RESEARCH ARTICLES Gaining Ground: Green Infrastructure ...users.clas.ufl.edu/...report_focusgroup_green_infrastructure_attitude… · green space, and green infrastructure mean, as

RESEARCH ARTICLES

Gaining Ground: GreenInfrastructure Attitudes andPerceptions from Stakeholdersin 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

Syracuse, New York. This project explores local stakehold-

ers’ 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 eco-

systems services are, as well as what GI is. Implementation

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 infra-structure ~GI! and its potential role in improving

the physical environment of older cities in the UnitedStates ~US!, as well as providing health and amenity ben-efits ~Benedict and McMahon, 2006; Center for Neighbor-hood 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—orengineered systems that mimic natural processes—to en-hance overall environmental quality and provide utilityservices.” This concept evolved from the ecological plan-ning discipline ~Benedict and McMahon, 2006!. Such GIprojects are being used to provide a variety of ecologicalservices for older Rust Belt urban areas. Examples includerain gardens, bioswales, green roofs, constructed wetlands,and permeable pavement ~see Figure 1!. These GI projectsprovide ecological services that can be regulatory ~water-quality treatment!, provision ~urban gardens!, mainte-

nance ~urban biodiversity!, and cultural ~urban amenitiesand human health!.

Even though GI is being implemented within urban neigh-borhoods in Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New YorkCity, Philadelphia, Portland, and Seattle—there are barri-ers to successful implementation of such infrastructure atlarger scales ~Jaffe, 2011; National Research Council, 2008;Traver, 2009!. Such barriers may relate to costs and benefitsof GI ~Jaffe, 2011! or local perception of unwanted orunknown impacts ~Smardon, 1989; Traver, 2009!. This projectseeks to explore the basis for such perceptions for selectedurban neighborhoods in Syracuse, New York.

Some Basic Definitions

The following are definitions of key terms that will be usedoften within this article:

• Health is the state of complete physical, mental andsocial well-being ~World Health Organization, 1948!.

• Well-being is material security, personal freedoms, goodsocial relations, and physical health ~Millennium Assess-ment, 2003!.

• Healthy ecosystems are free from or resistant to stressand degradation, and maintain their organization, pro-ductivity, and autonomy over time ~Costanza, 1992; Rap-port, Costanza, and McMichael, 1998!, but this is not auniversally accepted definition.

• Ecosystem services are the delivery, provision, protection,or maintenance of goods and benefits that humans ob-tain from ecosystem functions ~De Groot, Wilson, andBoumans, 2002; Millennium Assessment, 2003!.

• Green infrastructure can be considered as all-natural,seminatural, and artificial networks of multifunctional

Affiliation of authors: Kathleen Barnhill was a graduate research as-sistant and Richard Smardon is a Professor of Environmental Studies atthe SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NewYork.

Address correspondence to: Richard Smardon, PhD, Faculty of Envi-ronmental Studies, State University of New York ~SUNY! College ofEnvironmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210;~phone! 315-470-6576; ~fax! 315-470-6915; ~e-mail! [email protected].

© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2012

6 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012 doi:10.10170S1466046611000470

ecological systems within, around, and between urbanareas, at all spatial scales ~Tzoulas et al., 2007, p. 169!.

• Socioecological systems are complex integrated systemsthat emerge through the continuous interaction of humansocieties and ecosystems ~Grimm et al., 2000; Haberlet al., 2006; Redman, Grove, and Kuby, 2004!.

Background and Literature Review

Urban Ecosystem Social Science ConceptualModels

Conceptual frameworks have been developed that link urbanecosystems, human, and ecological health and GI. Socialscience research models address environmental effects on

human mental and physical health. Table 1 includes modeltheory, the physical environmental aspect, and the relatedhuman health aspect. The general summary is that greenurban space and biodiversity have value for improvingmental and physical health for urban residents. Also, thesocial models that van Kamp et al. ~2003! and Circerchia~1996! have synthesized for livability and quality of lifeillustrate the complex interplay of factors affecting qualityof life, including personal, social, cultural, community, nat-ural, and built environment, as well as economic factors.So the issue here is how GI improves urban resident phys-ical and mental health, as well as overall quality of life, andwhether such values are so recognized.

