable elements or activities [8,22,23,24].
The participation of citizens and a qualitative evaluation of their needs and interests help urban communities to articulate commonly shared values that can serve as reference criteria for local planners to foresee assertive strategies oriented towards a sustainable cities approach. Based on this, it is suggested that sustainability indicators for urban development should include more parameters on public spaces and open green areas, as well as indices that reflect citizens’ satisfaction and perception of their living environments [25,26,27,28].
The Dominican Republic has a high climatic vulnerability. In addition to this, the green spaces of the National District are affected by pollution and human settlements. Existing and planned rivers, coastlines, and green spaces could experience further stress, damage, and degradation due to rising temperatures, changes in rainfall patterns, a future rise in sea level, and increased storm surges [29,30]. Over the last 20 years, there has been an increase in the temperature in the Distrito Nacional, causing an increase in the heat islands, especially in the city center and particularly in winter. This situation could become worse in the future due to the scarcity of vegetation cover [31,32]. The expansion of the city’s development threatens the existence of the green belt around Santo Domingo. In fact, a positive correlation can be perceived between when the temperatures began to increase and the start of the urban expansion [33].
Some policies have been implemented in the search for solutions to these environmental challenges, such as the city’s Land Management Plan (POT) [31], which establishes guidelines to transform the land use of the city in order to make the city more resilient, green, compact, integrated, and livable. Some relevant aspects of the POT influence the organization and development of land use policies in order to determine what can be done in each particular area of the city and how such actions should be integrated. At the same time, an orientation is established to generate urban infrastructure that can accompany the growth and development of the city, introducing a focus on adapting to climate change and an evaluation of the city’s natural attributes. In this context, the POT 2030 will create a green urban system made up of spaces that may be parks, aquifers, protection zones, squares, or areas of natural value connected by green corridors, such as linear parks, tree-lined streets, or avenues that give continuity and aim to guarantee protection for species as well as urban and environmental sustainability [31]. As for the guidelines to be established by the POT 2030, the Urban Forest Plan for the Distrito Nacional was created. It proposes generating a participative process, including residents, neighborhood groups, schools/colleges, churches, community centers, institutions, and enterprises, in order to plant and maintain trees that are adequate for the city [34].
In the understanding that citizen participation and perception are important elements to establish guidelines for the successful implementation of urban plans, this research proposed a case study of one of the most important green areas in the city, quantitatively estimating the value of ecosystem services and integrating the population’s perception of services related to climate change. The rest of the paper sets out the materials and methods used in the analysis, including a general description of the area under study. We then present the main results obtained in the estimations of the ecosystem services. Finally, the results are discussed, and the most relevant conclusions of the research are set out.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. General Description of the Study Area

The research was carried out in the Mirador Sur Park, located in Circumscription 1 to the southwest of the National District, capital of the Dominican Republic, located in the Greater Antilles of the Caribbean (Figure 1). The geographic coordinates of the National District correspond to 18.476389 latitude, −69.893333 longitude. The city has a surface area of 91.6 km2, a population of 965,040 inhabitants, and a population density of 10,538 inhabitants/km2 [35,36]. The study area is territorially divided into three wards [35].
The Mirador Sur Park was inaugurated in 1970. It is the first urban ecological park in the Dominican Republic. It not only functions as a place of leisure for nature lovers and a green lung for the city, but it also helps to conserve the biodiversity of the native and endemic flora. The Park is characterized by such components as caves, rocks, green areas, underground lakes, and exclusive fauna and flora. It has an area of 7 km2 at 30 m above sea level and represents one of the green lungs of Santo Domingo, as it is one of the important natural areas of the city’s landscape. The Park is administered by the Mayor’s Office of the National District [37].

2.2. Methods

The methodology used was developed, under the qualitative-quantitative approach, to identify if there is a change in the forest cover of Mirador Sur Park and if this relationship is derived from the participation of park users. Three methodologies were used: 1. Analysis of satellite images to identify the change in the forest cover of the Park; 2. Semi-structured interviews with park users (Appendix A); and 3. Analysis of ecosystem services.

