Providing access to urban green spaces: A participatory benefit-cost analysis in Spain

This is the final version. Available on open access from MDPI via the DOI in this recordThe opening up of green spaces could provide significant benefits to society. This study develops a framework to assess the economic benefits and costs of public interventions providing citizen access to urban green spaces. The Thinking Fadura project in Getxo (Spain) was used as a case study. A method for participatory benefit-cost analysis is developed, where a stakeholder-participatory evaluation is combined with a standard cost-benefit analysis. The participatory evaluation followed a bottom-up approach in a sequential evaluation including three main focal points: key stakeholders and experts, visitors and the general public. The assessment demonstrates that the Thinking Fadura project’s benefits outweigh the costs. The results suggest that projects designed with the purpose of improving green space accessibility to the general public can be beneficial from a societal perspective. The highest economic benefits were an increase in the amenity and recreational value and an increase in people’s physical activity. The participatory evaluation indicates that giving access to people of lower socio-economic status and vulnerable groups and improving recreational use were perceived as the most beneficial. An increase in noise, dirt, and risk of criminal activities as well as potential conflicts between green space users were perceived as the most negative impacts of opening a previously restricted area to the general public. The economic assessment of Thinking Fadura project could serve as a model in the decision-making process in locations where the use of greenspaces is restricted.European Union Horizon 202

Implications of indicator aggregation methods for global change vulnerability reduction efforts

Composite indices are used to assess and prioritize mitigation and adaptation strategies for addressing the impacts of global environmental change. We evaluate different aggregation tools for creating these indices and their potential effects on mitigation and adaptation efforts. We assess the association of each aggregation tool with different types of trade-offs, risk strategies, and the resulting spatial and statistical distribution of their composite scores. Four aggregation tools are investigated (Weighted Linear Combination, WLC; Ordered Weighted Average, OWA; Data Envelopment Analysis, DEA; Compromise Programming, CP) using an example of vulnerability to flooding in the eastern United States. The choice of aggregation tool affects vulnerability outcomes, decision risk strategies, and the prioritization of vulnerability reduction strategies. DEA produces the highest vulnerability scores, representing a risk averse strategy associated with pessimistic outcomes. WLC implies a neutral and fixed risk strategy. CP produces a range of outcomes from neutral (equivalent to the WLC) to pessimistic, depending on its parameters. OWA offers the highest flexibility to adjust the levels of trade-off and risk strategy, producing a range of vulnerability outcomes, from optimistic to pessimistic. The units of analysis, when prioritized across the different aggregation tools, are more consistent for the top ranked units. However, the differences in rank become substantial as the selection threshold score decreases. To obtain better informed vulnerability reduction strategies, we recommend to (i) address how trade-off and decision risk are embedded in the aggregation tool chosen, and (ii) evaluate their effect in the prioritization of mitigation and adaptation strategies being considered