Another useful construct can be derived from the Millen-nium Ecosystem Assessment ~2003!, which assesses globalecosystems changes and resultant impacts on human well-

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.

Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions 7

being ~Cairns and Pratt, 1995!. This includes a conceptualframework linking ecosystem services and human well-being through socioeconomic factors. Ecosystem services,which are grouped into four categories—provisioning, reg-ulatory, supporting, and cultural services—provide forhuman well-being within five categories—security, accessto basic resources, health, good social relations, and free-dom of choice.

Perception Studies of Green Infrastructure

There has been a growing, but limited, literature on theroles, functions, resident attitudes, and constraints to GIimplementation. North American studies of GI perceptioninclude studies in Albuquerque, New Mexico ~Abrahams,2010!; Gainesville, Georgia ~Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler,2008!; Los Angeles ~Pincetl and Gearin, 2005!; and Port-land, Oregon ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. Per-ceived community benefits of GI in these communitiesinclude better understanding of ecological systems ~Shan-das, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, increased access to urbangreen space ~Abrahams, 2010; Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes,2009!, safe and healthier neighborhoods ~Abrahams, 2010;Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, informal citizen groupstaking action ~Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, andprovision of equity through access to green space for lower-income neighborhoods ~Floyd, Gramman, and Saenz, 1993;Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler, 2008; Pincetl and Gearin,2005!. Studies of GI perception and value from an inter-national perspective include those done for the UnitedKingdom ~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

studies support the following perceived attributes of GI forthese 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 ~Mansorand Said, 2008; Mell, 2010!

• Social well-being and participation ~Mansor and Said,2008!

• Sense of place attachment ~Mansor, Said, and Mo-hamed, 2008!

• Green-space accessibility related to stress reduction andhealth benefits ~Mell, 2010; Nielsen and Hansen, 2007!

There is often confusion as to what the terms open space,green space, and green infrastructure mean, as well as whobenefits and how ~Kaplan, Austin, and Kaplan, 2004; Nas-sauer, 1992; Smardon, 1988!. The specific issue to be ad-dressed here is how to evaluate the values and functions ofGI measures of urban runoff reduction. Jaffe ~2011! sug-gests on the basis of the recently completed Illinois EPAstudy ~Jaffe et al., 2010! “that green infrastructure strategiesare cost effective when compared to conventional storm-water management approaches, even when evaluated interms of their direct costs and savings over their usefullives” ~p. 357!. He further asserts that there are method-ological problems in assessing indirect benefits and values,

Table 1. Models and theories linking ecosystem and human health

Source Model/theory Environmental aspects Human health aspects

Freeman ~1984! Environmental effects onmental/physical health

Physical, social, and culturalfactors

Nervous system and illness

Henwood ~2002! Psychosocial stress and heath Poor environment Chronic anxiety, stress, and highblood pressure

World Health Organization~1998!

Arch of health Environmental, cultural, andsocioeconomic factors

Working and living conditions,community, lifestyle, andhereditary factors

Paton, Sengupta, and Hassan~2005!

Healthy living and workingmodel

Environmental, cultural, andsocioeconomic factors

Living and working conditions

MacIntyre ~2002! Basic-needs framework Natural environment and resources;landscape

Health—all aspects

Adapted from Tzoulas et al ~2007!.

8 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012

such as ecological services—and that direct measurementof costs and benefits of GI is better.

However, if we were to address the range of potentialbarriers to GI implementation—then further knowledge ofhow stakeholders perceive GI functions and values as wellas 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 runoffrelated GI, institutional, technological and perceptual bar-riers. Traver ~2009! states that there are misconceptionsregarding GI and low impact design, especially related todisease vector habitat for mosquito populations. Other per-ceptual barriers to GI implementation mentioned in otherstudies include

• Cost to the resident property owner ~LaBadie, 2010;Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!

• Disconnect between urban dwellers and their environ-ment ~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 tech-nology ~LaBadie, 2010!

• Lack of knowledge on how to design, construct, fund,and maintain GI ~LaBadie, 2010; Shandas, Nelson, andArendes, 2009!

• Lack of knowledge on how GI operates in local climaticconditions ~LaBadie, 2010!

Specifically in the Portland Oregon study ~Shandas, Nel-son, and Arendes, 2009! respondents were more likely tohelp maintain GI facilities if they were

• Younger

• Involved in other environmental projects and youthgroups

• Perceived a high-quality neighborhood association andlow access to parks and other open space

• Considered the neighborhood lacking in greenery

• Had greater involvement with community meetings

Understanding urban residents’ perception and attitudestoward ecological services and GI introduction in theirneighborhoods will be key to decision making for any such

implementation program. Palmer ~1984! and Smardon ~1988!have previously defined Syracuse neighborhoods and founddistinct differences in city residents’ attitudes about urbantrees and other vegetation—both positive and negative.Baptiste and Lane ~2009! indicates that public perceptions,beliefs, and concerns, as well as incentive structure prefer-ences toward storm-water GI alternatives, are spatially andeconomically distributed. Related research in Syracuse re-veals variations in preference for bioswale design amonglow-income Hispanic members of the community. Ourresearch will expand on this work by including a broadersocioeconomic spectrum of neighborhoods. By developingthe methodology to profile such perception and attitudes—atneighborhood-block scales—we will be facilitating thedecision-making support structure and physical model de-velopment for GI alternatives.

The overall objective of this study was to explore via focusgroups and surveys—the perceived constraints and ben-efits of residents living within the West Side study area inSyracuse. The specific objective reported here are focus-group results about benefits and constraints to implemen-tation of Green Infrastructure ~GI! in Syracuse. Also weexplored resident’s perceptions of ecosystem services, per-ceptions of quality of life, and preferences toward imple-mentation of GI technologies.

METHODS

Study Area

The city ~City of Syracuse!, and three local neighborhoods~Downtown, Near Westside, and Strathmore! comprise thestudy area ~Figure 2!. The neighborhoods also are part ofa sewershed whose effluent causes numerous combinedsewer overflows ~CSOs! each year that contaminate themajor creek, Onondaga Creek, running through the City ofSyracuse. Downtown has a 49.3% non-White population,with 28.8% over age 25 without a high school equivalenteducation and an average annual household income ofaround $10,000. Near Westside has a 62.8% non-Whitepopulation, with 49.7% non–high school educated and anaverage household income of around $14,000. The Strath-more neighborhood has a 17.3% non-white population,with 7.3% non-high school educated and an average house-hold income greater than $40,000.

To address preferences and governance related to GI, weinvestigated the perceptions, attitudes, and values of urban

Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions 9

residents in the neighborhoods with regard to: ~a! ecosys-tem services, ~b! connections of ecosystem services andquality of life, and ~c! drivers affecting potential imple-mentation of new GI technologies. We also will—at a laterstage—investigate how city and county decision makers/managers, businesses, and community organizations per-ceive the same aforementioned issues and both sets ofinformation can be integrated into a collaborative model-ing approach for GI implementation. This initial work wasaccomplished by convening initial focus groups to deter-mine how stakeholders ~broadly defined! perceive “naturalecosystem processes and services” within the general WestSide of Syracuse which contained the three microneigh-borhoods: the Near Westside, Downtown, and Strathmore.These stakeholder sessions investigated the range of atti-tudes, values, perceptions, conceptions, and concerns re-lated to ecosystem services by using standard focus-groupmethods ~Greenbaum, 1988; Krueger, 1994; Morgan, 1988!.Ecosystem services will be defined by urban vegetation andother GI mechanisms illustrated in Figure 1 that serve ascarbon sinks, mitigate air quality, modify microclimate,and reduce urban runoff. The results of these focusedgroups are presented within this article.

Our participants for the focus groups were largely drawnfrom existing community contact bases in the three neigh-borhoods and subsequent snowballing technique. We tookcare to ensure that the participants represented a range ofinterests wherever possible—efforts were made to use com-munity leaders and those individuals with strong ties toour project-area neighborhoods in order to ensure an ap-propriate representation.

We arranged for the two focus-group meetings ~10 and 6subjects! to be held at the Syracuse Center of Excellence, arelatively central location in the city, which would be anattractive incentive for participants to visit. Both sessionswere held from approximately 4 to 6 p.m. to accommodatepeople’s schedules. The meeting space was open, and par-ticipants and facilitators sat at a roundtable. We began eachsession with a short presentation that introduced the project,ourselves, and a few key concepts. We had the participantseach contribute by going around the table so each personhad the opportunity for his or her voice to be heard.Summaries of main points discussed are described in thenext section. While a session elicited distinct responses dueto the varied dynamics of the participants, this is an overalldescription of responses as derived by thematic contentanalysis from the audio tape recordings of the two focus-group sessions.

Focus-Group Summary Results

We gathered two focus groups in the summer of 2010 toassess public conceptualization of ecological/ecosystem ser-vices and GI, and to vet the survey instrument to be usedin the project area’s three microneighborhoods this fall.The following is the thematic summary given each of thequestions that were posed to the two focus-group sessions.

Q1. What do you know about ecological services?

Overall, there is substantial public ignorance regarding eco-logical services; most participants—six of 16—had not heardof them, though four made some connection to the term.At least one participant mistook ES as something “bureau-cratic,” and others assumed it meant something that ishuman-created and managed.

Q2. How do you think about your neighborhood and itsecosystem?

These answers varied based on the neighborhoods in whichthe participants lived. Most of the responses were associ-ated with participants’ perceptions of environmental prob-

Figure 2a. West Side Syracuse study area.

10 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012

lems in their respective neighborhoods. Some of the issuesraised included air quality, water and runoff ~includingOnondaga Creek and CSO treatment!, access to services,walkability, getting people to care about their neighbor-hoods, tree-planting challenges, etc. There seemed to be agap in respondents’ understanding of the function of ~urban!ecosystems, which should be explored more thoroughlyclarify the connections between urban ecosystem functionand GI.

The top four attributes that respondents associated withurban ecosystems were

• Opportunities for recreational activities, including walk-ing and gardening

• Neighbors maintaining their property, leading to neigh-borhood 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

• 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?

Most participants at this point clearly connected GI tostorm-water runoff and management concerns, and linkedit to other existing projects about which they had heard—rain barrels in particular. There are clear concerns withrespect to installation, follow through, and overall partici-pation of relevant actors. There were several mentions ofvacant lots and abandoned houses as spaces to consider. GIneeds to be considered in the broader context of thecommunity—how can this be linked to improve the areaoverall and put people to work? These responses give us aclear inroad to link GI to quality of life for residents withininner-city neighborhoods.

Figure 2b. West Side Syracuse study area.

Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions 11

Finally, there were a few responses that made it clear thatGI was also mistaken as bureaucratic and falling under theresponsibility of governments rather than individuals.

Q4. What might influence your decision to install greeninfrastructure in/around your home or neighborhood?

Monetary barriers dominated this set of responses, such asup-front individual costs versus long-term and community-wide benefits. Incentives such as grant opportunities andcounty/city demonstration projects were suggested. Link-ing to a lack of understanding of ecological services ingeneral, participants believe that residents are unlikely tounderstand the importance of GI in its broader context.

Site selection and long-term management were importantlogistical concerns as expressed by focus-group members.Perhaps the most substantial barrier perceived by partici-pants comes from the fact that the majority of city resi-dents are renters and thus less likely to have any controlover property decisions, so may find it harder to under-stand the urgency of GI.

Discussion

Most of the focus-group participants seemed somewhatconfused about what ecological services are and what eco-logical services are provided to what groups. The USEPA~2009! is currently investigating ecological services derivedfrom water resources and is sending out a national ques-tionnaire to ask researchers and urban managers whetherthey have experience in assessing ecological services de-rived from GI. In the meantime, investigators such as Jaffe~2011! maintain that assessing direct benefits is the way togo.

What is more revealing is what we get when we ask focus-group participants about their neighborhoods as urbanecosystems. The most important aspect, as most frequentlymentioned, is walkable accessibility to urban green spaceand how their neighbors maintain their personal propertyor community green spaces. These same attributes or qual-ities are supported by the results of studies in Fort Worth,Texas ~Abrahams, 2010!, Gainesville, Georgia ~Johnson, Har-tel, 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!, andthe United Kingdom ~Mell, 2010!. The other strong under-lying theme from the focus groups is the perceived need todevelop awareness and reconnection of nature to residents,

especially disadvantaged groups and urban youth. Thissame perception is supported by the results of studies inAlbuquerque, New Mexico ~LaBadie, 2010!, Los Angeles~Pincetl and Gearin, 2005!, and Portland, Oregon ~Shan-das, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!, as well as work in Ma-laysia ~Mansor and Said, 2008!. This separation of urbanyouth from nature is also the theme of Richard Louv’s~2008! work as expressed in his book Last Child in theWoods. The importance of urban minorities’ disconnectfrom access to green space is reinforced by the work ofFloyd, Gramman, and Saenz ~1993!, Heynen ~2006!, andKuo ~2001!. This is important for the reduction of expo-sure to environmental hazards that are usually associatedwith the urban populations, which are predominantly mi-nority. Access to green space has the potential for reducinghealth impacts and lack of environmental benefit that areusually dominant in urban areas ~Dunn, 2010; Snider, 2002!.

When we asked the focus-group respondents what theyknew about GI, most responded with comments aboutspecific kinds of projects; for example, rain barrels, greenroofs, and solar arrays. Many participants raised issuesabout the need for proper siting of GI projects, the needfor appropriate home-owner guidance and assistance forGI maintenance, and the need to make the broader con-nection to neighborhood economic revitalization and qual-ity of life. Such issues are also supported by studies inAlbuquerque ~LaBadie, 2010! and Portland ~Shandas, Nel-son, and Arendes, 2009!. Putting GI in a larger context ofneighborhood revitalization and providing social equitywere reinforced by the result of studies in Gainesville ~John-son, Hartel, and Kuehler, 2008! and Los Angeles ~Pincetland Gearin, 2005!, as well by the results of studies in SouthAfrica ~Cilliers, 2009! and the United Kingdom ~Mell, 2010!.

The barriers that were stressed by participants in Syracuseparallel those seen in the wider literature, such as thatregarding Albuquerque ~LaBadie, 2010! and Portland ~Shan-das, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. These issues includedmonetary cost versus incentives, appropriate installationand maintenance, extent of community involvement in theprocess, and tensions between renter’s willingness andlandlord’s autonomy. Some of the issues raised in the GIliterature are not so much at play in Syracuse:

• There is support for waterway improvements given thecity’s and county’s roles in the Onondaga Lake Cleanupas mandated by non-point-source water-quality improve-ment and reduction of CSO loadings plus the Onon-daga Creek Conceptual Revitalization Plan ~OnondagaEnvironmental Institute, 2009!.

12 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012

• There is now political will to address CSO load reductionvia GI on the Near Westside sewersheds, which is illus-trated by the county’s Save the Rain campaign.

• There is reduced skepticism from engineers and plannersregarding GI technology, as now there is a coordinatedeffort to develop 50 GI projects in Onondaga County inthe next two years.

However, there is still the issue of neighborhood residentperceptions in regard to receptivity to GI projects on theirproperty or on their street. Some older activist stakehold-ers expressed frustration in regard to educating or engag-ing local residents in GI projects, such as planting andmaintaining trees. Other focus-group participants are con-cerned with “not reinventing the wheel,” and using prac-tical versus experimental GI technology plus good sitingand design practice. In other words they express risk-adverse perspectives on GI implementation ~see Thaler,1980!.

So the disconnect of urban residents with their environ-ment, their apathy, their lack of involvement in neighbor-hood maintenance, and youth vandalism may militate againstcommunity support for GI strategies. On the other hand,some respondents noted new GI-related projects as exam-ples of what can be done, grassroots youth activities, neigh-borhood revitalization and job creation projects, plus othercommunity-building activities. Some respondents were es-pecially positive about multipurpose GI projects like theMeadowbrook retention basin, which is a wetland that wasconstructed on the West Side of Syracuse. This project,created in 1976 and rebuilt in 2000–2001, is acknowledgedas a historically successful GI project with substantial com-munity benefits and is also an example of endowment valuefor future use and enjoyment.

Conclusions: Moving Forward

Green infrastructure has become an important policy ini-tiative in many cities, both in the US and internationally,and has been used to address a variety of environmentaland social concerns ranging from providing access to openspaces in urban neighborhoods to acting as a form ofstorm-water control. This article has presented a case studyof Syracuse, which is currently adopting GI primarily as asolution to CSOs but also seeks to garner additional ben-efits ~Peng 2011; Peng, Baptiste, and Speer, 2010!.

The results from the focus groups provided the researchteam with feedback that went into the design of a more

detailed questionnaire to be administered to the three mi-croneighborhoods illustrated in Figure 2. The results ofthis survey will be reported in a subsequent article as partof a larger, multistage project that seeks to capture morein-depth analysis of Syracuse residents regarding GIimplementation.

From the focus groups, we already know about specificbarriers to GI implementation that need to be addressed.The first major barrier is the home-owner financial cost ofimplementing property-owner GI projects. OnondagaCounty is implementing some 50 GI projects on the NearWestside of Syracuse, but individual property owners wouldstill have to fund and implement their own projects. NewYork City has just passed a tax abatement incentive pro-gram for property owners in who implement GI projects~Jones, 2009!. Such a program could be legislated statewideor in other local jurisdictions. Data from rain-barrel adop-tion in Chicago ~Ando and Freitas, 2009! indicated thatthere were more problems with rental property adoption.

The second barrier issue is developing educational pro-grams that address GI benefits, maintenance issues, andhow GI technology specifically works with local climaticconditions. This is supported by the results of the study ofrain-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 pro-grams as part of grassroots activity and as part of sustain-ability and neighborhood regeneration ~LaBadie, 2010;Shandas, Nelson, and Arendes, 2009!. As in other commu-nities such as Gainesville ~Johnson, Hartel, and Kuehler,2008! and Los Angeles ~Pincetl and Gearin 2005!, suchefforts can also be used to provide greater social equitythrough development of multipurpose GI projects that areaccessible to low-income residents.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Science Foundation and the USForest Service as an Ultra Grant, which addresses urban ecosystems. Theprimary investigators are Mryna Hall and Dave Nowak.

References

Abrahams, P.M. 2010, May. Stakeholder’s Perceptions of Pedestrian Acces-sibility 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 Re-search Commons Library, http://hdl.handle.net/10106/4937.

Ando, A.W., and L.P. Freitas. 2009. Consumer Demand for Green Tech-nology in an Urban Setting: The Case of the Chicago Rain Barrels. SocialScience 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 EnvironmentalInstitute, Syracuse, NY, 14 pp.

Benedict, M.A., and E.T. McMahon. 2006. Green Infrastructure: LinkingLandscapes and Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 299 pp.

Cairns, J.J., and J.R. Pratt. 1995. The Relationship between EcosystemHealth and Delivery of Ecosystem Services. In Ecosystem Health: NewGoods 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/reports-publications/the-value-of-green-infrastructure.html.

Cilliers, J. 2009. Future Directions in Urban Planning and Space Usage:Compensating Urban Green Spaces. Interdisciplinary Themes Journal 1~1!,10 pp.

Circerchia, A. 1996. Indicators for the Measurement of the Quality ofUrban Life: What Is the Appropriate Territorial Dimension? Social Indi-cators Research 39~3!:321–358.

Costanza, R. 1992. Towards an Operational Definition of Health. In Eco-system Health: New Goods for Ecosystem Management, R. Costanza, B.Norton, and B.D. Haskel, eds. Island Press, Washington, DC, 239–256.

De Groot, R.S., M.A. Wilson, and R.M.J. Boumans. 2002. A Typology forthe Classification and Evaluation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods andServices. Ecological Economics ~Special Issue: The Dynamics and Value ofEcosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives!41~3!:393–408. Available at http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/deGroot_et_al.pdf.

Dunn, A.D. 2010. Siting Green Infrastructure: Legal and Policy Solutionsto Alleviate Urban Poverty and Promote Health Communities. BostonCollege Environmental Affairs Law Review 37~1!:41–66.

Floyd, M.F., J.H. Gramman, and R. Saenz. 1993. Ethnic Factors and theUse of Public Recreation Areas: The Case of Mexican-Americans. LeisureSciences 15~2!:83–98.

Freeman, H.L., ed. 1984. Mental Health and the Environment. Churchill-Livingstone, London, 490 pp.

Greenbaum, T.L. 1988. The Practical Handbook and Guide to Focus GroupResearch. D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, 191 pp.

Grimm, J.M., J.M. Grove, S.T.A. Pickett, and C.L. Redman. 2000. Inte-grated 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. Kauf-mann, F. Krausmann, E. Langthaler, H. Lotze-Campen, M. Mirtl, C.L.Redman, A. Reenberg, A. Wardell, B. Warr, and H. Zechmeister. 2006.

From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the Socioeconomic Dimension ofLong-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 andHealth—Is There a Role for Environmental and Countryside Agenciesin 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 Under-standing of Inner-City Environmental Change. Environment and PlanningA 38~3!:499–516.

Jaffe, M. 2011. Reflections on Green Infrastructure Economics. Environ-mental 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. UsingGreen Infrastructure to Manage Urban Stormwater Quality: A Review ofSelected Practices and State Programs. Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency, Springfield, 146 pp.

Johnson, C., D. Hartel, and E. Kuehler. 2008. Do Latinos Inherit GreenSpace? A Case Study of Latino and White Contact with Urban Nature inGainesville, GA. In 93rd ESA @Ecological Society of America# AnnualMeeting, Milwaukee, WI, August 3–8, 2008. Available at http://eco.confex.com/eco/2008/techprogram/P9189.htm.

Jones, K.J. 2009. Being Green Doesn’t Need to Be Taxing: How New YorkSate Law Is a Vanguard for Using Green Infrastructure. Pace Law Review29~3!:499–509. Available at http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol29/iss3/7/.

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.

Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 255 pp.

Kuo, E.F. 2001. Coping with Poverty: Impacts of Environment and At-tention in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior 33~1!:5–34.

LaBadie, K. 2010. Identifying Barriers to Low Impact Development andGreen 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 Nature-Deficit 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 Policy22~2!:213–234.

Mansor, M., and I. Said. 2008. Place Attachment of Residents to GreenInfrastructure Network in Small Towns. In Proceedings of the 9th SENVAR@Sustainable Environment & Architecture# & 2nd ISESEE @InternationalSymposium & Exhibition in Sustainable Energy & Environment# Inter-national Conference: Humanity + Technology, 325–340.

Mansor, M., I. Said, and I. Mohamed. 2008. Sense of Well-being fromExperiencing Green Infrastructure Network in Small Towns. University ofTechnology–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 withGreen Infrastructure Diversity and Well-being of Urban Communities.

14 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012

Asian Journal of Environment Behaviour Studies 2:33–48. Available athttp://fspu.uitm.edu.my/cebs/images/stories/ajebs12may2010c3.pdf.

Mell, I.C. 2010. Green Infrastructure: Concepts, Perception and Its Use inSpatial Planning ~unpublished PhD thesis!. Newcastle University, New-castle 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 Frame-work for Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. IslandPress, Washington, DC, 245 pp. Available at http://www.maweb.org/en/Framework.aspx.

Morgan, D.L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Sage, NewburyPark, CA, 80 pp.

Nassauer, J.I. 1992. Ecological Function and the Perception of SuburbanResidential Landscapes. In Managing Urban and High-Use RecreationSettings: Selected Papers from the Urban Forestry and Ethnic Minorities andthe Environment Paper Sessions—4th North American Symposium on So-ciety 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 Departmentof Agriculture, St. Paul, MN, 55–60.

National Research Council. 2005. Valuing Ecosystems Services: TowardBetter Environmental Decision Making. National Academies Press, Wash-ington, DC, 277 pp.

National Research Council. 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in theUnited States. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 593 pp. Avail-able 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 HealthIndicators. Health and Place 13~4!:839–850.

Onondaga Environmental Institute ~OEI!. 2009, April. Onondaga CreekConceptual Revitalization Plan: Draft Report. OEI, Syracuse, NY. Availableat http://www.onondagaenvironmentalinstitute.org/OEIResources_OCRPDRAFT.html.

Palmer, J.F. 1984. Neighborhoods as Stands in the Urban Forest. UrbanEcology 8~3!:229–241.

Paton, K., S. Sengupta, and L. Hassan. 2005. Settings, Systems and Orga-nization Development: The Healthy Living and Working Model. HealthPromotion International 20~1!:81–89.

Peng, W. 2011. Mapping Environmental Attitudes Toward Green Infrastruc-ture Alternatives to Traditional Storm-water Management: A Case Study ofSyracuse, 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 ofPeople’s Knowledge, Perceptions and Willingness to Participate in GreenInfrastructure Alternatives to Traditional Storm-water Management: ACase Study of Syracuse. Presented at the 2010 Green InfrastructureWorkshop: Growing Green Infrastructure in New York State and CentralNew 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 Functionalityalong 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 EcosystemHealth. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13~10!:397–402. Available at http://castor.oit.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.sustainability/files/Rapport%20et%20al.%201998.pdf.

Redman, C.L., J.M. Grove, and L.H. Kuby. 2004. Integrating Social Scienceinto the Long-Term Ecological Research ~LTER! Network: Social Dimen-sions of Ecological Change and Ecological Dimensions of Social Change.Ecosystems 7~2!:161–171. Available at http://www.ci.uri.edu/ciip/SummerPracticum/Docs2009/Redman_etal_IntegSocSciLTER_Ecosystems~2004!.pdf.

Rusche, K. 2011. The Value of Green Infrastructure in Urban Quality ofLife. In REAL CORP 2011. Change for Stability: Lifecycles of Cities andRegions—The Role and Possibilities of Foresighted Planning in Transforma-tion Processes. 16th International Conference on Urban Planning and Re-gional 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 Man-agement Programs: Towards a Civic Ecology of Green Infrastructure—Opportunities for Expanding Public Involvement in StormwaterManagement. In 2009 NAAEE @North American Association for Environ-mental Education# Conference Strand: Conservation Education, Portland,OR, October 7–10. NAAEE, Washington, DC, 7 pp. Available athttp://web.pdx.edu/;vshandas/NAAEE_ConservationEducation.pdf.

Smardon, R.C. 1988. Perception and Aesthetics of the Urban Environ-ment: Review of the Role of Vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning15~1–2!:85–106.

Smardon, R.C. 1989. Human Perception of Utilization of Wetlands forWaste Assimilation, or How to Make a Silk Purse out of a Sow’s Ear. InConstructed Wetlands for wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial andAgricultural, D.A. Hammer, ed. Lewis, Chelsea, MI, 287–295.

Snider, S. 2002. Assessing Environmental Justice concerning Combined SewerOverflows in Indianapolis, Indiana. Project Report G438. School ofPublic and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, 20 pp.Available at http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/dhenshel/V600/FinalGISReport.pdf.

Thaler, R. 1980. Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal ofEconomic 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, Com-mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, US House of Representa-tives. 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 inUrban Areas Using Green Infrastructure: A Literature Review. Landscapeand Urban Planning 81~3!:167–178.

Green Infrastructure Attitudes and Perceptions 15

US Environmental Protection Agency ~USEPA!. 2009. Valuing the Protec-tion of Ecological Systems and Services: A Report of the Science AdvisoryBoard. Report EPA-SAB-09012. USEPA, Washington, DC, 129 pp. Availableat http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F3DB1F5C6EF90EE1852575C500589157/$File/EPA-SAB-09-012-unsigned.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency ~USEPA!. 2011. Managing Wet Weatherwith 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 Con-ceptual 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.

Integrating Valuation Methods to Recognize Green Infrastructure’s MultipleBenefits. Center for Neighborhood Technology, Chicago, 21 pp. Availableat http://www.cnt.org/repository/CNT-LID-paper.pdf.

World Health Organization ~WHO!. 1948. Preamble to the Constitution ofthe World Health Organization, as adopted by the International healthConference, New York, June 19–22, 1946.

World Health Organization ~WHO!. 1998. City Health Profiles: A Reviewof Progress. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Co-penhagen, 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.

16 Environmental Practice 14 (1) March 2012

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.