2.2.1. Analysis of Changes in the Land Use of Mirador Sur Park

Satellite images of Google Earth from the years 2000, 2010, and 2021 were used to identify the percentage of change in territorial patterns. To do so, land uses were digitized [38] according to the classification: tree/shrub; grass/herbaceous; impervious road; soil/bare ground; and water.
The results obtained from the change in the forest cover of the park were related to social variables obtained from the semi-structured interviews (years of visiting the park, participation in actions aimed at changes in the park, perception of visitors about the benefits of the park), using a Spearman correlation analysis with the INFOSTAT 2018 software (National University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina).

2.2.2. Perception of the Users of the Mirador Sur Park

In total, 136 semi-structured interviews were applied. The size of the sample was determined with a 95% confidence level, considering the total population as the number of households in district 1, the official delimitation of the area where the park is located. The people surveyed were randomly selected, applying the methodology proposed by Fisher et al. and Sonti et al. [39,40]. Their methodological proposal consists of waiting at the site to interview a random person, letting two people pass without interviewing, and to interview the third person who passes. The objective of the interviews was to know the perception of park users regarding the benefits and ecosystem services provided by trees [41,42]. The interview addressed questions related to the frequency of visits to the park, the activities carried out during their stay, the distance traveled from their home to the park, the benefits perceived from the trees, and whether the person is involved in activities that contribute to improving the park and its benefits, as well as some socioeconomic aspects (age, gender, educational level, profession, etc.). The surveys were applied in the Mirador Sur Park during the period from November 2020 to April 2021 on different days of the week and at different times, selecting park visitors over 18 years of age. The analysis of the data obtained from the interviews was carried out with the SPSS v11 software. Cross tables were made taking age, sex, and occupation as dependent variables. This set of variables was crossed with the remaining 17 variables, and Pearson’s correlation statistic was used for nominal values to determine the significant correlations between the variables. Likewise, a frequency analysis was carried out to determine the percentage of responses from visitors.

2.2.3. Economic Valuation of the Ecosystem Services

For the quantitative estimation of the Ecosystem Services, the i-Tree Canopy version 7.1 software was used, with Google satellite images to identify the number of sampling plots (Table 1), of which 20% were supervised in the field. Diameter data were taken at breast height, as well as tree height, crown width, tree species, and health [43,44].
i-Tree Canopy is a web-based software developed by the US Forest Service designed for land cover and land use assessment with photo interpretation of random data and sample points on satellite images obtained by the Google Web service.

3. Results

Regarding the change in land use of the Mirador Sur Park, from 2000 to 2021, a change rate of 6% in the use of grass/herbaceous land was identified, of which 27.8 hectares corresponded to increased forest cover. Figure 2 shows a strong association between the period of visitation and the participation of visitors in actions that contributed to the change in the forest cover of Mirador Sur Park.
The correlation analysis identified the statistical value of the associations in Figure 2, where it is shown that there is a negative correlation between the years of visitation of the park and the change in forest cover; that is, the population that had been visiting the park for less than 10 years is more involved in actions aimed at a change in forest cover, while the actions (although not statistically significant) are mainly driven by the perception of greater environmental benefits (Table 2).

3.1. Perception of Visiting Users of Mirador Sur Park

Of the total visiting users (n = 136), 47% were women and 53% men; they prefer to visit the park during the day (55%), while 39% prefer the afternoon and 5% the night.
The results show that the female population has a higher correlation with the selected variables (Table 3). In the frequency analysis, it was found that the visitors of the Mirador Sur Park mainly value the benefits of air purification (29.6%), the shade of the trees (7.4%), the tranquility (33.3%), and the scenic beauty of the space (15.9%); they use the space mainly to walk (25.9%), carry out family activities (18.5%), and recreation (11.1%); while the main motivation for visiting the park is the proximity of the park to the residence of the visitors (81.5%). With reference to the aspects to improve in the park, the main suggestions were to increase security (18.5%), improve park facilities (7.4%) and maintenance pruning (7.4%).
When asked about their main motivation for visiting the park, 63% of those interviewed said that they do so to enjoy nature. Moreover, 14% do so for recreational activities, and 10% to enjoy a space with quality air. Other motivations are related to tranquility 8%, a perception of security 3%, and the facilities that the park offers visitors 2% (Figure 3).

3.2. Valuation of Ecosystem Services

People’s perception of environmental benefits coincides with the environmental services quantified in the i-Tree analyses, where the main contributions of the park’s trees are related to air purification and carbon sequestration (Table 4 and Table 5). According to the information collected in the field, the forest cover of the park space corresponds to 65% trees and shrubs, 21% roads and sidewalks, 1% buildings, 6% grass and herbaceous plants, 5% bare ground, and 1% water (Appendix B and Appendix D).
The removal of atmospheric pollutants is an indicator of relevance, as it is directly related to aspects of human health and global warming of the planet.

4. Discussion

The co-management of urban spaces is extremely important for a more balanced development between society and the authorities [6,45,46,47,48]. This research shows that the Mirador Sur Park provides important ecosystem services related to the adaptation and mitigation of climate change, both in district 1 where it is located, mainly related to the benefits that the visiting population of the park perceives (shade, purification of the air, landscape beauty, emotional benefits), and in the city for the removal of atmospheric pollutants and carbon sequestration. These results are similar to those reported by [47,49,50,51,52,53,54], who suggest that breathing less polluted air is something that the population of an urbanized city values highly.
According to what was proposed by [22], the criteria that the population has valued can function as indicators for the co-management of wooded spaces in cities. In this investigation, two groups of relevant factors were identified. The first is related to planning aspects: the proximity to the residence of the green areas, the security within the area, the complementary facilities of the park, and its good maintenance; while a second group of factors focuses mainly on perceptible ecosystem services, such as clean air, shade from trees, scenic beauty, the well-being that the space can provide for relaxation, walking, recreation, and family activities, which are the same as those found by [8,40,47,49,51,55,56,57,58].
The factors related to ecosystem services are related to the constant increase in temperature registered in the National District, as well as the increasing loss of trees within the city [29,31,43]. Furthermore, temperature regulation and the aesthetic and recreational values of urban parks are elements which are highly valued by the population that frequents these spaces [10,57,59]. Additionally, states that trees increase people’s desire to live near these green spaces. This situation was clearly identified by the visitors interviewed in the Mirador Sur Park, which facilitates their involvement in the co-management of the space. However, it was evident that the population of this study does not identify the authority responsible for managing the park, which is why a disconnection between the managers of the space and the users is visualized [58,60]. Paradoxically, emphasized that involving the population in the design and management of green spaces is crucial to generating co-responsibility [61].
Although the authority that manages the park interacts with some visitors to Mirador Sur Park, it is unknown if they are involved in the management or decision-making of the park. There is no evidence that the municipal authorities of the National District have made efforts to know the perception of the population in relation to the trees and green areas of the city, despite the fact that citizen surveys can provide urban planners with knowledge about the attitudes and perceptions of citizens regarding urban trees and green areas [9,19,60,61,62,63].
In addition to this, the existing urban tree and green area policies are not guided by elements of urban forestry; other guidelines were taken into account in their formulation. The said guidelines are focused on creating sustainable cities, such as those proposed by UN-Habitat, which are made up of a global framework to improve the policies, plans, and designs for more compact, socially inclusive, and better integrated and connected cities and territories in order to promote sustainable urban development that is also resilient to climate change [3,7,46].
In the local context, there are ordinances for the organization of land use in specific sectors. In this way, municipal policies are adapted to the needs of each sector, as proposed by [43]. Tree planting policies should focus on the sectors of the city that need to be reforested; while the sectors that already have sufficient coverage should focus efforts on the maintenance and safety aspects of these green spaces.
It has been shown that there are sometimes discrepancies between green spaces created by municipal authorities and the wishes of citizens in terms of the use, appearance, and accessibility to these spaces [63]. Citizen participation is a strategy to improve the results of policies that seek to solve environmental problems [28,46,56,64]; therefore, it is essential to incorporate citizen opinion in order to find out their preferences. It is the responsibility of city dwellers to decide on the best balance that meets their needs [48,50,52,65,66,67].
The Mirador Sur Park provides valuable ecosystem services to the city of Santo Domingo. It stores 7091.66 metric tons of carbon, which represents more than 26 thousand tons of CO2 equivalent. Similarly, the park removes more than 7 thousand tons of pollutants and GHG annually. These services represent an annual economic value of more than USD 1.5 million.
This is consistent with other studies [6,10,43,50,60,68] carried out in both the city of Santo Domingo and in the Latin American and Caribbean region. It is important to promote the growth of these areas, so as to improve the benefits in health and lifestyle that people who live near parks and open public spaces have [53,63,69,70].
This study also highlights the importance of incorporating nature-based solutions into urban planning to guarantee the provision of important ecosystem services and the adaptation of cities to the effects of climate change [14,16,19,20,24,56,71].

5. Conclusions

The ecosystem services provided by the Mirador Sur Park are partially recognized by park users, and mostly refer to the benefits in air quality. The population that has been visiting the park for less than 10 years is more involved in activities aimed at improving the forest cover of the park, contrary to the population that has been visiting the park for more than 10 years. The proximity of the park to the homes of visitors and the type of recreational activities carried out within the park are factors that influence user perception. It was identified that the greater the perception of environmental benefits, the greater the participation in park co-management activities.
The ecosystem services related to the improvement in air quality that were perceived by the users coincide with the quantitative estimation of the removal of atmospheric pollutants made with the i-Tree software. However, there are other services that are difficult to estimate, such as those related to the emotional aspect and human well-being.
The quantitative evaluations of ecosystem services are useful indicators for decision makers. However, the quantitative evaluation of the social perception of benefits could generate important benefits related to the costs of park management and investment in public health.
The Mirador Sur Park can be considered an element that contributes as a measure of adaptation to climate change in District 1 of the National District.
The inclusion of the population for the co-management of urban forests could be a viable alternative for the generation of inclusive public policies that contribute to the modeling of cities with ecosystem-based solutions and a co-responsible design and management that better adapts to the challenges of climate change.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B.-D., A.L.V.-d.l.M. and A.G.-G.; methodology, S.B.-D. and A.L.V.-d.l.M.; formal analysis, S.B.-D. and Y.R.M.; data preparation, S.B.-D., Y.R.M. and A.L.V.-d.l.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B.-D., Y.R.M. and A.G.-G.; writing—review and editing, S.B.-D., A.L.V.-d.l.M., A.G.-G. and Y.R.M.; supervision, S.B.-D. and A.G.-G.; project administration, S.B.-D. and A.G.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Regional Government of Extremadura (Junta de Extremadura) through grants GR21034, and Research Fund of INTEC.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Process Diagram

Forests 13 00587 i001

Appendix B. Change in the Forest Cover of the Mirador Sur Park

Classification200020102021
M2%M2%M2%
Tree/Shrub718,240.97253746,608.43855996,743.98573
Grass/Herbaceous357,045.95526222,787.8161691,323.95997
Impervious Road225,327.28617330,805.68424224,398.0116
Impervious Buildings39,384.2589324,973.5777235,422.67543
Soil/Bare Ground15,888.1113131,014.0615211,369.61321
Water5955.3607905636.1948902837.709260
Total1,361,841.941001,361,825.771001,362,095.95100

Appendix C. Principal Component Analysis

Auto Vectors
VariablesE1E2
Change actions0.50
No change actions 0.50.71
Perceived benefits 0.5−0.71
Change in coverage0.50

