International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tsdw20

Assessing resident’s perception towards

ecosystem services of urban green spaces in Delhi,
India

Anand & Prodyut Bhattacharya

To cite this article: Anand & Prodyut Bhattacharya (2024) Assessing resident’s
perception towards ecosystem services of urban green spaces in Delhi, India,
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 31:2, 150-162, DOI:
10.1080/13504509.2023.2261013

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2261013

Published online: 26 Sep 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 290

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
2024, VOL. 31, NO. 2, 150–162
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2261013

Assessing resident’s perception towards ecosystem services of urban green

spaces in Delhi, India
Anand and Prodyut Bhattacharya
University School of Environment Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Recent rapid economic and infrastructure growth in India has led to degraded environmental Received 26 December 2022
conditions. Congested and densely populated urban areas have seen increased pollution, Accepted 16 September 2023
water pollution, and habitat and biodiversity loss. Urban green spaces (UGSs) are vital for KEYWORDS
improving such environmental qualities and coping with environmental challenges within Ecosystem services;
cities. UGSs provide numerous tangible and intangible environmental, recreational/social, Ecosystem disservices;
and economic benefits, also acknowledged as ecosystem services. This study assessed resi­ Survey; Urban trees; Urban
dents’ perceptions of UGSs ecosystem services in Delhi, India. The main objectives were to (1) forestry; Parks
understand residents’ visiting patterns of UGSs and corresponding socio-economic correlations
(2) assess residents’ knowledge and perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and (3)
ranking of ecosystem services provided by UGSs based on significance to the residents. This
study is based on a survey of 620 randomly selected respondents in UGSs throughout the city.
Most respondents knew about ecosystem services in UGSs and believed the ecosystem services
outweighed any ecosystem disservices. The results also showed the importance of improving
urban microclimate and environmental quality was emphasized. Interestingly, ecosystem
services like improve mental health and aesthetic beauty rated high. The improvement of
wildlife habitat, fresh water, water flow regulation & runoff mitigation and the collection of
fuelwood, fruits, honey and medicine were not seen as important by the respondents.
Residents more readily recognized UGSs’ direct benefits over the indirect benefits.
Awareness of economic benefit was relatively high. Results from this research could help
urban planners and developers to consider residents’ perceptions and expectations when
designing UGSs.

1. Introduction
PM10 (Selmi et al. 2016; Nowak et al. 2018; Matos et al.
The majority of the global population lives in cities (55% 2019). UGSs also serve as biodiversity hotspots for bird
in 2018, according to (UNDESA 2018)). In India, only 32% and bee populations (Aronson et al. 2017) and pro­
of the population lives in urban areas (Census of India mote pollination and seed dissemination (Tian et al.
2011). However, the capital, Delhi, is anticipated to 2020). Furthermore, UGSs are often popular venues for
become the world’s most populated metropolis by physical activities and improve people’s mental health
2028 (UNDESA 2018). Such growth presents challenges by offering restful and peaceful environments (Li et al.
for creating and managing urban green spaces (UGSs) 2016; Nesbitt et al. 2017; Ko and Son 2018; Ngulani and
within the city. UGSs are vital elements of urban ecosys­ Shackleton 2019).
tems – they promote sustainable development, However, UGSs may also facilitate ecosystem dis­
enhance the landscape and environmental quality, and services (Shackleton et al. 2016; Campagne et al.
improve quality of life and resident health (Jim and 2018). Ecosystem disservices include ecosystem
Chen 2006). Cities thrive on urban ecosystems, which functions that are economically or socially detri­
are integral to life, health, social capital, and human mental (even life-threatening) with adverse effects
well-being (Costanza et al. 2006; Tzoulas et al. 2007; on human well-being (Dunn 2010; Escobedo et al.
European Environment Agency 2011). 2011; Fuchs et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2021). For exam­
UGSs play an important role in storing and releasing ple, UGSs may disseminate allergic pollens
water in urban areas (Zhang and Muñoz Ramírez 2019; (Cariñanos and Casares-Porcel 2011), expenses are
Tian et al. 2020), regulating the micro-climate through incurred in the maintenance of urban green struc­
shade and humidity (Wu and Zhang 2018; Lonsdorf tures, and tree roots may cause infrastructural
et al. 2021), reducing the urban heat island effect damage (Lyytimäki and Sipilä 2009; Dobbs et al.
(Gunawardena et al. 2017; Taleghani 2018), and cleans­ 2011; Escobedo et al. 2011). Dense UGSs may shel­
ing the air by eliminating particulates like PM2.5 and ter criminal activities that make it unsafe for people

CONTACT Anand [email protected] University School of Environment Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi
110078, India
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 151

to walk at night (Tzoulas et al. 2007; Tandogan and between 2018 and 2030 (UNDESA 2018) and surpass
Ilhan 2016). It is necessary for UGSs policymakers Tokyo to become the most populated city in the world
and caretakers to appreciate the complete range of (UNDESA 2018). Over the past decade, Delhi has under­
ecosystem services and disservices when planning gone rapid urbanization. This has resulted in major land
urban ecosystems (Tian et al. 2020). Furthermore, use changes in built-up areas as land is (re-)allocated for
this knowledge can help to create a sense of own­ the expansion and development of new industries and
ership and stewardship of these spaces, leading to a growing population (Dutta et al. 2019).
increased engagement in the protection and con­ Delhi National Capital Territory covers an area of 1483
servation of urban green spaces. km2, of which 1114 km2 is categorized as urban and 369
Sustainable Development Goal 11 on Sustainable km2 is rural. Delhi has a population of about 16.78 million
Cities and Communities calls for universal access to people, of which 16.36 million live in urban areas and
safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public places, 0.41 million live in rural areas. The population density is
particularly for women and children, the elderly and about 11,320 people per km2 (Census of India 2011). Delhi
persons with disabilities by 2030 (UN 2015). This goal has 11 districts and, in Census of India (2011), there were
includes two main components: 1) to increase UGSs’ 110 census towns and 11 villages (Table 1).
contributions to sustainability, health benefits and aes­ Delhi has over 18,000 parks and gardens that cover
thetic beauty and 2) to create more UGSs and provide approximately 8,000 ha of the city’s area (Figure 1).
an equitable distribution of UGSs across the city (Vidal These green spaces are maintained by different agen­
et al. 2021). In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem cies: the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Forest
Assessment revealed a strong correlation between eco­ Department (FD), Delhi Development Authority (DDA),
system services and human well-being. Furthermore, Public Works Department (PWD), Central Public Works
the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Department (CPWD), and Delhi Cantonment Board
Services (CICES) highlights how ecosystem services are (DCB). Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) also reg­
linked to biodiversity products and benefits valued by ularly maintain their local neighborhood park with
people (Haines-Young and Potschin-Young 2018). help from government agencies. The government of
Delhi, the capital of India, is considered one of the the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi also estab­
greenest cities in the world due to regular plantation lished the Delhi Parks and Gardens Society in 2008 to
drives and rigorous monitoring of tree cutting (Town coordinate, manage and monitor these urban green
and Country Planning Organization 2014). According to spaces.
the Forest Survey of India (2021), Delhi had about 195
sq km of forest cover (inside and outside recorded forest
areas). The city features different types of urban green 3. Material and method
spaces, including reserved forests, institutional campus
areas, protected forests, district parks, neighborhood 3.1. Questionnaire design and implementation
parks, totlots, playgrounds, green belts, and avenue A questionnaire survey was used to assess respon­
plantations. Common tree species in these green spaces dents’ perceptions of UGSs ecosystem services in the
are Azadirachta indica, Mimusops elengi, Cassia fistula, study area. Drawing from Fowler and Cosenza (2009),
Polyalthia longifolia, Ficus religiosa, Morus alba, we concluded that a sample size of 600 would allow for
Terminalia arjuna, Syzygium cumini, Mangifera indica, a margin of error of ± 4 and a 95% confidence level. We
Dalbergia sissoo, Pongamia pinnata, Acacia auriculifor­ also used the online Raosoft tool (www.raosoft.com/
mis, Delonix regia, Albizzia lebbek, and Bombax ceiba. samplesize.html) to calculate the sample size. In this
This study captured primary data from an intensive tool, we selected a margin of error of 5% and
survey on people’s perceptions of UGSs’ ecosystem a confidence level of 95%. Our population size was
services at multiple locations in Delhi. Our main objec­ more than 20,000, so we kept the default value (i.e.
tives were to (1) understand residents’ visiting patterns 20000) and response distribution of 50%. We selected
of UGSs and corresponding socio-economic correla­ the sample size (n) and margin of error (E) given by:
tions (2) assess residents’ knowledge and perceptions
of ecosystem services and disservices, and (3) ranking
of ecosystem services provided by UGSs based on
significance to the residents.

2. Study area
2.1. Delhi
where N is the population size, r is the fraction of
Delhi is the second most populous city (after Tokyo, responses that you are interested in, and Z(c/100) is
Japan). It is expected to gain 10 million inhabitants the critical value for the confidence level c.
152 ANAND AND P. BHATTACHARYA

Figure 1. Study sites.

Our questionnaire to assess residents’ perceptions and Delhi’s districts (Figure 2). They were conducted at
attitudes about UGSs ecosystem services was based on different times of the day (e.g. the morning, at lunch­
previous studies (Jim and Chen 2006; Dou et al. 2017; time, and in the evening). Only current residents of
Anand and Bhattacharya 2023). We also considered the Delhi were selected to participate in the survey.
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity) and
Millennium of Ecosystem Services (MEA) classifications
of each UGSs when adapting the questionnaire. The 3.2. Data analysis
questionnaire was divided into two sections: the first The data obtained during the interviews were entered
section collected respondent socio-demographic infor­ into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using IBM SPSS 25.
mation and the second section focused on the assess­ Data were first simplified using descriptive statistics
ment of ecosystem services and disservices of UGSs. and plotted into tables, graphs, and charts. A Likert
A pilot study was conducted with Guru Gobind Singh scale was used to assess respondents’ perceptions
Indraprastha University students who had little or no about UGSs ecosystem services and disservices.
background knowledge of ecosystem services and
UGSs. The students were asked to provide feedback
about the questions, which we used to modify and 4. Results
finalize the questionnaire. A total of 620 respondents
4.1. Demographics
participated in the face-to-face survey, with an effec­
tive response rate of 95.4%. We eliminated the ques­ We collected 620 responses to our questionnaire
tionnaires that were only partially completed. survey (Table 3). The largest category of respon­
We used stratified random sampling (Dou et al. dents (51.94%) was 20–30 years old, followed by
2017) to select and approach respondents at 15 parks 30–40 years (20.48%). There were marginally more
and gardens (Table 2). One-on-one individual surveys men (54.8%) than women (45.2%). The respondents
were conducted with randomly chosen park visitors. were randomly selected from all 11 districts of
Respondents were briefed about the background and Delhi (with approximately equal representation
purpose of the study and consent was taken before the from each district). Many (40%) respondents were
survey began. The questionnaire was available in two university graduates, followed by 26.6% of respon­
languages, Hindi and English. When respondents could dents with an advanced degree (master’s or PhD).
not read or write (illiterate), we conducted the survey Only 3.4% of respondents never attended school.
verbally in their local language. The surveys were con­ Some respondents (32.1%) visited the urban
ducted in well-known parks and gardens in each of green spaces 1–2 times each week, while 25.3% of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 153

Figure 2. Photographs of study sites. a) Buddha Jayanti Smarak Park, Vande Mataram Marg; b) District Park, Sarita Vihar;
c) Maharaja Surajmal Samadhi Park, Vishwas Nagar; d) Coronation Park, Model Town; e) Kamla Nehru Ridge, Near Delhi
University, North Campus; f) Nehru Park, Chanakyapuri; g) Millennium Indraprastha Park, Near Sarai Kale Khan; h) Sanjay Lake
Park, Trilokpuri, i) Garden of five senses, Said-ul-Azaib; j) District Park, Hauz Khas, k) Lodhi Garden, Lodhi Road; l) Swarn Jayanti
Park, Sector-, Rohini, m) Madhav Park, Rajouri Garden, n) District Park, Sector-11, Dwarka, o) Temple Park, