RE S E ARCH A R T I C L E S
Gaining Ground: Green
Infrastructure Attitudes and
Perceptions from Stakeholders
in Syracuse, New York
Kathleen Barnhill, Richard Smardon
This research is part of an ULTRA NSF-US Forest service
research grant addressing urban ecosystem metabolism in
nance ~urban biodiversity!, and cultural ~urban amenities
and human health!.
Even though GI is being implemented within urban neighborhoods in Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New York
City, Philadelphia, Portland, and Seattle—there are barriers to successful implementation of such infrastructure at
larger scales ~Jaffe, 2011; National Research Council, 2008;
Traver, 2009!. Such barriers may relate to costs and benefits
of GI ~Jaffe, 2011! or local perception of unwanted or
unknown impacts ~Smardon, 1989; Traver, 2009!. This project
seeks to explore the basis for such perceptions for selected
urban neighborhoods in Syracuse, New York.
Syracuse, New York. This project explores local stakeholders’ perceptions of green infrastructure (GI) and ecosystems
services from both positive and detracting perspectives.
Focus groups were used to elicit responses for a thematic
analysis. Respondents displayed confusion about what ecosystems services are, as well as what GI is. Implementation
Some Basic Definitions
The following are definitions of key terms that will be used
often within this article:
•
Health is the state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being ~World Health Organization, 1948!.
•
Well-being is material security, personal freedoms, good
social relations, and physical health ~Millennium Assessment, 2003!.
•
Healthy ecosystems are free from or resistant to stress
and degradation, and maintain their organization, productivity, and autonomy over time ~Costanza, 1992; Rapport, Costanza, and McMichael, 1998!, but this is not a
universally accepted definition.
•
Ecosystem services are the delivery, provision, protection,
or maintenance of goods and benefits that humans obtain from ecosystem functions ~De Groot, Wilson, and
Boumans, 2002; Millennium Assessment, 2003!.
•
Green infrastructure can be considered as all-natural,
seminatural, and artificial networks of multifunctional
barriers include costs (who pays), what the benefits are,
unanticipated impacts, and scale of implementation.
Environmental Practice 14: 6–16 (2012)
M
uch has been written recently about green infrastructure ~GI! and its potential role in improving
the physical environment of older cities in the United
States ~US!, as well as providing health and amenity benefits ~Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010; Jaffe, 2011; National Research Council,
2005; Tzoulas et al., 2007; Van Kamp et al., 2003; Wise et al.,
2010!. The US Environmental Protection Agency ~USEPA,
2011! defines green infrastructure as “an array of products,
technologies and practices that are natural systems—or
engineered systems that mimic natural processes—to enhance overall environmental quality and provide utility
services.” This concept evolved from the ecological planning discipline ~Benedict and McMahon, 2006!. Such GI
projects are being used to provide a variety of ecological
services for older Rust Belt urban areas. Examples include
rain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, constructed wetlands,
and permeable pavement ~see Figure 1!. These GI projects
provide ecological services that can be regulatory ~waterquality treatment!, provision ~urban gardens!, mainte-
6
Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012
Affiliation of authors: Kathleen Barnhill was a graduate research assistant and Richard Smardon is a Professor of Environmental Studies at
the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New
York.
Address correspondence to: Richard Smardon, PhD, Faculty of Environmental Studies, State University of New York ~SUNY! College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210;
~phone! 315-470-6576; ~fax! 315-470-6915; ~e-mail! rsmardon@esf.edu.
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012
doi:10.10170S1466046611000470
Figure 1. Green infrastructure research project examples. These pictures illustrate the forms of green infrastructure including
(a) rain garden, (b) permeable pavement, (c) rain barrels, and (d) trees curbside.
ecological systems within, around, and between urban
areas, at all spatial scales ~Tzoulas et al., 2007, p. 169!.
•
Socioecological systems are complex integrated systems
that emerge through the continuous interaction of human
societies and ecosystems ~Grimm et al., 2000; Haberl
et al., 2006; Redman, Grove, and Kuby, 2004!.
Background and Literature Review
Urban Ecosystem Social Science Conceptual
Models
Conceptual frameworks have been developed that link urban
ecosystems, human, and ecological health and GI. Social
science research models address environmental effects on
human mental and physical health. Table 1 includes model
theory, the physical environmental aspect, and the related
human health aspect. The general summary is that green
urban space and biodiversity have value for improving
mental and physical health for urban residents. Also, the
social models that van Kamp et al. ~2003! and Circerchia
~1996! have synthesized for livability and quality of life
illustrate the complex interplay of factors affecting quality
of life, including personal, social, cultural, community, natural, and built environment, as well as economic factors.
So the issue here is how GI improves urban resident physical and mental health, as well as overall quality of life, and
whether such values are so recognized.
Another useful construct can be derived from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ~2003!, which assesses global
ecosystems changes and resultant impacts on human well-
Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions
7
Table 1. Models and theories linking ecosystem and human health
Source
Freeman ~1984!