Appendix D. Study Area Map

Forests 13 00587 i002aForests 13 00587 i002b

References

  1. Bocquier, P. World Urbanization Prospects: An alternative to the UN model of projection compatible with the mobility transition theory. Demogr. Res. 2018, 12, 197–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Banco Mundial. Población, Total. Available online: https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL (accessed on 14 August 2021).
  3. Schäffler, A.; Swilling, M. Valuing Green Infrastructure in an Urban Environment Under Pressure—The Johannesburg Case. In Ecological Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 86, pp. 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Borelli, S.; Conigliaro, M.; Pineda, F. Los bosques urbanos en el contexto global. Unasylva 2018, 69, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D. Classifying and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning. In Ecological Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 86, pp. 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Meléndez-Ackerman, E.J.; Pérez, M.E.; Espinal, A.B.P.; Caballero, C.; Cortés, L.; Bonilla-Duarte, S.; Bauer, G.; Guridy, J.M.M.; Arendt, W.J.; Nowak, D.J. A Social-Ecological Approach to Studying Variation in Urban Trees and Ecosystem Services in the National Municipal District of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Front. Sustain. Cities 2022, 3, 764073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. FAO (Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura). Directrices para la Silvicultura Urbana y Periurbana; Estudio FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; p. 176. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hirokawa, K.H. Sustainability and the Urban Forest: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. Nat. Resour. J. 2011, 51, 233–259. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24889703 (accessed on 15 August 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gerrish, E.; Watkins, S.L. The relationship between urban forests and income: A meta-analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 170, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kuras, E.R.; Warren, P.S.; Zinda, J.A.; Aronson, M.F.J.; Cilliers, S.; Goddard, M.A.; Nilon, C.H.; Winkler, R. Urban socioeconomic inequality and biodiversity often converge, but not always: A global meta-analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 198, 103799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tratalos, J.; Fuller, R.A.; Warren, P.H.; Davies, R.G.; Gaston, K.J. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Calaza, P. Trees in urban ecosystem: Connection between ¿new? urbanism, society and rational risk management. Ing. Univ. 2015, 20, 155–173. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harlan, S.L.; Brazel, A.J.; Prashad, L.; Stefanov, W.L.; Larsen, L. Neighborhood microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 63, 2847–2863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Collier, M.J.; Kendal, D.; Bulkeley, H.; Dumitru, A.; Walsh, C.; Noble, K.; Van Wyk, E.; Ordóñez, C.; et al. Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Inking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision making. Bioscience 2019, 69, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baró, F.; Chaparro, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Langemeyer, J.; Nowak, D.J.; Terradas, J. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: The case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 2014, 43, 466–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Asian Development Bank. Nature-Based Solutions for Building Resilience in Towns and Cities: Case Studies from the Greater Mekong Subregion. Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank. 2016. Available online: https://www.adb.org/publications/nature-based-solutions-building-resilience-towns-cities-gms (accessed on 5 December 2021).
  17. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Brondizio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; p. 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, X.; Rana, M.M.P. Social benefits of urban green space: A conceptual framework of valuation and accessibility measurements. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2012, 23, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kendal, D.; Williams, N.S.G.; Williams, K.J.H. Drivers of diversity and tree cover in gardens, parks and streetscapes in an Australian city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kabisch, N.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; Bonn, A. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice; Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; Springer Open: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cadenasso, M.L.; Pickett, S.T.A. Urban principles for ecological landscape design and management: Scientific fundamentals. Cities Environ. 2008, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnis, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renaud, F.G.; et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 98, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Depietri, Y.; McPhearson, T. Integrating the Grey, Green, and Blue in Cities: Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Risk Reduction. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions; Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 91–109. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dobbs, C.; Escobedo, F.J.; Clerici, N.; de la Barrera, F.; Eleuterio, A.A.; MacGregor-Fors, I.; Reyes-Paecke, S.; Vásquez, A.; Camaño, J.D.Z.; Hernández, H.J. Urban ecosystem Services in Latin America: Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ayuntamiento del Distrito Nacional; INTEC; FEDOMU. Evaluación de la Vulnerabilidad Climática del Distrito Nacional para el Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 39.
  30. Bonilla-Duarte, S.; Caballero González, C.; Cortés Rodríguez, L.; Javier Jáuregui-Haza, U.; García-García, A. Contribution of Urban Forests to the Ecosystem Service of Air Quality in the City of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Forests 2021, 12, 1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ayuntamiento del Distrito Nacional (ADN). POT Capital 2030 Aprobado Ordenanza No. 09/2019. Available online: https://issuu.com/manuelalvarez/docs/potcapital2030 (accessed on 5 July 2021).
  32. Rojas-Cortorreal, G.; Pena, J.; Rosser-Calzada, I.; García, A. La Infraestructura Verde como Herramienta de Mitigación y Adaptación Urbana en la Ciudad de Santo Domingo, República Dominicana. In XIII International Conference on Virtual City and Territory: Challenges and Paradigms of the Contemporary City; UPC: Barcelona, Spain; CPSV: Barcelona, Spain, 2019; p. 8672. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mendoza, C.L.; Sánchez, C.M.; Gómez, M. Dinámica del cambio de uso de la tierra en el parque nacional humedales del Ozama. Cienc. Soc. 2011, 36, 107–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Plan de Arbolado Urbano. Plan Arbolado Urbano DN. 2020. Available online: https://www.siembratuciudad.do/mision (accessed on 5 July 2021).
  35. ONE (Oficina Nacional de Estadística). IX Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2010 Volumen I: Informe General; Oficina Nacional de Estadística: Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  36. ONE (Oficina Nacional de Estadística). Tu Municipio en Cifras; Oficina Nacional de Estadística: Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2019; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  37. PNUMA (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente); CONAU (Consejo Nacional de Asuntos Urbanos). GEO, Santo Domingo: Perspectiva Medio Ambiente Urbano; PNUMA/CONAU/UASD: Santo Domingo, República Dominicana, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  38. Vargas-de la Mora, A.L.; Castillo-Santiago, M.A.; Randhir, T.O.; Hernández-Moreno, M.C.; Cach-Pérez, M.J.; Camacho-Valdéz, V. Know to improve: Factors that influence the transition towards silvopastotal systems in the Chiapas Coast. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2021, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  39. Fisher, D.R.; Connolly, J.J.; Campbell, L.K.; Service, U.F. Digging Together: Why People Volunteer to Help Plant One Million Trees in New York City; Environmental Stewardship Project at the Center for Society and Environment of the University of Maryland White Paper #2(2011). 2011, p. 36. Available online: http://nrs.fs.fed.us/nyc/local-resources/downloads/Digging_Together_White_Paper.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2012).
  40. Sonti, N.F.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S.; Johnson, M.L.; Auyeung, N. Fear and fascination: Use and perceptions of New York City’s forests, wetlands, and landscaped park areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Deng, J.; Andrada, R.; Pierskalla, C. Visitors’ and residents’ perceptions of urban forests for leisure in Washington DC. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 28, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Perelman, P.; Breuste, J.; Madanes, N.; Gropper, C.; Melignani, E.; Faggi, A. Use of visitors’ perception in urban reserves in the Buenos Aires metropolis. Urban Ecosyst. 2013, 16, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bonilla-Duarte, S.; Gómez-Valenzuela, V.; Vargas-de la Mora, A.-L.; García-García, A. Urban Forest Sustainability in Residential Areas in the City of Santo Domingo. Forests 2021, 12, 884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. i-Tree. i-Tree International. 2020. Available online: https://www.itreetools.org/support/resources-overview/i-tree-international (accessed on 10 October 2021).
  45. Mexia, T.; Vieira, J.; Príncipe, A.; Anjos, A.; Silva, P.; Lopes, N.; Freitas, C.; Santos-Reis, M.; Correia, O.; Branquinho, C.; et al. Ecosystem services: Urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environ. Res. 2018, 160, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Haase, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Elmqvist, T. Ecosystem Services in Urban Landscapes: Practical Applications and Governance Implications. Ambio 2014, 43, 407–412. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24709037 (accessed on 5 July 2021). [CrossRef]
  47. Olivero-Lora, S.; Meléndez-Ackerman, E.; Santiago, L.; Santiago-Bartolomei, R.; García-Montiel, D. Attitudes toward Residential Trees and Awareness of Tree Services and Disservices in a Tropical City. Sustainability 2020, 12, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Lin, J.-C.; Chiou, C.-R.; Chan, W.-H.; Wu, M.-S. Public perception of forest ecosystem services in Taiwan. J. For. Res. 2021, 26, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Locke, D.H.; McPhearson, T. Urban areas do provide ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 16, 203–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dobbs, C.; Eleuterio, A.A.; Amaya, J.D.; Montoya, J.J.; Kendal, D. The benefits of urban and peri-urban forestry. Unasylva 2018, 69, 22–29. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i8707en/I8707EN.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2021).
  51. Escobedo, F.J.; Kroeger, T.; Wagner, J.E. Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2078–2087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ordóñez-Barona, C.; Duinker, P.N. Urban forest values of the citizenry in three Colombian cities. Soc. Nat. Resour. Int. J. 2014, 27, 834–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ordoñez-Barona, C.; Devisscher, T.; Dobbs, C.; Aguilar, L.O.; Baptista, M.D.; Navarro, N.M.; Filho, D.F.D.S.; Escobedo, F.J. Trends in urban forestry research in latinamerica and the caribbean: A systematic literature review and synthesis. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 47, 126544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Conrad, E.; Christie, M.; Fazey, I. Understanding public perceptions of landscape: A case study from Gozo, Malta. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gwedla, N.; Shackleton, C.M. Perceptions and preferences for urban trees across multiple socio-economic contexts in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ahern, J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Lands. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Leong, M.; Dunn, R.R.; Trautwein, M.D. Biodiversity and socioeconomics in the city: A review of the luxury effect. Biol. Lett. 2018, 14, 20180082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rotherham, I.D. Thoughts on the politics and economics of urban street trees. Arboric. J. 2010, 33, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Baur, J.W.R.; Ries, P.; Rosenberger, R.S. A relationship between emotional connection to nature and attitudes about urban forest management. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 23, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Meléndez-Ackerman, E.J.; Santiago-Bartolomei, R.; Vila-Ruiz, C.P.; Santiago, L.E.; García-Montiel, D.; Verdejo-Ortiz, J.C.; Manrique-Hernández, H.; Hernández-Calo, E. Socioeconomic drivers of yard sustainable practices in a tropical city. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Lyytimäki, J.; Sipilä, M. Hopping on one leg-The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schroeder, H.; Flannigan, J.; Coles, R. Residents’ Attitudes Toward Street Trees in the UK and U.S. Communities. Arboric. Urban For. 2006, 32, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ortega-Álvarez, R.; Hernando, A.; Rodríguez-Correa, H.A.; MacGregor-Fors, I. Trees and the city: Diversity and composition along a neotropical gradient of urbanization. Int. J. Ecol. 2011, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Aalbers, C.B.E.M.; Sehested, K. Critical upscaling. How citizens’ initiatives can contribute to a transition in governance and quality of urban greenspace. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Robertson, A. Políticas ambientales de participación dirigidas a los jóvenes en América Latina. Espiral Estud. Estado Soc. 2005, 11, 69–93. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/138/13803303.pdf.v11i33.1593.g1393 (accessed on 5 July 2021).
  66. Hilbert, D.R.; Roman, L.A.; Koeser, A.K.; Vogt, J.; Van Doorn, N.S. Urban Tree Mortality: A Literature Review. Arboric. Silvic. Urbana 2019, 45, 167–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olzazbal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Bhave, A.G.; Mittal, N.; Feliu, E.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Farrugia, S.; Hudson, M.D.; McCulloch, L. An evaluation of flood control and urban cooling ecosystem services delivered by urban green infrastructure. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2013, 9, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, Z.; Jin, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, B. Comparación de datos de redes sociales y datos de encuestas para evaluar el atractivo del Parque Forestal Olímpico de Beijing. Sustainability 2018, 10, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Qiu, L.; Liu, F.; Zhang, X.; Gao, T. El efecto reductor de los espacios verdes con diferente estructura vegetal sobre la concentración de partículas atmosféricas en la ciudad de BaoJi, China. Atmósfera 2018, 9, 332. [Google Scholar]
