Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser Full Length Article Perceived urban ecosystem services and disservices in gentrifying neighborhoods: Contrasting views between community members and state informants Mary Kathryn Rodgman a, Isabelle Anguelovski b, a, Carmen Pérez-del-Pulgar a, c, Galia Shokry a, d, Melissa Garcia-Lamarca a, e, James J.T. Connolly a, f, Francesc Baró g, a, 1, *, Margarita Triguero-Mas h, a, i, 1, * a Barcelona Laboratory for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability (BCNUEJ), Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Plaça Cívica, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain b Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Passeig de Lluís Companys, 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain c Department Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany d School of Environmental and Sustainability Science, Kean University, 1000 Morris Avenue Union, New Jersey 07083, USA e Polytechnic of Turin, Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Viale Pier Andrea Mattioli, 39, 10125 Turin, Italy f University of British Columbia (UBC), School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), Faculty of Applied Science, 433-6333 Memorial Road, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z2, Canada g Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Geography and Sociology Departments, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium h Mariana Arcaya’s Research Group, Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA i Faculty of Health Sciences, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: As assessing urban ecosystem services and disservices is of rapidly growing interest in a context of increasingly Greenspaces urbanized environments, greater scholarly attention needs to be placed on how different informants perceive Parks these services and disservices. Previous research in urban geography and planning has already pointed at the Environmental gentrification challenges of building inclusive natural outdoor environments such as green and blue spaces in gentrifying Europe North America neighborhoods, particularly those undergoing green gentrification. In response, we analyze the ecosystem ser­ Nature-based solutions vices and disservices identified by community and state respondents in seven cities with gentrifying neighbor­ hoods, pronounced social inequalities, and where natural outdoor environments were created or improved: Amsterdam, Bristol, Cleveland, Lyon, Montreal, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. We found that in cities expe­ riencing green gentrification, interviewees – particularly community informants – reported a wide array of ecosystem services and disservices, and identified some disservices previously under-studied (i.e. physical tiredness, low attractiveness and forced displacement). Our study illustrates how differences in decision making positions can impact perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices. Our study has implications for urban environmental planning decisions that will help maximize the ecosystem services provided by urban natural outdoor environments. Only if all perceived ecosystem services and disservices are considered, will it be possible to design green just cities. 1. Introduction enjoy has become a particularly important planning goal (Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015; Markevych et al., 2017). Urban natural outdoor envi­ As the world continues to become rapidly urbanized, securing ronments encompassing parks, tree-lined blocks, greened alleys, com­ quality urban natural outdoor environments for people to use, visit and munity gardens, preserved natural areas, seashores, riverfronts, etc., are * Corresponding authors at: Barcelona Laboratory for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability (BCNUEJ), Institute for Environmental Science and Tech­ nology (ICTA) at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Plaça Cívica, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. E-mail addresses: francesc.baro@vub.be (F. Baró), mtrigueromas@gmail.com (M. Triguero-Mas). 1 These authors share last co-authorship. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101571 Received 28 March 2023; Received in revised form 1 September 2023; Accepted 18 October 2023 Available online 8 December 2023 2212-0416/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 well known to benefit human health and wellbeing through the provi­ ecological, economics, physical hazards, psychological, and general EDS sion of ecosystem services (ES) (Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015; de Groot (von Döhren and Haase, 2015). Among others, these EDS include animal et al., 2010; Haase et al., 2014; Kondo et al., 2020; Reid, 2005; Ribeiro disease vectors, tree roots damaging property, allergies, nature-related et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021; Zijlema et al., 2017). phobias and plants blocking views (von Döhren and Haase, 2015). In the last decade, municipal planning policies are placing more Previous research has attempted to elucidate how different re­ emphasis on the development, restoration and protection of natural spondents perceive and value urban ES and EDS (Collins et al., 2019; outdoor environments as a strategy to promote public health, to mitigate Garrido et al., 2017; Graça et al., 2018; Hofmann et al., 2012; Ramos climate change impacts, to enhance urban biodiversity or to revitalize et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Morales et al., 2020). Considering informants deprived neighborhoods, among other societal challenges (Anguelovski with different views and connections to urban natural outdoor envi­ et al., 2018a). However, scholars are increasingly pointing to the po­ ronments (García-Nieto et al., 2015; Lamarque et al., 2011) and tential green injustices associated with these interventions (Anguelovski exploring their perceptions is paramount to a complete understanding of et al., 2020; Cole et al., 2017; Haase et al., 2017; Rigolon et al., 2018). urban ES and EDS delivery (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Crooks, These injustices can be linked to unequal access to high quality natural 2016; Haase et al., 2014; Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009; Reed, 2008). outdoor environments (Frumkin et al., 2017; Rigolon et al., 2018), or Incorporating ES and EDS into (urban) decision-making processes has other distributional inequalities (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Finney, been found to increase concept awareness and communication as well as 2014). Recent research further indicates that city residents may not enhance participation and collaboration, potentially making greening receive and perceive the benefits of natural outdoor environments planning decisions more just in their process and outcome (Dick et al., equally due to broader processes of urban development and segregation, 2018). Some studies have found that those in different positions of including gentrification and green gentrification (Anguelovski et al., power can have different perceptions of the same natural outdoor en­ 2018a; Cole et al., 2021; O’Neill et al., 2023; Triguero-Mas et al., 2021). vironments (Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015; Miller, 2016; Ramos et al., 2018). Gentrification can be defined as the socio-cultural, economic and For example, Ramos et al. (2018) investigated Mexico City respondents’ physical transformation of an area towards more privileged people, who perceptions of ES, focusing on both government officials and land­ can afford high-end housing and exclusive services (Brown-Saracino, owners. Their study found that landowners perceived a wider range of 2010; Lees et al., 2015; Smith, 1996, 1982). Meanwhile, green or relevant ES than government officials (Ramos et al., 2018). environmental gentrification is the socio-cultural and physical exclusion One study found that in areas experiencing green gentrification, and displacement that results from environmental planning agendas and underprivileged residents lack a physical and emotional connection with the provision of new green amenities (Gould and Lewis, 2017). As natural outdoor environments, so these spaces arise as “disruptive green scholars are identifying the growing relevance of gentrification pro­ landscapes” instead of spaces of wellbeing (Triguero-Mas et al., 2021). cesses in greening cities and neighborhoods (Anguelovski et al., 2021a; The authors found that gentrification was seen as a process that Anguelovski et al., 2020; Cole et al., 2019, 2017; Triguero-Mas et al., impacted all therapeutic dimensions of natural outdoor environments. 2021) there is thus a need to disentangle the nuances between natural For example, gentrification was understood to increase the privatization outdoor environments’ benefits and lack of these benefits for certain of natural outdoor environments, a phenomenon particularly present population groups in gentrifying neighborhoods and further distill the when private investors design and finance natural outdoor environ­ perceptions of urban ES and ecosystem disservices, here referred to as ments. Gentrification was also associated to the loss of community EDS, from different stakeholders. networks that caused anti-social behavior in public natural outdoor ES are generally classified into four main groups: supporting, regu­ environments, and gentrification was identified as a process enhancing lating, provisioning and cultural services (Haines-Young and Potschin- user conflicts and feelings of unwelcomness in natural outdoor envi­ Young, 2018; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). All are known ronments. However, to our knowledge, only one study (see Amorim to provide direct benefits to humans except for “supporting” ES which act Maia et al., 2020) has explicitly explored urban ES/EDS perceptions and as ecological functions which indirectly benefit human’s well-being. values in the context of complex urban transformation processes such as This broader classification of ES groups is intended to cover all (green) gentrification (Anguelovski, 2016; Lees et al., 2008). possible benefits that natural outdoor environments can provide to Besides developing further the theoretical understanding of urban ES humans (Haines-Young and Potschin-Young, 2018; Millenium and EDS, this paper addresses an empirical gap by examining various Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). All four groups have been reported in informants’ perceptions of new or improved natural outdoor environ­ cities, being regulating and cultural ES the most frequently highlighted ments in cities experiencing (green) gentrification. Using an extensive (Jim and Chen, 2006; Palta et al., 2016; Veerkamp et al., 2021a). comparative qualitative study of seven geographically diverse Global Supporting services in urban areas include, for example, habitat North gentrifying cities, we aim to critically identify which ES and EDS provision for urban biodiversity (Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015; Pataki et al., are perceived and highlighted by community and state interviewees. We 2011; Ramos et al., 2018). Urban regulating services include air puri­ believe this is important in order to design healthier and greener cities fication, urban cooling, moderation of environmental extremes, and for all urban residents. stormwater runoff control, among others (Gómez-Baggethun and Bar­ ton, 2013; Reid, 2005). In cities, urban temperature regulation can be 2. Methods and data extremely important against climate change-exacerbated heat island effects (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Lin et al., 2015; Russo et al., 2.1. Case study context 2017). Provisioning services encompass food production, or water supply, among others (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Reid, This study was conducted using data from a larger EU-funded in­ 2005). Cultural services comprise recreation, physical activity, restora­ ternational project (GREENLULUS). The project took place in 24 cities tion, social interactions, cognitive development and more. For example, across Europe and North-America and aimed to understand how urban using green space as a recreational space to take a break from ‘city life’ greening projects in gentrified cities redistributed the benefits of green has been reported as a valuable ES for urban residents (Bolund and spaces for underprivileged residents. Hunhammar, 1999; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Riechers et al., From the 24 cities included in the larger project, we selected seven 2016). cities for this study: Amsterdam (the Netherlands), Bristol (UK), Cleve­ However, natural outdoor environments also produce EDS in cities, land (Ohio, US), Lyon (France), Montreal (Canada), Philadelphia defined as negative outcomes that affect human wellbeing through (Pennsylvania, US), and San Francisco (California, US). Our selection of various harmful or even life-threatening pathways (Lyytimäki and case studies for this study was designed to reflect the rich diversity of Sipilä, 2009). Previously, EDS have been classified into five groups: urban development and greening histories as well as natural outdoor 2 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 Table 1 Summary of main case cities historical characteristics and green trajectories. City (State, Country) Relevant urban development and gentrification characteristics Main greening strategies Population (inhabitants in 2021–2022) Amsterdam (AMS), • Postindustrial, multicultural city with a strong focus on • The city aspires to have every person living within a 10- 903,399 (2022) the Netherlands technology and design minute walk of a green area • Growing (green) gentrification in some neighborhoods and • Focus has been placed on park expansion and waterfront housing crisis for lower income residents with strong clean-up and development projects in last 25 years displacement • The European leader in cycling network • IJ inlet (waterfront) divides the wealthier and poorer sections • Amsterdam has a high greening policy integration and of the city and has become a symbol for segregation in the city implementation, with a strong focus on public health benefits. • No clear indication of citywide green gentrification according The green rhetoric is intermediate, with a low procedural to international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). participation (Anguelovski et al., 2018b). Bristol (BRI), UK • UK’s 8th largest city • The city created a 20-year strategy based on ‘equal access 472,465 (2021) • Contains “deprivation hot spots” where close to 70,000 standard’ for vulnerable populations to have access to green residents live areas • Home to a multicultural mix of Afro-Caribbean, Indian, Pak­ • The city has placed specific attention in addressing social and istani, and Bangladeshi communities health inequalities • Highly segregated with residents experiencing unequal benefits • 29 % of city is green space, but much of it is little used due to from city improvements to natural outdoor environments perceptions of unsafety and inaccessibility. leading to early-stage gentrification in some neighborhoods • Bristol has a high greening policy integration and • No clear indication of citywide green gentrification according implementation, with an intermediate focus on public health to international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). benefits. The green rhetoric is very high, with medium procedural participation (Anguelovski et al., 2018b). Cleveland (CLE), • A post industrial city which has experienced a 6 % population • Cleveland uses greening as a way to reclaim abandoned and 367,991 (2021) Ohio, US loss in the 2010s decade unused land plots for the city • Considered one of the most segregated cities in the United • Has an equal access standard policy to overcome green States inequities in the city • Has experienced environmental degradation through river • Cleaning up of river and lakes are a main priority in changing pollution and lead poisoning that disproportionately affects the image of the city and creating new green and blue lower income residents amenities • Early gentrification pressures in some neighborhoods due to • Cleveland has a medium greening policy integration and the cleaning up of the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie in a implementation, with a high focus on public health benefits. rebranding effort to make the city a “green city on a blue lake” The green rhetoric is high, but with a low procedural • No clear indication of citywide green gentrification according participation (Anguelovski et al., 2018b). to international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). Lyon (LY), France • Economy based on the chemical, pharmaceutical- biotech, • Focus on preserving and promoting local ecological heritage 522,969 (2019) transport, food and textile industries⋅ Home to one of Europe’s and biodiversity largest urban parks • Priorities on managing urban services and cleanup/ • The fourth greenest and third largest city of France redevelopment • Gentrification has occurred in some districts, like the • Greening efforts connected to efforts to improve health Guillotière, that are seeing higher income, whiter residents • Greening focuses on city rebranding and increasing its move in to take advantage of cheaper rents and the renovated attractiveness, redeveloping postindustrial neighborhoods, riverbank in a central neighbourhood improving permeability and combatting heat-island effect • No clear indication of citywide green gentrification according • Lyon has a high greening policy integration and to international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). implementation, with a high focus on public health benefits. The green rhetoric is intermediate, but with a very high procedural participation (Anguelovski et al., 2018b). Montreal (MONT), • Second largest city in Canada and historically the commercial • Recent efforts of re-naturing have focused on counteracting 2,025,928 (2021) Canada capital the heat island effect • Home to commerce, tech, tourism, culture • Its 2005 Tree policy put significant efforts into greening the • Mid-level gentrification present in certain areas like Saint- denser areas of the city Henri with the arrival of new green infrastructure (and • Advocating for greening alleys led by residents/activists reopening of the Lachine Canal) and increase in luxury housing • Montreal has a high greening policy integration and and rent prices implementation, with a high focus on public health benefits. • Short-term citywide green gentrification according to Both the green rhetoric and procedural participation are international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). intermediate (Anguelovski et al., 2018a). Philadelphia • A recovering post-industrial city undergoing intense gentrifi­ • Greening has been implemented largely through green 1,576,251 (2021) (PHILLY), cation in central neighborhoods, with especially the displace­ stormwater infrastructure or tree-planting, to reduce water Pennsylvania, US ment of historically marginalized groups. pollution from combined sewer overflows and to mitigate • Many areas still with high poverty, unemployment and low urban health island effects. educational achievements⋅ High levels of economic segregation • Greening is part of a wider strategy to redevelop • Lower income neighborhoods have less access to parks and neighborhoods, increase the attractiveness of central heat mitigation green infrastructure with early gentrification neighborhoods and improve property values. trends • Philadelphia has a high greening policy integration and very • Long-term, sustained citywide green gentrification according high implementation, with a medium focus on public health to international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). benefits. Both the green rhetoric and procedural participation are high (Anguelovski et al., 2018a). San Francisco (SF), • Former industrial city, now a host for the tech industry ⋅ Greening of waterfronts and neighborhoods 815,201 (2021) California, US/ • History of contamination and toxic waste buildup from years of ⋅ Residents face hesitance to advocate for cleanup due to fear of industrial activity gentrification • History of residents advocating for cleanup of contaminated ⋅ Community-led community gardens and educational areas in poorer neighborhoods workshops on the benefits of urban greening⋅ San Francisco has • Gentrification since the 1990s has intensified with the growing a very high greening policy integration implementation, with a tech industry and influx of new higher income residents medium focus on public health benefits. The green rhetoric is • Long-term, sustained citywide green gentrification according very high and the procedural participation is high to international comparative study (Anguelovski et al., 2022). (Anguelovski et al., 2018a). 3 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 environments interventions themselves encountered during our field­ recorded and transcribed, so we were able to analyze participants’ work. Moreover, this selection allowed us to analyze qualitatively the verbatim responses. For the small number of interviews that were not study cases with enough detail in only one manuscript. recorded, extensive notes were collected during the interview, which Data on urban greening trajectories, urban development history, and were then also analyzed and coded. gentrification characteristics of each of the seven cities included was Upon the completion of this full interview coding, the lead author compiled from various sources (Anguelovski, 2016). In summary, data used a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1999) to sub-code for developing case context included newspaper and other media arti­ data from seven of the initial codes from the thematic coding scheme: (i) cles, fact sheets, reports, or policy and planning documents produced by regulating ES, (ii) provisioning ES, (iii) cultural ES, (iv) disservices, (v) a variety of local organizations, including city planning and environ­ health benefits of greening: mechanisms, (vi) green space that meets mental agencies. Data that discussed or addressed health and well-being residents’ needs, and (vii) access to green space. A total of 19 new codes or social equity in said documents were also considered by the re­ emerged, including, for example, improved air quality, climate regula­ searchers. Based on this diverse data, we report a summary of specific tion, and stormwater management (see Supplemental material, page characteristics for each city, focusing on urban development and 19). Our analysis focused on exploring and interpreting the richness and gentrification, greening strategy, core demographic and natural outdoor complexity of perceptions. For that reason, we analyzed our data ac­ environments characteristics (Table 1). cording to what codes emerged in each city and which ones were re­ Source: own elaboration based on different sources (Anguelovski, ported by each stakeholder type, independently of the frequency of 2016; Anguelovski et al., 2018b; Anguelovski and Connolly, 2021; reporting. Anguelovski et al., 2022; Brinkhoff, 2022). 3. Results 2.2. Research design and data collection The study findings reflected key themes linked to urban ES and EDS We draw from a subset of pretested questions and modified and in gentrifying neighborhoods. We built our qualitative results based on selected them to build a final semi-structured interview guide based on full coding work and data analysis, and provide a limited (due to space the overall aim of the parent project, which also covered the goal of our limitations) selection of quotes to illustrate findings. For each quote, a study. Fieldwork was conducted in all cities during summer of 2019 superscript indicates the case site (i.e. “AMS” for Amsterdam, “BRI” for (except for Montreal in 2018). A variety of informants were interviewed Bristol, “CLE” for Cleveland, “LY” for Lyon, “MONT” for Montreal, about the greening strategies of their city as well as their connections to “PHILLY” for Philadelphia, and “SF” for San Francisco) and the type of different dimensions of gentrification, health, and environmental respondent (i.e. “comm.” for community members and “state” for state justice. informants). The research team identified and interviewed a broad diversity of In general terms, our findings show that community respondents are key public, private, and civic informants. For the purpose of this paper, more aware of and report a broader diversity of disservices than state we focus on two main categories: (i) community members inclu­ informants. This broader diversity presented by community members ding those in an informal capacity (neighborhood leaders/activists) and include EDS that have been scarcely studied such as forced displace­ those in a formal capacity who belong to a nonprofit coalition or work in ment. Both groups reported the little studied EDS of physical tiredness, spaces like a community botanical garden, a park forum, a nature and low attractiveness. Overall, we found that differences in informants school, or a land conservancy who were or worked with socially un­ type influence how ES and EDS are perceived. derprivileged residents (i.e. those experiencing the impacts of green gentrification processes); and (ii) state informants from city and supra­ 3.1. Perceived ecosystem services in gentrifying areas municipal administration members, including staff (technicians), plan­ ners and politicians working in various areas such as urban planning, Delving now into the details of the analysis, in gentrifying areas green space management or city water management. In line with pre­ benefiting from new or improved natural outdoor environments, the ES vious research, we separated informants into categories based on the perceived by the different interviewees pertained to all main groups of understanding that state administration members have a stronger ES (see Table 3): habitat for species (supporting ES); improved air impact on environmental policy and management in comparison to quality, climate regulation/urban cooling, stormwater regulation community members (Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2018). For (regulating ES); food production (provisioning ES); outdoor recreation, each type of informant, we developed a specific semi-structured inter­ social interactions, connection with nature, positive aesthetic experi­ view guide (see Supplemental material pages 3–7). All of the re­ ences, and mental restoration (cultural ES). spondents were considered local experts in the fields of housing, green The only supporting ES revealed in our study was habitat for species. spaces, sustainability, environment, infrastructure, health, social issues, Community and state informants in Amsterdam, Lyon, and Montreal and/or economic (real estate) development and provided information spoke about how greening is able to “help connectivity and biodiversity reflecting on their work or activist experience in relation to city greening conservation”MONT/comm. and provide habitats for species. A City of Lyon projects. employee and a community civic member from Amsterdam both spoke Interviewees were identified either through internet searches, review about the “routes for different kinds of animals”AMS/comm. and a way to of local media and policy reports, and/or by snowball sampling until increase “biodiversity [as] there are more animals” AMS/state. reaching theoretical saturation. In total, the research team interviewed In Lyon, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Bristol, San Francisco and 105 community and 48 state respondents in the cities part of this study Cleveland, community and state respondents highlighted the role of (Table 2). greenspaces in improving air quality, particularly focusing on traffic- borne air pollution such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. 2.3. Qualitative analysis For example, a Bristol parks nonprofit member mentioned that “to mitigate pollution effects on schools close to polluted roads, you plant For the analysis, the research team first used a thematic approach in trees or hedges, thick hedges, along there and that has all sorts of order to create a detailed coding scheme based on the main conceptual mitigating effects”BRI/comm.. In San Francisco, a nonprofit member spoke and analytical themes of interest to the parent project (see Supplemental of the benefit of tree upkeep because trees have a role in “absorbing material, page 8). The whole research team coded all the interviews carbon” SF/comm so they help mitigate pollution. Furthermore, climate using this detailed coding scheme in NVivo, with meetings regularly regulation benefits, specifically the impact of greenspaces or specific conducted to ensure intercoder reliability. Nearly all interviews were vegetation features on mitigating high temperatures and heat stress, 4 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 comm Table 2 and enjoying parks as a whole in general. Both community and Summary of the number of interviewees by category and city. state respondents in Amsterdam, Cleveland, Philadelphia and Lyon re­ City Informant category TOTAL ported various mental restoration services of greenspaces, by means of “reducing stress levels”AMS/state, their role in giving people “respite from Community State the rest of the city,”CLE/state and feeling recharged after a whole day of Amsterdam 9 11 20 work. One resident reported that green space gives “…this ability to Bristol 17 5 22 Cleveland 33 8 41 regenerate, to recharge…” LY/comm and that could be an option in Lyon 6 10 16 replacement of meditation indoors. A nonprofit member from Phila­ Montreal 13 4 17 delphia also noted people can “… go and just hang out and sit on Philadelphia 16 8 24 benches and chill out..” PHI/comm in these spaces. San Francisco 11 2 13 TOTAL 105 48 3.2. Perceived ecosystem disservices (EDS)in gentrifying areas were also praised by municipal administration and community in­ terviewees in Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Lyon and Montreal. For The perceived EDS were (see Table 4): economic (e.g., damage to example, a Philadelphia public health professional used temperature infrastructure and its related green space maintenance costs), physical measurements to show the difference greening makes in the city, saying hazards (physical tiredness, physical risks), psychological (feeling that when comparing a specific park (i.e. Fairmount Park) to other city excluded, experiencing fear/insecurity), and broader social impacts areas, “there can be substantial differences in quite a few degrees”PHILLY/ (such as low attractiveness and forced displacement). All EDS were state . In Amsterdam, natural outdoor environments contribute to multi­ consistently identified by community informants, while none of the state ple challenges, as one respondent explained: “the things from the members interviewed mentioned feeling excluded or forced socio- climate get better, so the rain gets more processed, there’s no heat stress cultural and/or physical displacement. and more” AMS/state. State and community members in Cleveland, Lyon, Economic ecosystem disservices associated with urban natural out­ Amsterdam, Bristol and Philadelphia also emphasized stormwater door environments emerged in Montreal, Cleveland and Philadelphia, runoff regulation amongst other benefits from greenspaces. For with comments from both state and community informants. For example, a city water employee from Lyon explained the impact that example, the maintenance of trees or greenspaces was understood to be even small greenspaces can have in managing stormwater runoff, while high in cost. A city councilor in Montreal found that adding more ash pointing out design details such as “below the knots and depressions trees turned into having to use more “funding towards treating and from the forecourt there are stormwater management structures”LY/state. replacing”MONT/state those trees when infected by emerald ash borer Last, food production was the only provisioning service mentioned disease. In Cleveland and Philadelphia, community respondents were by interviewees, reported by both categories of respondents in Cleveland most concerned about the damages caused by trees and inadequate and Montreal. A Cleveland city planning commission member spoke maintenance of greenspaces (including vacant lots). In order to avoid about using land to grow vegetables and give access to residents to the risk of falling limbs, those interviewees reported that they would healthy food, and a Montreal nonprofit member spoke of a similar have to pay directly for the cost of managing those “limb trees that die suggestion, stating that “people would use the space because they’d be while hanging over a house or a car”CLE/comm., or to solve the fact that out there to grow their vegetables”MONT/comm.. “trees [are] damaging pipes”CLE/comm. or “roots ruining sidewalk­ Both types of informants interviewed in Lyon, Philadelphia, Cleve­ s”PHILLY/comm.. land and Amsterdam described how greenspaces provided outdoor Physical hazard disservices that resulted from physical tiredness recreation. They noted that greenspaces were places for events, “com­ munity celebration”CLE/state and “family cookouts”PHILLY/comm., where Table 3 food, music and drinks can be shared and sports such as “volleyball”CLE/ Summary of perceived urban ES and EDS. state , “flying kites”CLE/state, “boules”LY/comm., walking, trekking or Community State “working out”LY/state can take place, thanks to specific amenities such as respondents respondents playgrounds promoting children’s physical activity. Respondents re­ Ecosystem Services perceived ported the importance of these spaces to encourage active commuting Supporting ES: and for people to “enjoy themselves”PHILLY/comm.. Habitat provision √ √ Community members from Cleveland, Lyon, Montreal, Philadelphia [AMS, LY, MONT] Regulating ES: and Bristol indicated that greenspaces supply spaces for social interac­ Air purification √….. √ tion. Neighborhood residents, community-based organizations and [LY, AMS, PHILLY, BRI, SF, neighborhood resident leaders exposed the importance of greenspaces as CLE] spaces to meet a diversity of other people – including a diversity of ages Climate regulation (urban √ √ cooling) and walks of life. They also highlighted that natural outdoor environ­ [AMS, PHILLY, LY, MONT] ments were a place “to come together and work together” PHI/comm Stormwater regulation √ √ (particularly in gardening), “hang out with (…) friends and family”BRI/ [CLE, LY, AMS, BRI, PHILLY] comm. and neighbors (both those living across town but also those living Provisioning ES: in close proximity), chat and enjoy company, explaining the importance Food production √ √ [CLE, MONT] of these activities to provide an intangible benefit such as improving Cultural ES: social networks. Outdoor recreation √ √ In regard to “feeling connected to nature”, an urban ecology health [LY, PHILLY, CLE, AMS] employee from the City of Lyon highlighted this ES and stated that “it Social interaction √ × [CLE, LY, MONT, PHILLY, BRI] promotes closer links between urban life and wildlife”LY/state and can Connection with nature √ √ possibly lead to residents feeling more curious about nature. Meanwhile, [LY, PHILLY, BRI] community informants in Lyon, Philadelphia and Bristol also pointed Positive Aesthetic experiences √ × out that natural outdoor environments provided “connection with [LY] nature”BRI/comm. Visual appreciation and positive aesthetic experiences Mental restoration √ √ [AMS, CLE, LY, PHILLY] were reported in Lyon, as a result of “looking at the flowers, the birds”LY/ 5 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 were reported in Montreal, Cleveland, and Lyon by both community and environments might not be perceived as assets or as a welcoming area. state respondents. Residents (or municipal staff) having to perform the Adding natural outdoor environments was not always perceived as maintenance of natural outdoor environments, such as picking up falling addressing the prevalent social and health injustices faced by specific leaves, were seen as discouraging factors for adding new greenness, residents’ groups, making natural outdoor environments not a top pri­ according to the interviewees. A city water employee spoke of one sit­ ority for community informants, particularly in Bristol, Montreal, Lyon, uation in which it was difficult to convince people of adding more trees San Francisco, and Philadelphia. For example, community members because “it’s creating extra work for them”LY/state. The same person also showed a preference for “shops and facilities you can find in cities”BRI/ comm mentioned that gardeners and other employees who clean up parks over adding more trees. They also felt that adding green space was complain about picking up waste in the park, more so than general “depriving them of somewhere to park [their car]”BRI/comm.. In San maintenance. While an increase in physical activity was interpreted as a Francisco, when residents were presented with options of creating a positive outcome of contact with greenspaces by some of the in­ ‘Green benefit district’ coalition, they eventually selected the Arts and terviewees of our study, our results show that physical tiredness related Cultural District option because, as those involved reported, the cultural with greenspace maintenance work was also reported as a concern by district was a greater priority than greening the district. The rejection of other informants. In addition, risks to physical health were perceived in new greenspace seems to puzzle and frustrate (some) city officers. In Lyon, Montreal, and Cleveland. These risks were posed by fallen Philadelphia, a city public health employee emphasized how much they branches and fruits that could create “slip and fall”MONT//comm. situa­ would like to bring new green spaces to neighborhoods for residents, but tions, especially dangerous for older residents. Also, a city green spaces it is “….a question of whether neighborhoods want that [green spaces] manager in Lyon acknowledged that greenspaces could end up and not everybody does…” PHILLY/state. A city urban planning employee increasing noise and air pollution due to the use of mowers during from Lyon expressed frustration because even when green spaces are maintenance. made, residents do not choose to use them and “we cannot force them to Feeling excluded was a psychological disservice mentioned by in­ go” LY/state. Similarly in Montreal, the city green space management terviewees in Cleveland, Montreal, and San Francisco, but only reported director saw that “…generally wealthy neighborhoods want more green by community informants. A community civic group member in San spaces and working class neighborhoods couldn’t care less [because Francisco saw the improvements and greening of an area as not intended they have other priorities and worries].”MONT/state. for lower income people but rather to entice the arrival of higher income Community members also shared concerns around forced displace­ groups. Community groups felt that it was “about cleaning it just enough ment in San Francisco, Montreal, Cleveland, and Amsterdam. In­ so that millionaires who want to buy a vacation home and [will] only be terviewees stated that new or improved greenspaces were directly linked here for a month buy in”SF/comm.. The city added “porch swings and to increased property values, for example because “when [community kayaks”SF/comm. in natural outdoor urban areas while not addressing the organizations] green, a lot of promoters use that as a way to sell and to cleanup of toxic land in these areas, nor catering to the long term under- increase the value of their property”MONT/comm.. However, community privileged residents. In Cleveland, a similar worry of possible exclusion informants exposed feeling generally confused about “all that develop­ arose with community respondents questioning “What is all this devel­ ment that’s happening” in their city CLE/comm. and how the neighborhood opment happening? What does it mean?”CLE/comm.. Lastly, key commu­ will look like in the future and for whom. Even when green spaces are nity interviewees in Montreal were afraid a park would become an arena planned with residents’ needs in mind, by attempting to co-create a for dog owners who live in the condos nearby, and “people who want to space that “has value and a sense of purpose” CLE/comm for them, com­ bring their kids or whatever then they’re no longer able to do that”MONT/ munity respondents were preoccupied with socio-cultural and physical comm. . These changes in public space use left parents feeling alienated displacement due to the exclusion felt in greenspace. For example, a and excluded from the cultural ES of the park, including potential health community member from San Francisco spoke extensively about how benefits. development areas were only cleaned up with the intention of attracting State respondents and community interviewees in Lyon, Cleveland higher economic class people and how “it didn’t even take a decade for and Montreal spoke of insecurity and fear in relationship to natural the Dogpatch power plant to be removed before it was fully gentrified [i. outdoor environments. Some described concerns about “home­ e. socio-culturally and/or physically displaced]” SF/comm. In Amsterdam, less“MONT/comm. and “indigenous”MONT/comm. people considered by some one interviewee reflected on how people almost always support more as “unwanted”MONT/comm. users whose presence had increased since greenspace improvement. These users were “people who live in the neighborhood [but that before were] never seen”MONT/comm.. Commu­ Table 4 nity non-profits exposed that these users “came to sleep and do all their Summary of perceived urban EDS. needs in the alley. They [also] leave cans of beer and other stuff”MONT/ Community State comm. respondents respondents . Community informants were also seen as more fearful of green­ space used for “illegal activities”MONT/comm. and of high bushes where Ecosystem Disservices perceived people “could be hiding”CLE/comm.. One Montreal city councilor refer­ Economic EDS: enced how a resident needed street tree branches trimmed because of Damage to infrastructure and costs √ √ [MONT, CLE, PHILLY] “…the way they move at night with the wind created shadows of light Physical hazards EDS: and [he/she] gets scared.” MONT/state Unwanted wild animals (skunks Physical tiredness √ √ and raccoons) or ‘vermin’ often associated with disease or potential [MONT, CLE, LY] attacks to residents were also mentioned as a concern brought to a city Physical risks √ √ [LY, MONT, CLE] planning commissioner in Cleveland. Psychological EDS: Low perceived attractiveness was a disservice indicated by both Feeling excluded √ × categories of informants in Lyon and Cleveland. Respondents expressed [CLE, MONT, SF] that greenspaces were perceived by some community members to Experiencing fear/insecurity √ √ be “not very pretty”LY/state or even “ugly”CLE/comm. or messy. In some [LY, CLE, MONT] Other social impacts: cases, these negative images were further exacerbated by overgrown Low attractiveness √ √ shrubs and bushes that surrounded it. Also, the lack of maintenance of [LY, CLE, BRI, MONT, LY, SF, vacant lots, such as in some districts of Lyon, made green spaces less PHILLY] attractive. For some community informants, depending on the aesthetics Forced displacement √ × [SF, MONT, CLE, AMS] and type of maintenance for a new green space, natural outdoor 6 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 green space and enjoy the benefits but “…[this] makes the house prices be offering aesthetic value and physical activity opportunities to more here even go up higher”. AMS/comm. socially vulnerable residents. In reference to our chosen cities, we found that the North American In terms of regulating ES, air purification, urban temperature regu­ cities reported a wider diversity of EDS than European cities. Amsterdam lation, and stormwater runoff regulation benefits were reported by both and Bristol both had higher variability of ES reported than EDS, and for community and state informants. Our findings are in line with empirical Lyon there was a similar number of ES and EDS categories disclosed. research showing that urban vegetation, particularly trees, are Interestingly, although EDS were less virulently reported by European commonly associated with these ES (Collins et al., 2019; Drillet et al., cities, both Lyon and Bristol reported the disservice of low attractiveness 2020; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013). For urban temperature of green urban spaces. In North American cities we found that Cleveland regulation, most respondents highlighted the cooling effects of adding and Montreal reported the highest diversity of EDS including low green space to urban areas, in line with recent studies on the role of trees attractiveness, and feelings of fear and exclusion. and vegetation in helping mitigate heat wave risks (Baró et al., 2015; Graça et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2015; Wangchuk et al., 2021). Since both 4. Discussion groups of respondents perceived all regulating services, it seems that the tangible, physical benefits of having cooler and cleaner air are of Our study shows that, in cities undergoing gentrification, informants particular importance for the environmental quality of residents within report a wide array of ecosystem disservices (and services) in relation to gentrifying neighborhoods, especially since many of them are in post- new and improved natural outdoor environments. Generally, commu­ industrial landscapes, such as San Francisco, Cleveland, and, to some nity respondents are able to more clearly and richly identify ecosystem extent, Amsterdam. services and disservices, probably because they are in closer contact and Our findings on the provisioning service of healthy food production have greater experience of community life, needs and dynamics. Our (via community and allotment gardenss) aligns with previous evidence results enrich existing scholarly understandings of ES and EDS (Haines- (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Haase et al., 2017; Russo et al., 2017), Young and Potschin-Young, 2018; von Döhren and Haase, 2015), as well as those ES services related with habitat provision, an interme­ highlighting that informants from cities experiencing green gentrifica­ diate supporting service (de Groot et al., 2010; Dobbs et al., 2014; tion (particularly community respondents) can offer rich and nuanced Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Lundy and Wade, 2011) that res­ descriptions of EDS that extend well beyond what has been studied until idents in historically marginalized neighborhoods particularly value. now. These may include forced displacement, physical tiredness, and Both groups of informants in our study tie habitat provision to urban low attractiveness of urban spaces, illustrating their importance in the biodiversity and to creating connections between urban life and wildlife. context of cities experiencing green gentrification. However, the mention of those ES were rather rare, implying that those In sum, our study illustrates how differences in decision making seemed to be of lower value by residents living in gentrifying neigh­ positions (those with greater administrative capacity and decision- borhoods according to both state and community respondents. making power vs. those in community roles with often stronger com­ munity relations and connections) can impact the perception of ES and 4.2. Wider diversity of ecosystem disservices perceived by community EDS: community respondents tend to perceive a greater number and members, while no reference is made to ecological disservices diversity of EDS in comparison with administration members from city and supramunicipal institutions. In addition, some specific services Our study findings indicate a broad set of perceived EDS – economic (social interaction, positive aesthetic experiences) and disservices costs, physical hazards, psychological impacts, and other social impacts. (feeling of exclusion and forced socio-cultural and/or physical However, ecological disservices, such as biogenic emissions or bio­ displacement) are only reported by community members (Fig. 1). invasive species, were not mentioned. In our study, a wider diversity of disservices was mentioned by 4.1. The particular importance of cultural services for community community members and some were even only reported by community members, while other ecosystem services are relevant for all respondents interviewees, including feelings of exclusion in the context of green gentrifying neighborhoods and socio-cultural and/or physical displace­ From all the reported cultural ES, social interactions and positive ment. These negative perceptions are more commonly experienced by aesthetic experiences were only stated by community informants. This underprivileged residents, as other studies report (Anguelovski et al., result highlights how, in gentrifying neighborhoods, those respondents 2021b), that is by people whom community respondents tend to be in use and value natural outdoor environments to be able to keep a sense of closer contact with, for example through their participation in neigh­ community and maintain social relations in the midst of the de­ borhood community gardens or urban greenspace stewardship activ­ mographic and broader social change that tend to occur in gentrifying ities, in comparison with city planning staff. It could also be that neighborhoods. Other studies also focusing on residents’ needs had responses from state informants reflect an institutional vision rather already found that aesthetic pleasure and social interaction were than individual perception or experience (Scholte et al., 2015). important for urban residents in Porto, Portugal and Guangzhou, China Feeling excluded, experiencing fear, and experiencing insecurity (Graça et al., 2018; Jim and Chen, 2006) although those studies were not were the psychological EDS that respondents reported. Feelings of particularly focused on areas experiencing gentrification. In Barcelona, anxiety/discomfort, insecurity, fear, disgust, scariness, and unpleas­ the one study that did link ES with green gentrification found social antness have been identified in similar research on urban green space, relations to be one of the differentiators between parks associated with especially in gentrifying neighborhoods (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Fin­ green gentrification and parks that were not (Amorim Maia et al., 2020). ney, 2014; Rigolon et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Morales et al., 2020; Roy Our results are also in line with recent research highlighting that et al., 2012; von Döhren and Haase, 2015), and are generally related to aesthetic appreciation along with recreation tend to be the most prev­ overgrown vacant lots, unmaintained hedges/shrubs (wildness), dark­ alent cultural ES in cities (Veerkamp et al., 2021b), followed by ness (Andersson et al., 2015; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Jim connection with nature, having a sense of place in nature, or getting and Chen, 2006; Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009) and increased crime in inspiration through nature (Bertram and Rehdanz, 2015; Riechers et al., those contexts (Barton, 2016). In our study, those feelings were also 2016). According to respondents, recreation is also a highly effective ES linked to green spaces being used by homeless or indigenous residents. offered by natural outdoor environments, especially for physical activity In Montreal, for example, community respondents reported feeling benefits. Since gentrifying neighborhoods tend to be formerly more afraid and insecure due to possibility of illegal activities taking place marginalized, grey, and/or postindustrial environments and landscapes there by unhomed or indigenous residents, and of people hiding in (Gould and Lewis, 2017), it seems valuable for new green amenities to overgrown plants. 7 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 In our study, feelings of exclusion and fears of forced displacement might thus explain their ability to perceive those social impacts. are exclusively reported by community respondents, in relation to the Participants of our study identified the low attractiveness of new natural outdoor environments built in the neighborhoods under study, green areas and their aesthetics as an EDS, including displeasing infra­ including in San Francisco, Cleveland, Montreal, and Amsterdam. In structure, overgrown plants, undermaintained spaces or lost car park those cities, respondents did not identify new green space as a new sites. This perception has been documented in literature and is most valuable amenity for long-term residents but rather perceived it as a often associated with lack of maintenance or trash in natural outdoor possible contributor or sign of gentrification and displacement. Green environmnets (Lyytimäki et al., 2008; Lyytimäki and Sipilä, 2009; Roy gentrification can stem from the fact that natural outdoor environments et al., 2012; Triguero-Mas et al., 2021). Here, it might also be linked to generally increase real estate values around theses spaces (Lyytimäki the fact that gentrifying neighborhoods are still lagging behind and Sipilä, 2009; Miller, 2016; Ramos et al., 2018; Villegas-Palacio et al., wealthier areas in relation to access to many core city service in­ 2016) and can compromise access to more affordable housing, as in the vestments as well as funding allocated to natural outdoor environments case of San Francisco, or contribute to the privatized access to a new budgets. These findings might echo recent research showing that the green amenity, as in Montreal next to the Lachine Canal. Since com­ quality (over the quantity) of the green space is most relevant (Russo and munity respondents are likely more in contact with vulnerable neigh­ Cirella, 2018) in explaining green space perception. borhood residents, their direct neighborhood presence and experience Our results also indicate that community and municipal Fig. 1. Different ecosystem services and disservices, showing those reported in detail by our interviewees and those that only community members stated. 8 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 administration informants from cities undergoing green gentrification Apart from these limitations, our study has several strengths. We perceived physical hazard-related risks associated to new natural out­ were able to differentiate perceptions by type of informant and include door environments. Community respondents perceived that either the respondents in a diversity of community and administrative positions, lack of upkeep of green areas created unsafe conditions due to increased which allowed us to identify a wide range of EDS and ES in gentrifying falling risk or to the use of dangerous pesticides. These findings thus add cities, and identify those that community respondents perceive due to to previous research that had focused more on health risks such as al­ their close contact with residents. Moreover, this study provided a novel lergies caused by increased pollen, the increased odds of attacks by in­ cross-city perspective to previous research into urban ES and EDS by sects or animals, or increased probability to get an infectious disease focusing in several cities located both in North America and Europe. transmitted by animals acting as vectors (Roy et al., 2012; von Döhren Lastly, our study highlighted disservices in regard to psychological, and Haase, 2015). Furthermore, physical hazard is a disservice that our physical hazards, economic and social impacts and provided insights study respondents mentioned in the context of natural outdoor envi­ into disservices sparsely studied so far. ronments maintenance (falling limbs, leaves, fruits or trimming shrubs and bushes) and waste pickup in gentrifying neighborhoods. This 5. Conclusions disservice has received little attention so far, but complements existing research on the physical damage and maintenance costs of new green Cities around the world have been creating an identity around infrastructure (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013; Lyytimäki et al., greening, branding themselves as “green cities” and attracting capital 2008; Roy et al., 2012; von Döhren and Haase, 2015). Respondents and investors. These investors take advantage on the potential of green particularly highlighted the increased physical effort for older residents projects and environments, capturing for themselves the social and and park employees in areas requiring maintenance. Rather than health benefits of green (García-Lamarca et al., 2022). Taking our bringing new benefits for community members, green space might thus findings and this context into account, we believe our study is a step create new physical and labor burdens. forward in nuancing and further building the ES and EDS scholarship, The economic disservices that respondents reported were nearly all showing the importance of further refining the ES and EDS framework to related to damage caused by new green spaces. These results add to the better understand how urban natural outdoor environments are usually current evidence on the role of plant growth in property damage and the purely conceptualized as solutions to anthropocentric needs. costs of removing unwanted species (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, Our study findings further refine the conceptualization and diversity 2013; Lyytimäki et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2012; von Döhren and Haase, of urban ES and EDS and provide an understanding and contextualiza­ 2015). Our study found that community respondents were concerned tion of how they are perceived differently by informants holding about who would take responsibility over maintenance costs. Some different types of positions and connections to neighborhood residents residents feared it would fall on them and the city would not step up and and to gentrification processes involving unequal urban change and take care of damage, or that it would take several complaints for the city development in those neighborhoods. Thus, our research presents a to become involved. This fear explains why disadvantaged communities wider set of EDS that have to be considered, particularly if equity and are often against street tree-planting programs, especially in the US environmental justice lenses are applied. Our results have clear policy (Carmichael and McDonough, 2019; Riedman et al., 2022). This eco­ and planning implications, calling for the recognition of the wider nomic concern could be also a direct result of gentrification, which tends benefits but also social, economic, physical and psychological negative to increase cost of living and worsen socioeconomic segregation. effects of new green space projects to ensure designing healthy green In general, our findings illustrate that ecosystem disservices are just cities. broadly recognized by community members, which may indicate that ecosystem disservices play a significant role in people’s perceptions of Declaration of Competing Interest natural outdoor environments. Our study did not provide information on the potential outperformance of ecosystem disservices over the The authors declare that they have no known competing financial ecosystem services. However, previous research demonstrates that nat­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence ural outdoor environments can be considered greenLULUs (Locally the work reported in this paper. Unwanted Land Uses) or “disruptive green landscapes” for underprivi­ leged residents (Anguelovski, 2016; Triguero-Mas et al., 2021), which Data availability may be a relevant consideration in future research on ecosystem services and disservices, particularly in contexts of green gentrification. Data will be made available on request. 4.3. Strengths & limitations Acknowledgments In this analysis, we presented respondents perceptions of the ES and The authors wish to thank all the study participants. We thank Austin EDS provided by natural outdoor environments in different cities. While Matheney for their help on data coding. We also thank Hanne Carla gender, geographical location, position in society, and age have been Bisjak for her support in developing the figure of this paper. The documented as influencing how services and disservices are perceived research presented in this paper received funding from the European (García-Nieto et al., 2015; Moutouama et al., 2019; Ramos et al., 2018), Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 we did not collect information on these characteristics because our study research and innovation program [grant agreement No. 678034] and the goals were more directly focused on contrasting perceptions among in­ Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [Maria de Maeztu, terviewees types than on those characteristics. However, we cannot rule CEX2019-000940-M). MGL is funded by Juan de la Cierva fellowships out the potential impact that sociodemographic characteristics of our [FJCI-2016-30586] awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and interviewees could have in our results. Further, as perceptions are sub­ Competitiveness. MTM is funded by a Ramon y Cajal fellowship jective, each ES and EDS may be interpreted differently by each inter­ [RYC2021-034215-I] awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and viewee (von Döhren and Haase, 2015). Despite having interviewed a Innovation. diversity of local community organizations and municipal planning agencies, in some of the cities we only managed to collect data from a Appendix A. Supplementary data small number of city administration members (i.e. Montreal and San Francisco), which could have impacted the heterogeneity of information Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. we collected (Saunders et al., 2018). org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101571. 9 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 References Andrews, C., Antunes, P., Aszalós, R., Baró, F., Barton, D.N., Berry, P., Bugter, R., Carvalho, L., Czúcz, B., Dunford, R., Garcia Blanco, G., Geamănă, N., Giucă, R., Grizzetti, B., Izakovičová, Z., Kertész, M., Kopperoinen, L., Langemeyer, J., Amorim Maia, A.T., Calcagni, F., Connolly, J.J.T., Anguelovski, I., Langemeyer, J., 2020. Montenegro Lapola, D., Liquete, C., Luque, S., Martínez Pastur, G., Martin-Lopez, B., Hidden drivers of social injustice: uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services Mukhopadhyay, R., Niemela, J., Odee, D., Peri, P.L., Pinho, P., Patrício-Roberto, G. behind green gentrification. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 254–263. https://doi.org/ B., Preda, E., Priess, J., Röckmann, C., Santos, R., Silaghi, D., Smith, R., 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.021. Vădineanu, A., van der Wal, J.T., Arany, I., Badea, O., Bela, G., Boros, E., Bucur, M., Andersson, E., McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Blumentrath, S., Calvache, M., Carmen, E., Clemente, P., Fernandes, J., Ferraz, D., Tuvendal, M., Wurster, D., 2015. Scale and context dependence of ecosystem service Fongar, C., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gundersen, V., providing units. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Haavardsholm, O., Kalóczkai, Á., Khalalwe, T., Kiss, G., Köhler, B., Lazányi, O., ecoser.2014.08.001. Lellei-Kovács, E., Lichungu, R., Lindhjem, H., Magare, C., Mustajoki, J., Ndege, C., Anguelovski, I., 2016. From Toxic Sites to Parks as (Green) LULUs? New Challenges of Nowell, M., Nuss Girona, S., Ochieng, J., Often, A., Palomo, I., Pataki, G., Inequity, Privilege, Gentrification, and Exclusion for Urban Environmental Justice. Reinvang, R., Rusch, G., Saarikoski, H., Smith, A., Soy Massoni, E., Stange, E., J. Plan. Lit. 31, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215610491. Vågnes Traaholt, N., Vári, Á., Verweij, P., Vikström, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Zulian, G., Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J., Brand, A.L., 2018b. From landscapes of utopia to the 2018. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service margins of the green urban life: For whom is the new green city? City 22, 417–436. concept: Results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 552–565. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2018.1473126. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015. Anguelovski, I., Brand, A.L., Connolly, J.J.T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia- Dobbs, C., Kendal, D., Nitschke, C.R., 2014. Multiple ecosystem services and disservices Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Pérez del of the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape structure and Pulgar, C., Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., Argüelles Ramos, L., 2020. Expanding the sociodemographics. Ecol. Ind. 43, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Boundaries of Justice in Urban Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban ecolind.2014.02.007. Greening Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, Drillet, Z., Fung, T., Leong, R., Sachidhanandam, U., Edwards, P., Richards, D., 2020. and Relational Approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110, 1743–1769. https://doi.org/ Urban Vegetation Types are Not Perceived Equally in Providing Ecosystem Services 10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579. and Disservices. Sustainability 12, 2076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052076. Anguelovski, I., Cole, H.V.S., Neill, E.O., Bar, F., Kotsila, P., Sekulova, F., Pérez del Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., Pulgar, C., Shokry, G., García-Lamarca, M., Argüelles, L., Connolly, J.J.T., Honey- Comín, F.A., 2015. Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders’ Power Roses, J., Lopez-Gay, A., Fontan-Vela, M., Matheney, A., Oscilowicz, E., Binet, A., Relationships Matter. PLoS One 10, e0132232. Triguero-Mas, M., 2021a. Gentrification pathways and their health impacts on Finney, C., 2014. Black faces, white spaces: reimagining the relationship of African historically marginalized residents in Europe and North America: Global qualitative Americans to the great outdoors. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. evidence from 14 cities. Health Place 72, 102698. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Frumkin, H., Bratman, G.N., Breslow, S.J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P.H., Lawler, J.J., HEALTHPLACE.2021.102698. Levin, P.S., Tandon, P.S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K.L., Wood, S.A., 2017. Nature Contact Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Cole, H., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., and Human Health: A Research Agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 075001 Baró, F., Martin, N., Conesa, D., Shokry, G., del Pulgar, C.P., Ramos, L.A., https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663. Matheney, A., Gallez, E., Oscilowicz, E., Máñez, J.L., Sarzo, B., Beltrán, M.A., García-Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H.V.S., Connolly, J.J.T., Pérez-del-Pulgar, C., Minaya, J.M., 2022. Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Shokry, G., Triguero-Mas, M., 2022. Urban green grabbing: Residential real estate Nat. Commun. 13, 3816. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1. developers discourse and practice in gentrifying Global North neighborhoods. Anguelovski, I., Argüelles, L., Baró, F., Cole, H., Connolly, J., García-Lamarca, M., Geoforum 128, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.11.016. Loveless, S., Pérez del Pulgar, C., Shokry, G., Trebic, T., Wood, E., 2018. Green García-Nieto, A.P., Quintas-Soriano, C., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C., Trajectories: Municipal policy trends and strategies for greening in Europe, Canada Martín-López, B., 2015. Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of and United States (1990-2016). BCNUEJ. stakeholders‫ ׳‬profiles. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J. (Eds.), 2021. The Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales ecoser.2014.11.006. from North America and Europe, Routledge equity, justice and the sustainable city Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., 2017. Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem series. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY. services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Baró, F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Frantzeskaki, N., 2015. Mismatches between Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in landurbplan.2016.08.018. five European cities. Ecol. Ind. 55, 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1999. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative ecolind.2015.03.013. Research. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206. Barton, M.S., 2016. Gentrification and Violent Crime in New York City. Crime Delinq. 62, Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for 1180–1202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714549652. urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Bertram, C., Rehdanz, K., 2015. Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: ecolecon.2012.08.019. Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 187–199. https://doi. Gould, K.A., Lewis, T.L., 2017. Green gentrification: urban sustainability and the struggle org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.011. for environmental justice. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London ; New York, Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29, NY. 293–301. Graça, M., Queirós, C., Farinha-Marques, P., Cunha, M., 2018. Street trees as cultural Brinkhoff, T., 2022. City Population [WWW Document]. URL http://www. elements in the city: Understanding how perception affects ecosystem services citypopulation.de/en/help/references/ (accessed 2.14.23). management in Porto, Portugal. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 194–205. https://doi. Brown-Saracino, J., 2010. The Gentrification Debates. A Reader, Routledge, ed. Taylor & org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.001. Francis, NY, United States of America. Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., Gomez- Carmichael, C.E., McDonough, M.H., 2019. Community Stories: Explaining Resistance to Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Kremer, P., Street Tree-Planting Programs in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32, Langemeyer, J., Rall, E.L., McPhearson, T., Pauleit, S., Qureshi, S., Schwarz, N., 588–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1550229. Voigt, A., Wurster, D., Elmqvist, T., 2014. A Quantitative Review of Urban Cole, H.V.S., Lamarca, M.G., Connolly, J.J.T., Anguelovski, I., 2017. Are green cities Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation. Ambio 43, healthy and equitable ? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0. gentrification. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 71, 1118–1121. https://doi.org/ Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., Brenck, M., 10.1136/jech-2017-209201. Fischer, L.K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Krellenberg, K., Kremer, P., Cole, H.V.S., Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Lamarca, M.G., Pérez del Pulgar, C., Kronenberg, J., Larondelle, N., Mathey, J., Pauleit, S., Ring, I., Rink, D., Schwarz, N., Shokry, G., Triguero-Mas, M., 2021. Adapting the Environmental Risk Transition Wolff, M., 2017. Greening cities – To be socially inclusive? About the alleged Theory for Urban Health Inequities: An observational study examining complex paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int. 64, 41–48. https://doi.org/ environmental riskscapes in seven neighborhoods in Global North cities. Soc. Sci. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005. Med. 113907 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113907. Haines-Young, R., Potschin-Young, M., 2018. Revision of the Common International Cole, H., Triguero-Mas, M., Connolly, J., Anguelovski, I., 2019. Determining the Health Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): A Policy Brief. OE 3, e27108. Benefits of Green Space: Does gentrification matter? National Library of Medicine Hofmann, M., Westermann, J.R., Kowarik, I., van der Meer, E., 2012. Perceptions of 57, 1–11. parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban For. Urban Collins, C.M.T., Cook-Monie, I., Raum, S., 2019. What do people know? Ecosystem Green. 11, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.001. services, public perception and sustainable management of urban park trees in Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2006. Perception and Attitude of Residents Toward Urban Green London, U.K. Urban For. Urban Green. 43, 126362 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 38, 338–349. https://doi.org/ ufug.2019.06.005. 10.1007/s00267-005-0166-6. Crooks, A., 2016. Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era, edited by Karen Seto and Kondo, M.C., Triguero-Mas, M., Donaire-Gonzalez, D., Seto, E., Valentín, A., Hurst, G., Anette Reenberg. 2014. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 394+xiv. ISBN: Carrasco-Turigas, G., Masterson, D., Ambròs, A., Ellis, N., Swart, W., Davis, N., 9780262026901, $40.00. Journal of Regional Science 56, 723–725. 10.1111/ Maas, J., Jerrett, M., Gidlow, C.J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2020. Momentary mood jors.12294. response to natural outdoor environments in four European cities. Environ. Int. 134, de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Gowdy, J., Haines-Young, R., 105237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105237. Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R., Ring, I., 2010. Integrating the Lamarque, P., Quétier, F., Lavorel, S., 2011. The diversity of the ecosystem services ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. concept and its implications for their assessment and management. C. R. Biol. 334, Routledge, London. 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2010.11.007. Dick, J., Turkelboom, F., Woods, H., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Primmer, E., Saarela, S.-R., Bezák, P., Mederly, P., Leone, M., Verheyden, W., Kelemen, E., Hauck, J., 10 M. Kathryn Rodgman et al. Ecosystem Services 65 (2024) 101571 Lees, L., Shin, H.B., López-Morales, E. (Eds.), 2015. Global gentrifications: uneven initiatives. Urban For. Urban Green. 73, 127597 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. development and displacement. Policy Press, Bristol, UK Chicago, IL. ufug.2022.127597. Lees, L., Slater, T., Wyly, E., 2008. Gentrification. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Rigolon, A., Browning, M., Jennings, V., 2018. Inequities in the quality of urban park New York (USA). systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landsc. Lin, B., Meyers, J., Barnett, G., 2015. Understanding the potential loss and inequities of Urban Plan. 178, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.026. green space distribution with urban densification. Urban For. Urban Green. 14, Rodríguez-Morales, B., Roces-Díaz, J.V., Kelemen, E., Pataki, G., Díaz-Varela, E., 2020. 952–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.003. Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Lundy, L., Wade, R., 2011. Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Are landowners’ and visitors’ perspectives dissimilar? Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101089 Progr. Phys. Geogr.: Earth Environ. 35, 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101089. 0309133311422464. Roy, S., Byrne, J., Pickering, C., 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree Lyytimäki, J., Petersen, L.K., Normander, B., Bezák, P., 2008. Nature as a nuisance? benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ. Sci. 5, 161–172. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430802055524. Russo, A., Cirella, G., 2018. Modern Compact Cities: How Much Greenery Do We Need? Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M., 2009. Hopping on one leg – The challenge of ecosystem IJERPH 15, 2180. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102180. disservices for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 8, 309–315. Russo, A., Escobedo, F.J., Cirella, G.T., Zerbe, S., 2017. Edible green infrastructure: An https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003. approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A.M., de environments. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 242, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Vries, S., Triguero-Mas, M., Brauer, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Lupp, G., agee.2017.03.026. Richardson, E.A., Astell-Burt, T., Dimitrova, D., Feng, X., Sadeh, M., Standl, M., Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., Heinrich, J., Fuertes, E., 2017. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Jinks, C., 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 158, 301–317. https://doi. and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52, 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/ org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028. s11135-017-0574-8. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Scholte, S.S.K., van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Verburg, P.H., 2015. Integrating socio-cultural Island Press, Washington, DC. perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Miller, J.T., 2016. Is urban greening for everyone? Social inclusion and exclusion along Ecol. Econ. 114, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007. the Gowanus Canal. Urban For. Urban Green. 19, 285–294. https://doi.org/ Smith, N., 1982. Gentrification and Uneven Development. Economic Geography 58, 139. 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.03.004. https://doi.org/10.2307/143793. Moutouama, F.T., Biaou, S.S.H., Kyereh, B., Asante, W.A., Natta, A.K., 2019. Factors Smith, N., 1996. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. shaping local people’s perception of ecosystem services in the Atacora Chain of Routledge. Mountains, a biodiversity hotspot in northern Benin. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 15, 38. Triguero-Mas, M., Anguelovski, I., García-Lamarca, M., Argüelles, L., Perez-del- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0317-0. Pulgar, C., Shokry, G., Connolly, J.J.T., Cole, H.V.S., 2021. Natural outdoor O’Neill, E., Cole, H.V.S., García-Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Gullón, P., Triguero- environments’ health effects in gentrifying neighborhoods: Disruptive green Mas, M., 2023. The right to the unhealthy deprived city: An exploration into the landscapes for underprivileged neighborhood residents. Soc. Sci. Med. 279, 113964 impacts of state-led redevelopment projects on the determinants of mental health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113964. Soc. Sci. Med. 318, 115634 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115634. Veerkamp, C.J., Schipper, A.M., Hedlund, K., Lazarova, T., Nordin, A., Hanson, H.I., Palta, M., du Bray, M.V., Stotts, R., Wolf, A., Wutich, A., 2016. Ecosystem Services and 2021. A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and Disservices for a Vulnerable Population: Findings from Urban Waterways and blue infrastructure. Ecosyst. Serv. 52, 101367 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Wetlands in an American Desert City. Hum. Ecol. 44, 463–478. https://doi.org/ ecoser.2021.101367. 10.1007/s10745-016-9843-8. Villegas-Palacio, C., Berrouet, L., López, C., Ruiz, A., Upegui, A., 2016. Lessons from the Pataki, D.E., Carreiro, M.M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N.E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., integrated valuation of ecosystem services in a developing country: Three case Pouyat, R.V., Whitlow, T.H., Zipperer, W.C., 2011. Coupling biogeochemical cycles studies on ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.017. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1890/090220. von Döhren, P., Haase, D., 2015. Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of Ramos, A., Jujnovsky, J., Almeida-Leñero, L., 2018. The relevance of stakeholders’ the art with a focus on cities. Ecol. Ind. 52, 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City. Ecosyst. ecolind.2014.12.027. Serv. 34, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.003. Wangchuk, J., Choden, K., Sears, R.R., Baral, H., Yoezer, D., Tamang, K.T.D., Choden, T., Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature Wangdi, N., Dorji, S., Dukpa, D., Tshering, K., Thinley, C., Dhendup, T., 2021. review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Community perception of ecosystem services from commercially managed forests in biocon.2008.07.014. Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 50, 101335 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101335. Reid, W.V., 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well- Yang, B.-Y., Zhao, T., Hu, L.-X., Browning, M.H.E.M., Heinrich, J., Dharmage, S.C., being. Jalaludin, B., Knibbs, L.D., Liu, X.-X., Luo, Y.-N., James, P., Li, S., Huang, W.-Z., Ribeiro, A., Triguero-Mas, M., Jardim Santos, C., Gómez-Nieto, A., Cole, H., Chen, G., Zeng, X.-W., Hu, L.-W., Yu, Y., Dong, G.-H., 2021. Greenspace and human Anguelovski, I., Martins Silva, F., Baró, F., 2021. Exposure to nature and mental health: An umbrella review. Innovation 2, 100164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. health outcomes during COVID-19 lockdown. A comparison between Portugal and xinn.2021.100164. Spain. Environ. Int. 154, 106664 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106664. Zijlema, W.L., Triguero-Mas, M., Smith, G., Cirach, M., Martinez, D., Dadvand, P., Riechers, M., Barkmann, J., Tscharntke, T., 2016. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem Gascon, M., Jones, M., Gidlow, C., Hurst, G., Masterson, D., Ellis, N., van den services from urban green. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Berg, M., Maas, J., van Kamp, I., van den Hazel, P., Kruize, H., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., ecoser.2015.11.007. Julvez, J., 2017. The relationship between natural outdoor environments and Riedman, E., Roman, L.A., Pearsall, H., Maslin, M., Ifill, T., Dentice, D., 2022. Why don’t cognitive functioning and its mediators. Environ. Res. 155, 268–275. https://doi. people plant trees? Uncovering barriers to participation in urban tree planting org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.02.017. 11