Model/theory
Environmental aspects
Environmental effects on
mental/physical health
Psychosocial stress and heath
Physical, social, and cultural
factors
Poor environment
World Health Organization
~1998!
Arch of health
Environmental, cultural, and
socioeconomic factors
Paton, Sengupta, and Hassan
~2005!
MacIntyre ~2002!
Healthy living and working
model
Basic-needs framework
Environmental, cultural, and
socioeconomic factors
Natural environment and resources;
landscape
Henwood ~2002!
Human health aspects
Nervous system and illness
Chronic anxiety, stress, and high
blood pressure
Working and living conditions,
community, lifestyle, and
hereditary factors
Living and working conditions
Health—all aspects
Adapted from Tzoulas et al ~2007!.
being ~Cairns and Pratt, 1995!. This includes a conceptual
framework linking ecosystem services and human wellbeing through socioeconomic factors. Ecosystem services,
which are grouped into four categories—provisioning, regulatory, supporting, and cultural services—provide for
human well-being within five categories—security, access
to basic resources, health, good social relations, and freedom of choice.
studies support the following perceived attributes of GI for
these communities:
•
Green-space access as social equity ~Cilliers, 2009; Mell,
2010!
•
Green-space accessibility for well-being ~Qureshi, Breuste,
and Lindley, 2010; Rusche, 2011!
•
Perceived crowding and green-space quality ~Qureshi,
Breuste, and Lindley, 2010!
•
Availability of physical recreational activities ~Mansor
and Said, 2008; Mell, 2010!
•
Social well-being and participation ~Mansor and Said,
2008!
•
Sense of place attachment ~Mansor, Said, and Mohamed, 2008!
•
Green-space accessibility related to stress reduction and
health benefits ~Mell, 2010; Nielsen and Hansen, 2007!
Perception Studies of Green Infrastructure
There has been a growing, but limited, literature on the
roles, functions, resident attitudes, and constraints to GI
implementation. North American studies of GI perception
include studies in Albuquerque, New Mexico ~Abrahams,
2010!; Gainesville, Georgia ~Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler,
2008!; Los Angeles ~Pincetl and Gearin, 2005!; and Portland, Oregon ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. Perceived community benefits of GI in these communities
include better understanding of ecological systems ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, increased access to urban
green space ~Abrahams, 2010; Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes,
2009!, safe and healthier neighborhoods ~Abrahams, 2010;
Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, informal citizen groups
taking action ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, and
provision of equity through access to green space for lowerincome neighborhoods ~Floyd, Gramman, and Saenz, 1993;
Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler, 2008; Pincetl and Gearin,
2005!. Studies of GI perception and value from an international perspective include those done for the United
Kingdom ~Mell, 2010!, Denmark ~Nielsen and Hansen, 2007;
Rusche, 2011!, Malaysia ~Mansor and Said, 2008; Mansor,
Said, and Mohamed, 2008, 2010!, Pakistan ~Qureshi, Breuste,
and Lindley, 2010!, and South Africa ~Cilliers, 2009!. These
8
Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012
There is often confusion as to what the terms open space,
green space, and green infrastructure mean, as well as who
benefits and how ~Kaplan, Austin, and Kaplan, 2004; Nassauer, 1992; Smardon, 1988!. The specific issue to be addressed here is how to evaluate the values and functions of
GI measures of urban runoff reduction. Jaffe ~2011! suggests on the basis of the recently completed Illinois EPA
study ~Jaffe et al., 2010! “that green infrastructure strategies
are cost effective when compared to conventional stormwater management approaches, even when evaluated in
terms of their direct costs and savings over their useful
lives” ~p. 357!. He further asserts that there are methodological problems in assessing indirect benefits and values,
such as ecological services—and that direct measurement
of costs and benefits of GI is better.
However, if we were to address the range of potential
barriers to GI implementation—then further knowledge of
how stakeholders perceive GI functions and values as well
as perceptual barriers would be useful. According to Traver
~2009! and the National Research Council study ~2005!—
there are three major barriers to urban storm-water runoff
related GI, institutional, technological and perceptual barriers. Traver ~2009! states that there are misconceptions
regarding GI and low impact design, especially related to
disease vector habitat for mosquito populations. Other perceptual barriers to GI implementation mentioned in other
studies include
•
Cost to the resident property owner ~LaBadie, 2010;
Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!
•
Disconnect between urban dwellers and their environment ~LaBadie, 2010!
•
Lack of support for waterway impoundments ~LaBadie,
2010!
•
•
Lack of political will to adopt GI ~LaBadie, 2010!
Skepticism from engineers and developers about GI technology ~LaBadie, 2010!
•
Lack of knowledge on how to design, construct, fund,
and maintain GI ~LaBadie, 2010; Shandas, Nelson, and
Arendes, 2009!