  71. McPhearson, T.; Parnell, S.; Simon, D.; Gaffney, O.; Elmqvist, T.; Bai, X.; Roberts, D.; Revi, A. Scientists must have a say in the future of cities. Nat. News 2016, 538, 165–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Forests 13 00587 g001 550
Figure 1. Mirador Sur Park, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Figure 1. Mirador Sur Park, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Forests 13 00587 g001
Forests 13 00587 g002 550
Figure 2. Principal Component Analysis between variables related to the change in forest cover in Mirador Sur Park according to the visitation period (Appendix C).
Figure 2. Principal Component Analysis between variables related to the change in forest cover in Mirador Sur Park according to the visitation period (Appendix C).
Forests 13 00587 g002
Forests 13 00587 g003 550
Figure 3. Main motivations of the interviewees to visit the Mirador Sur Park according to the visitation period.
Figure 3. Main motivations of the interviewees to visit the Mirador Sur Park according to the visitation period.
Forests 13 00587 g003
Table
Table 1. Land use categories and i-Tree Canopy sampling points in Mirador Sur Park.
Table 1. Land use categories and i-Tree Canopy sampling points in Mirador Sur Park.
Cover ClassSample Points
Tree/Shrub348
Impervious Roads113
Impervious Buildings6
Grass/Herbaceous33
Soil/Bareground33
Water3
Total536
Table
Table 2. Change in forest cover of Mirador Sur Park with respect to influencing variables.
Table 2. Change in forest cover of Mirador Sur Park with respect to influencing variables.
Principle VariablesSpearman CorrelationVariables
Change in forest cover0.14Participation in actions aimed at changes in the park.
0.01Perception of environmental benefits.
−0.09Years of visiting the park (less than 1 year to 10 years and more than ten years).
Spearman’s correlation is significant if the value is less than 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Correlation between the study variables of the perception of the visiting population of the Mirador Sur Park.
Table 3. Correlation between the study variables of the perception of the visiting population of the Mirador Sur Park.
EducationAgeGenderVariableCorrelationObservation
Secondary31–45FemaleNumber of visits 1–3, 7–120.046Reason for visiting was closeness of park
Degree18–30FemaleMoment of the day to visit0.046Morning and afternoon
Degree40–60MalePark maintenance good/excellent0.05Park close to home and beauty of park
Degree18–30FemaleDoes not know which authority runs the park0.046The park is close to home or work
Pearson’s correlation is significant if the value is below 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Tree benefits estimation: carbon sequestration.
Table 4. Tree benefits estimation: carbon sequestration.
DescriptionCarbon (t)CO2 Equiv. (t)Value (USD)
Sequestered annually in trees282.381035.4053,088
Stored in tress
(Note this benefit is not an annual rate)		7091.6626,002.741,333,231
Table
Table 5. Removal of contaminants associated with the trees in Mirador Sur Park.
Table 5. Removal of contaminants associated with the trees in Mirador Sur Park.
Abbr.DescriptionAmount (Kg)Value (USD)
COCarbon Monoxide removed annually116.86172.00
NO2Nitrogen Dioxide removed annually645.55311.00
O3Ozone removed annually4986.7014,280.00
SO2Sulfur Dioxide removed annually317.3447.00
PM2.5Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns removed annually245.7529,895.00
PM10Particulate Matter greater than 2.5 microns removed annually1415.339485.00
Total 7736.5354,485.00
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bonilla-Duarte, S.; Mancebo, Y.R.; Vargas-de la Mora, A.L.; García-García, A. Perception of Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change: Mirador Sur Park in Santo Domingo. Forests 2022, 13, 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040587

AMA Style

Bonilla-Duarte S, Mancebo YR, Vargas-de la Mora AL, García-García A. Perception of Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change: Mirador Sur Park in Santo Domingo. Forests. 2022; 13(4):587. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040587

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bonilla-Duarte, Solhanlle, Yolanny Rojas Mancebo, Alma Liz Vargas-de la Mora, and Agustín García-García. 2022. "Perception of Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change: Mirador Sur Park in Santo Domingo" Forests 13, no. 4: 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040587

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop