188 gested by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2003) or The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2010). Some studies list a few disservices, without claiming to be comprehensive (Dobbs et al. 2011; Plieninger et al. 2013; Lyytimäki 2014). Others provide a more holistic framework [i.e., structured by the three pillars of sustainability (Escobedo et al. 2011) or are based on litera- ture reviews but with no overall structure (Roy et al. 2012; Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013)]. These different descriptive classifications can be structured into three main approaches: 1. Based on ecosystem performance, for exam- ple generating pollen (Roy et al. 2012). 2. Based on disservices from ecosystems as experienced by humans, for example dam- age to infrastructure (Dobbs et al. 2011), habitat competition between humans and animals (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013), fear of snakes (Lyytimäki 2014), etc. 3. Based on disservices deriving from human conduct and choices related to ecosystems, for example neglected and damaged urban green spaces (Plieninger et al. 2013). Some studies also mention monetary costs (Escobedo et al. 2011; Roy et al. 2012). Different methods have been used to assess dis- services. Besides literature reviews, the methods include a survey on peoples’ perceptions of disser- vices (Plieninger et al. 2013) and an indirect mea- surement through a study of newspaper coverage of disservices (Lyytimäki 2014). Dobbs et al. (2011) used different indicators known to be related to disservices; for example, the disservice ‘Damage to infrastructure and risk to human safety’ was assessed using data describing the number of tree species susceptible to damage. Thus, the methods vary from mapping perceived disservices to map- ping their probable causes. This variation in methods represents a pragmatic approach, but lacks internal coherence and thus needs further development. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate how urban ecosystem disservices are perceived by the pub- lic and if these perceptions can be assessed in a more systematic manner. The research question examined in the study was whether records of complaints/com- ments held at municipal park departments can be used as a source of knowledge on urban tree disservices. ©2015 International Society of Arboriculture Delshammar et al.: Urban Trees and Ecosystems Disservices MATERIALS AND METHODS Records of complaints/comments received by the municipal park departments in the three largest cities in Sweden (Stockholm, Göteborg, and Malmö) in 2011 and 2012 were used as the empirical material for the study. The definition of disservices, suggested by Lyytimäki and Sipilä (2009) as “func- tions or properties of ecosystems that are perceived as negative for human well-being,” was taken as a start- ing point. All complaints regarding trees in urban areas were considered as perceived preliminary evi- dence of ecosystem disservices from urban trees. The initial intention of the study was to select items related to trees from the records. The records from Stockholm and Göteborg had a category labeled ‘tree issues’, but the records from Malmö did not distinguish this category. The authors therefore chose to select items that contained the word ‘tree’ instead. This yielded 1,931 items for Stockholm, 2,576 for Göteborg, and 1,665 items for Malmö. The table of urban ecosystem disser- vices suggested by Roy et al. (2012) was used as a starting point to classify the items into catego- ries, as it appeared to be the most comprehensive method available. Each item was classified in two ways: type of episode and type of perceived dis- service. The classification into episodes was used to describe what had happened in each case, the cause of the disservice. The classes of episodes were constructed inductively from the empirical data. The data collected by the municipal park department were intended to serve as the basis for direct actions to solve problems and not for in- depth analysis, and therefore has shortcomings as a source of knowledge. The items mainly concerned trees, but also included, to some extent, shrubs and weeds. Some of the items were notes taken when a resident had called the municipal department. These were usually very short and written in tele- gram style—very short entries that sometimes had to be interpreted. Other items were e-mails sent by residents. These were sometimes very comprehen- sive, with extensive details on background and on how earlier complaints/comments had been han- dled. Initially, all authors classified 100 items each and the outcomes were compared and discussed to align the interpretations. The main part of the classification was made by one of the authors with profound knowledge of plant materials.
July 2015
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