•
Lack of knowledge on how GI operates in local climatic
conditions ~LaBadie, 2010!
Specifically in the Portland Oregon study ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009! respondents were more likely to
help maintain GI facilities if they were
•
•
Younger
Involved in other environmental projects and youth
groups
•
Perceived a high-quality neighborhood association and
low access to parks and other open space
•
•
Considered the neighborhood lacking in greenery
Had greater involvement with community meetings
Understanding urban residents’ perception and attitudes
toward ecological services and GI introduction in their
neighborhoods will be key to decision making for any such
implementation program. Palmer ~1984! and Smardon ~1988!
have previously defined Syracuse neighborhoods and found
distinct differences in city residents’ attitudes about urban
trees and other vegetation—both positive and negative.
Baptiste and Lane ~2009! indicates that public perceptions,
beliefs, and concerns, as well as incentive structure preferences toward storm-water GI alternatives, are spatially and
economically distributed. Related research in Syracuse reveals variations in preference for bioswale design among
low-income Hispanic members of the community. Our
research will expand on this work by including a broader
socioeconomic spectrum of neighborhoods. By developing
the methodology to profile such perception and attitudes—at
neighborhood-block scales—we will be facilitating the
decision-making support structure and physical model development for GI alternatives.
The overall objective of this study was to explore via focus
groups and surveys—the perceived constraints and benefits of residents living within the West Side study area in
Syracuse. The specific objective reported here are focusgroup results about benefits and constraints to implementation of Green Infrastructure ~GI! in Syracuse. Also we
explored resident’s perceptions of ecosystem services, perceptions of quality of life, and preferences toward implementation of GI technologies.
METHODS
Study Area
The city ~City of Syracuse!, and three local neighborhoods
~Downtown, Near Westside, and Strathmore! comprise the
study area ~Figure 2!. The neighborhoods also are part of
a sewershed whose effluent causes numerous combined
sewer overflows ~CSOs! each year that contaminate the
major creek, Onondaga Creek, running through the City of
Syracuse. Downtown has a 49.3% non-White population,
with 28.8% over age 25 without a high school equivalent
education and an average annual household income of
around $10,000. Near Westside has a 62.8% non-White
population, with 49.7% non–high school educated and an
average household income of around $14,000. The Strathmore neighborhood has a 17.3% non-white population,
with 7.3% non-high school educated and an average household income greater than $40,000.
To address preferences and governance related to GI, we
investigated the perceptions, attitudes, and values of urban
Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions
9
Our participants for the focus groups were largely drawn
from existing community contact bases in the three neighborhoods and subsequent snowballing technique. We took
care to ensure that the participants represented a range of
interests wherever possible—efforts were made to use community leaders and those individuals with strong ties to
our project-area neighborhoods in order to ensure an appropriate representation.
Figure 2a. West Side Syracuse study area.
residents in the neighborhoods with regard to: ~a! ecosystem services, ~b! connections of ecosystem services and
quality of life, and ~c! drivers affecting potential implementation of new GI technologies. We also will—at a later
stage—investigate how city and county decision makers/
managers, businesses, and community organizations perceive the same aforementioned issues and both sets of
information can be integrated into a collaborative modeling approach for GI implementation. This initial work was
accomplished by convening initial focus groups to determine how stakeholders ~broadly defined! perceive “natural
ecosystem processes and services” within the general West
Side of Syracuse which contained the three microneighborhoods: the Near Westside, Downtown, and Strathmore.
These stakeholder sessions investigated the range of attitudes, values, perceptions, conceptions, and concerns related to ecosystem services by using standard focus-group
methods ~Greenbaum, 1988; Krueger, 1994; Morgan, 1988!.
Ecosystem services will be defined by urban vegetation and
other GI mechanisms illustrated in Figure 1 that serve as
carbon sinks, mitigate air quality, modify microclimate,
and reduce urban runoff. The results of these focused
groups are presented within this article.
10
Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012
We arranged for the two focus-group meetings ~10 and 6
subjects! to be held at the Syracuse Center of Excellence, a
relatively central location in the city, which would be an
attractive incentive for participants to visit. Both sessions
were held from approximately 4 to 6 p.m. to accommodate
people’s schedules. The meeting space was open, and participants and facilitators sat at a roundtable. We began each
session with a short presentation that introduced the project,
ourselves, and a few key concepts. We had the participants
each contribute by going around the table so each person
had the opportunity for his or her voice to be heard.
Summaries of main points discussed are described in the
next section. While a session elicited distinct responses due
to the varied dynamics of the participants, this is an overall
description of responses as derived by thematic content
analysis from the audio tape recordings of the two focusgroup sessions.
Focus-Group Summary Results
We gathered two focus groups in the summer of 2010 to
assess public conceptualization of ecological/ecosystem services and GI, and to vet the survey instrument to be used
in the project area’s three microneighborhoods this fall.
The following is the thematic summary given each of the
questions that were posed to the two focus-group sessions.
Q1. What do you know about ecological services?
Overall, there is substantial public ignorance regarding ecological services; most participants—six of 16—had not heard
of them, though four made some connection to the term.
At least one participant mistook ES as something “bureaucratic,” and others assumed it meant something that is
human-created and managed.
Q2. How do you think about your neighborhood and its
ecosystem?
These answers varied based on the neighborhoods in which
the participants lived. Most of the responses were associated with participants’ perceptions of environmental prob-
Figure 2b. West Side Syracuse study area.
lems in their respective neighborhoods. Some of the issues
raised included air quality, water and runoff ~including
Onondaga Creek and CSO treatment!, access to services,
walkability, getting people to care about their neighborhoods, tree-planting challenges, etc. There seemed to be a
gap in respondents’ understanding of the function of ~urban!
ecosystems, which should be explored more thoroughly
clarify the connections between urban ecosystem function
and GI.
•
Presence or absence of large trees providing shade
•
Presence or absence of urban wildlife
•
Lack of local resident involvement
•
Protection of new urban vegetation from vandalism
•
Leaving a legacy for future generations
Q3. What do you think about green infrastructure?
The top four attributes that respondents associated with
urban ecosystems were
•
Opportunities for recreational activities, including walking and gardening
•
Neighbors maintaining their property, leading to neighborhood calm and building community spirit
•
•
Walkable neighborhoods
Proximity to green space, parks, and community gardens
Other comments contributed by respondents concerned
•
Urban ecosystem educational opportunities
Most participants at this point clearly connected GI to
storm-water runoff and management concerns, and linked
it to other existing projects about which they had heard—
rain barrels in particular. There are clear concerns with
respect to installation, follow through, and overall participation of relevant actors. There were several mentions of
vacant lots and abandoned houses as spaces to consider. GI
needs to be considered in the broader context of the
community—how can this be linked to improve the area
overall and put people to work? These responses give us a
clear inroad to link GI to quality of life for residents within
inner-city neighborhoods.
Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions
11
Finally, there were a few responses that made it clear that
GI was also mistaken as bureaucratic and falling under the
responsibility of governments rather than individuals.
Q4. What might influence your decision to install green
infrastructure in/around your home or neighborhood?
Monetary barriers dominated this set of responses, such as
up-front individual costs versus long-term and communitywide benefits. Incentives such as grant opportunities and
county/city demonstration projects were suggested. Linking to a lack of understanding of ecological services in
general, participants believe that residents are unlikely to
understand the importance of GI in its broader context.
Site selection and long-term management were important
logistical concerns as expressed by focus-group members.
Perhaps the most substantial barrier perceived by participants comes from the fact that the majority of city residents are renters and thus less likely to have any control
over property decisions, so may find it harder to understand the urgency of GI.
Discussion
Most of the focus-group participants seemed somewhat
confused about what ecological services are and what ecological services are provided to what groups. The USEPA
~2009! is currently investigating ecological services derived
from water resources and is sending out a national questionnaire to ask researchers and urban managers whether
they have experience in assessing ecological services derived from GI. In the meantime, investigators such as Jaffe
~2011! maintain that assessing direct benefits is the way to
go.
What is more revealing is what we get when we ask focusgroup participants about their neighborhoods as urban
ecosystems. The most important aspect, as most frequently
mentioned, is walkable accessibility to urban green space
and how their neighbors maintain their personal property
or community green spaces. These same attributes or qualities are supported by the results of studies in Fort Worth,
Texas ~Abrahams, 2010!, Gainesville, Georgia ~Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler, 2008! and Los Angeles ~Pincetl and Gearin,
2005!, as well as the results of studies in Pakistan ~Qureshi,
Breuste, and Lindley, 2010!, Denmark ~Rusche, 2011!, and
the United Kingdom ~Mell, 2010!. The other strong underlying theme from the focus groups is the perceived need to
develop awareness and reconnection of nature to residents,
12
Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012
especially disadvantaged groups and urban youth. This
same perception is supported by the results of studies in
Albuquerque, New Mexico ~LaBadie, 2010!, Los Angeles
~Pincetl and Gearin, 2005!, and Portland, Oregon ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, as well as work in Malaysia ~Mansor and Said, 2008!. This separation of urban
youth from nature is also the theme of Richard Louv’s
~2008! work as expressed in his book Last Child in the
Woods. The importance of urban minorities’ disconnect
from access to green space is reinforced by the work of
Floyd, Gramman, and Saenz ~1993!, Heynen ~2006!, and
Kuo ~2001!. This is important for the reduction of exposure to environmental hazards that are usually associated
with the urban populations, which are predominantly minority. Access to green space has the potential for reducing
health impacts and lack of environmental benefit that are
usually dominant in urban areas ~Dunn, 2010; Snider, 2002!.
When we asked the focus-group respondents what they
knew about GI, most responded with comments about
specific kinds of projects; for example, rain barrels, green
roofs, and solar arrays. Many participants raised issues
about the need for proper siting of GI projects, the need
for appropriate home-owner guidance and assistance for
GI maintenance, and the need to make the broader connection to neighborhood economic revitalization and quality of life. Such issues are also supported by studies in
Albuquerque ~LaBadie, 2010! and Portland ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. Putting GI in a larger context of
neighborhood revitalization and providing social equity
were reinforced by the result of studies in Gainesville ~Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler, 2008! and Los Angeles ~Pincetl
and Gearin, 2005!, as well by the results of studies in South
Africa ~Cilliers, 2009! and the United Kingdom ~Mell, 2010!.
The barriers that were stressed by participants in Syracuse
parallel those seen in the wider literature, such as that
regarding Albuquerque ~LaBadie, 2010! and Portland ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. These issues included
monetary cost versus incentives, appropriate installation
and maintenance, extent of community involvement in the
process, and tensions between renter’s willingness and
landlord’s autonomy. Some of the issues raised in the GI
literature are not so much at play in Syracuse:
•
There is support for waterway improvements given the
city’s and county’s roles in the Onondaga Lake Cleanup
as mandated by non-point-source water-quality improvement and reduction of CSO loadings plus the Onondaga Creek Conceptual Revitalization Plan ~Onondaga
Environmental Institute, 2009!.
•
There is now political will to address CSO load reduction
via GI on the Near Westside sewersheds, which is illustrated by the county’s Save the Rain campaign.
•
There is reduced skepticism from engineers and planners
regarding GI technology, as now there is a coordinated
effort to develop 50 GI projects in Onondaga County in
the next two years.
However, there is still the issue of neighborhood resident
perceptions in regard to receptivity to GI projects on their
property or on their street. Some older activist stakeholders expressed frustration in regard to educating or engaging local residents in GI projects, such as planting and
maintaining trees. Other focus-group participants are concerned with “not reinventing the wheel,” and using practical versus experimental GI technology plus good siting
and design practice. In other words they express riskadverse perspectives on GI implementation ~see Thaler,
1980!.
So the disconnect of urban residents with their environment, their apathy, their lack of involvement in neighborhood maintenance, and youth vandalism may militate against
community support for GI strategies. On the other hand,
some respondents noted new GI-related projects as examples of what can be done, grassroots youth activities, neighborhood revitalization and job creation projects, plus other
community-building activities. Some respondents were especially positive about multipurpose GI projects like the
Meadowbrook retention basin, which is a wetland that was
constructed on the West Side of Syracuse. This project,
created in 1976 and rebuilt in 2000–2001, is acknowledged
as a historically successful GI project with substantial community benefits and is also an example of endowment value
for future use and enjoyment.
Conclusions: Moving Forward
Green infrastructure has become an important policy initiative in many cities, both in the US and internationally,
and has been used to address a variety of environmental
and social concerns ranging from providing access to open
spaces in urban neighborhoods to acting as a form of
storm-water control. This article has presented a case study
of Syracuse, which is currently adopting GI primarily as a
solution to CSOs but also seeks to garner additional benefits ~Peng 2011; Peng, Baptiste, and Speer, 2010!.
The results from the focus groups provided the research
team with feedback that went into the design of a more
detailed questionnaire to be administered to the three microneighborhoods illustrated in Figure 2. The results of
this survey will be reported in a subsequent article as part
of a larger, multistage project that seeks to capture more
in-depth analysis of Syracuse residents regarding GI
implementation.
From the focus groups, we already know about specific
barriers to GI implementation that need to be addressed.
The first major barrier is the home-owner financial cost of
implementing property-owner GI projects. Onondaga
County is implementing some 50 GI projects on the Near
Westside of Syracuse, but individual property owners would
still have to fund and implement their own projects. New
York City has just passed a tax abatement incentive program for property owners in who implement GI projects
~Jones, 2009!. Such a program could be legislated statewide
or in other local jurisdictions. Data from rain-barrel adoption in Chicago ~Ando and Freitas, 2009! indicated that
there were more problems with rental property adoption.
The second barrier issue is developing educational programs that address GI benefits, maintenance issues, and
how GI technology specifically works with local climatic
conditions. This is supported by the results of the study of
rain-barrel adoption in Chicago ~Ando and Freitas, 2009!,
as well as by results of studies in Albuquerque ~LaBadie,
2010! and Portland ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!.
The final issue is how to package GI implementation programs as part of grassroots activity and as part of sustainability and neighborhood regeneration ~LaBadie, 2010;
Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. As in other communities such as Gainesville ~Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler,
2008! and Los Angeles ~Pincetl and Gearin 2005!, such
efforts can also be used to provide greater social equity
through development of multipurpose GI projects that are
accessible to low-income residents.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the US
Forest Service as an Ultra Grant, which addresses urban ecosystems. The
primary investigators are Mryna Hall and Dave Nowak.
References
Abrahams, P.M. 2010, May. Stakeholder’s Perceptions of Pedestrian Accessibility to Green Infrastructure: Fort Worth’s Urban Villagers ~unpublished
Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions
13
master’s thesis!. University of Texas, Arlington, 112 pp. Available at Research Commons Library, http://hdl.handle.net/10106/4937.
Ando, A.W., and L.P. Freitas. 2009. Consumer Demand for Green Technology in an Urban Setting: The Case of the Chicago Rain Barrels. Social
Science Research Network, 35 pp. Available at http://ssrn.com/
abstracts51440877.
Baptiste, A.K., and A. Lane. 2009. Green Infrastructure Survey Report.
Prepared for Partnership for Onondaga Creek. Onondaga Environmental
Institute, Syracuse, NY, 14 pp.
Benedict, M.A., and E.T. McMahon. 2006. Green Infrastructure: Linking
Landscapes and Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 299 pp.
Cairns, J.J., and J.R. Pratt. 1995. The Relationship between Ecosystem
Health and Delivery of Ecosystem Services. In Ecosystem Health: New
Goods for Ecosystem Management, R. Costanza, B. Norton, and B.D. Haskel,
eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 140–250.
Center for Neighborhood Technology ~CNT! & American Rivers. 2010.
The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide for Recognizing Its Economic,
Environmental and Social Benefits. American Rivers, Washington, DC,
73 pp. Available at http://www.americanrivers.org/library/reportspublications/the-value-of-green-infrastructure.html.
From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the Socioeconomic Dimension of
Long-Term Socioecological Research. Ecology and Society 11~2!, article 13,
34 pp. @online#. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/
art13/.
Henwood, K. 2002. Issues in Health Development: Environment and
Health—Is There a Role for Environmental and Countryside Agencies
in Promoting Benefits to Health? Health Development Agency, London,
16 pp. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/
environmentissuespaper.pdf.
Heynen, M. 2006. Green Urban Park Ecology: Toward a Better Understanding of Inner-City Environmental Change. Environment and Planning
A 38~3!:499–516.
Jaffe, M. 2011. Reflections on Green Infrastructure Economics. Environmental Practice 12~4!:357–365.
Jaffe, M., M. Zellner, E. Minor, M. Gonzalez-Meler, L. Cather, D. Minor,
H. Ahmed, M. Elberts, H. Sprague, S. Wise, and B. Miller. 2010. Using
Green Infrastructure to Manage Urban Stormwater Quality: A Review of
Selected Practices and State Programs. Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Springfield, 146 pp.
Cilliers, J. 2009. Future Directions in Urban Planning and Space Usage:
Compensating Urban Green Spaces. Interdisciplinary Themes Journal 1~1!,
10 pp.
Johnson, C., D. Hartel, and E. Kuehler. 2008. Do Latinos Inherit Green
Space? A Case Study of Latino and White Contact with Urban Nature in
Gainesville, GA. In 93rd ESA @Ecological Society of America# Annual
Meeting, Milwaukee, WI, August 3–8, 2008. Available at http://
eco.confex.com/eco/2008/techprogram/P9189.htm.
Circerchia, A. 1996. Indicators for the Measurement of the Quality of
Urban Life: What Is the Appropriate Territorial Dimension? Social Indicators Research 39~3!:321–358.
Jones, K.J. 2009. Being Green Doesn’t Need to Be Taxing: How New York
Sate Law Is a Vanguard for Using Green Infrastructure. Pace Law Review
29~3!:499–509. Available at http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol29/iss3/7/.
Costanza, R. 1992. Towards an Operational Definition of Health. In Ecosystem Health: New Goods for Ecosystem Management, R. Costanza, B.
Norton, and B.D. Haskel, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 239–256.
Kaplan, R., M.E. Austin, and S. Kaplan. 2004. Open Space Communities:
Resident Populations, Nature Benefit and Problems with Terminology.
Journal of the American Planning Association 70~3!:300–312.
De Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A Typology for
the Classification and Evaluation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and
Services. Ecological Economics ~Special Issue: The Dynamics and Value of
Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives!
41~3!:393–408. Available at http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/
deGroot_et_al.pdf.
Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 255 pp.
Dunn, A.D. 2010. Siting Green Infrastructure: Legal and Policy Solutions
to Alleviate Urban Poverty and Promote Health Communities. Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review 37~1!:41–66.
Floyd, M.F., J.H. Gramman, and R. Saenz. 1993. Ethnic Factors and the
Use of Public Recreation Areas: The Case of Mexican-Americans. Leisure
Sciences 15~2!:83–98.
Freeman, H.L., ed. 1984. Mental Health and the Environment. ChurchillLivingstone, London, 490 pp.
Greenbaum, T.L. 1988. The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus Group
Research. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, 191 pp.
Grimm, J.M., J.M. Grove, S.T.A. Pickett, and C.L. Redman. 2000. Integrated Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological Systems.
Bioscience 50~7!:571–584. Available at http://schoolofsustainability.asu.edu/
docs//papers/2000/Grimm_et_al_2000.pdf.
Haberl, H., V. Winiwarter, K. Andersson, R.U. Ayres, C. Boone, A. Castillo,
G. Cunfer, M. Fischer-Kowalski, W.R. Freudenburg, E. Furman, R. Kaufmann, F. Krausmann, E. Langthaler, H. Lotze-Campen, M. Mirtl, C.L.
Redman, A. Reenberg, A. Wardell, B. Warr, and H. Zechmeister. 2006.
14
Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012
Kuo, E.F. 2001. Coping with Poverty: Impacts of Environment and Attention in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior 33~1!:5–34.
LaBadie, K. 2010. Identifying Barriers to Low Impact Development and
Green Infrastructure in the Albuquerque Area ~unpublished master’s project!.
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 75 pp. Available at http://
wrri.nmsu.edu/research/rfp/studentgrants08/reports/LaBadie.pdf.
Louv, R. 2008. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from NatureDeficit Disorder. Algonquin, Chapel Hill, NC, 390 pp.
Macintyre, S., S. Maciver, and A. Sooman. 1993. Area, Class and Health:
Should We Be Focusing on Place or People? Journal of Social Policy
22~2!:213–234.
Mansor, M., and I. Said. 2008. Place Attachment of Residents to Green
Infrastructure Network in Small Towns. In Proceedings of the 9th SENVAR
@Sustainable Environment & Architecture# & 2nd ISESEE @International
Symposium & Exhibition in Sustainable Energy & Environment# International Conference: Humanity + Technology, 325–340.
Mansor, M., I. Said, and I. Mohamed. 2008. Sense of Well-being from
Experiencing Green Infrastructure Network in Small Towns. University of
Technology–Malaysia, Joho, 10 pp. Available at http://ww.fab.utm.my/
download/ConferenceSemiar/Culture-Spacer.pdf.
Mansor, M., I. Said, and I. Mohamed. 2010. Experiential Contacts with
Green Infrastructure Diversity and Well-being of Urban Communities.
Asian Journal of Environment Behaviour Studies 2:33–48. Available at
http://fspu.uitm.edu.my/cebs/images/stories/ajebs12may2010c3.pdf.
Mell, I.C. 2010. Green Infrastructure: Concepts, Perception and Its Use in
Spatial Planning ~unpublished PhD thesis!. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 291 pp. Available at https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/
bitstream/10443/914/1/Mell10.pdf.
Millennium Assessment. 2003. Ecosystem and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. Island
Press, Washington, DC, 245 pp. Available at http://www.maweb.org/en/
Framework.aspx.
Morgan, D.L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA, 80 pp.
Nassauer, J.I. 1992. Ecological Function and the Perception of Suburban
Residential Landscapes. In Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation
Settings: Selected Papers from the Urban Forestry and Ethnic Minorities and
the Environment Paper Sessions—4th North American Symposium on Society and Resource Management, May 17–20, 1992, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, P.H. Gobster, ed. General Technical Report NC-xx, vol. 163.
North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department
of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN, 55–60.
National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystems Services: Toward
Better Environmental Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 277 pp.
National Research Council. 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the
United States. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 593 pp. Available at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id512465.
Nielsen, T.S., and K.B. Hansen. 2007. Do Green Areas Affect Health?
Results from a Danish Survey on the Use of Green Areas and Health
Indicators. Health and Place 13~4!:839–850.
Onondaga Environmental Institute ~OEI!. 2009, April. Onondaga Creek
Conceptual Revitalization Plan: Draft Report. OEI, Syracuse, NY. Available
at http://www.onondagaenvironmentalinstitute.org/OEIResources_
OCRPDRAFT.html.
Palmer, J.F. 1984. Neighborhoods as Stands in the Urban Forest. Urban
Ecology 8~3!:229–241.
Paton, K., S. Sengupta, and L. Hassan. 2005. Settings, Systems and Organization Development: The Healthy Living and Working Model. Health
Promotion International 20~1!:81–89.
Peng, W. 2011. Mapping Environmental Attitudes Toward Green Infrastructure Alternatives to Traditional Storm-water Management: A Case Study of
Syracuse, NY ~unpublished master’s thesis!. State University of New York
~SUNY! College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse.
Peng, W., A.K. Baptiste, and L. Speer. 2010. Map-Based Modeling of
People’s Knowledge, Perceptions and Willingness to Participate in Green
Infrastructure Alternatives to Traditional Storm-water Management: A
Case Study of Syracuse. Presented at the 2010 Green Infrastructure
Workshop: Growing Green Infrastructure in New York State and Central
New York, Syracuse, NY, November 17–18. State University of New York
~SUNY! College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, 19 pp.
Available at http://www.esf.edu/outreach/gi/symposium/documents/Peng_
Baptiste_Speer.pdf.
Pincetl, S., and E. Gearin. 2005. The Reinvention of Public Green Space.
Urban Geography 26~5!:365–381.
Qureshi, S., J.H. Breuste, and S.J. Lindley. 2010. Green Space Functionality
along an Urban Gradient in Karachi Pakistan: A Socio-economic Study.
Human Ecology 38~2!:283–294.
Rapport, D.J., R. Costanza, and A.J. McMichael. 1998. Assessing Ecosystem
Health. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13~10!:397–402. Available at http://
castor.oit.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.sustainability/files/Rapport%20
et%20al.%201998.pdf.
Redman, C.L., J.M. Grove, and L.H. Kuby. 2004. Integrating Social Science
into the Long-Term Ecological Research ~LTER! Network: Social Dimensions of Ecological Change and Ecological Dimensions of Social Change.
Ecosystems 7~2!:161–171. Available at http://www.ci.uri.edu/ciip/Summer
Practicum/Docs2009/Redman_etal_IntegSocSciLTER_Ecosystems~2004!.
pdf.
Rusche, K. 2011. The Value of Green Infrastructure in Urban Quality of
Life. In REAL CORP 2011. Change for Stability: Lifecycles of Cities and
Regions—The Role and Possibilities of Foresighted Planning in Transformation Processes. 16th International Conference on Urban Planning and Regional Development in the Information Society, Essen, Germany, May 18–
20. CORP ~Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning!,
Schwechat, Austria, 1029–1037. Available at http://www.corp.at/archive/
CORP2011_80.pdf.
Shandas, V., A. Nelson, and C. Arendes. 2009. Integrating Education,
Evaluation and Partnerships into Large-Scale Sustainable Stormwater Management Programs: Towards a Civic Ecology of Green Infrastructure—
Opportunities for Expanding Public Involvement in Stormwater
Management. In 2009 NAAEE @North American Association for Environmental Education# Conference Strand: Conservation Education, Portland,
OR, October 7–10. NAAEE, Washington, DC, 7 pp. Available at
http://web.pdx.edu/;vshandas/NAAEE_ConservationEducation.pdf.
Smardon, R.C. 1988. Perception and Aesthetics of the Urban Environment: Review of the Role of Vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning
15~1–2!:85–106.
Smardon, R.C. 1989. Human Perception of Utilization of Wetlands for
Waste Assimilation, or How to Make a Silk Purse out of a Sow’s Ear. In
Constructed Wetlands for wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial and
Agricultural, D.A. Hammer, ed. Lewis, Chelsea, MI, 287–295.
Snider, S. 2002. Assessing Environmental Justice concerning Combined Sewer
Overflows in Indianapolis, Indiana. Project Report G438. School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, 20 pp.
Available at http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/dhenshel/V600/Final
GISReport.pdf.
Thaler, R. 1980. Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 1~1!:39–60.
Traver, R.G. 2009, March 19. Efforts to Address Urban Stormwater Runoff.
Statement to Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, US House of Representatives. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 8 pp. Available at http://
www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Efforts_to_Address_
Urban_Stormwater_Runoff.asp.
Tzoulas, K., K. Korpela, S. Venn, V. Yli-Pelkonen, A. Kazmierczak, J.
Niemela, and P. James. 2007. Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in
Urban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landscape
and Urban Planning 81~3!:167–178.
Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions
15
US Environmental Protection Agency ~USEPA!. 2009. Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: A Report of the Science Advisory
Board. Report EPA-SAB-09012. USEPA, Washington, DC, 129 pp. Available
at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F3DB1F5C6EF90EE
1852575C500589157/$File/EPA-SAB-09-012-unsigned.pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency ~USEPA!. 2011. Managing Wet Weather
with Green Infrastructure. USEPA, Washington, DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/
npdes/home.cfm?program_id5298.
Van Kamp, I., K. Leidelmeijer, K. Marsman, and A. De Hollander. 2003.
Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-being: Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts—A Literature Review.
Landscape and Urban Planning 65~1–2!:5–18.
Wise, S., J. Braden, D. Ghalayini, J. Grant, C. Kloss, E. MacMullan, S.
Morse, F. Montalto, D. Nees, D. Nowak, S. Peck, S. Shaikh, and C. Yu. 2010.
16
Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012
Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green Infrastructure’s Multiple
Benefits. Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, 21 pp. Available
at http://www.cnt.org/repository/CNT-LID-paper.pdf.
World Health Organization ~WHO!. 1948. Preamble to the Constitution of
the World Health Organization, as adopted by the International health
Conference, New York, June 19–22, 1946.
World Health Organization ~WHO!. 1998. City Health Profiles: A Review
of Progress. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 40 pp. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0010/101062/E59736.pdf.
Submitted July 21, 2011; revised August 31, 2011; accepted September 9,
2011.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.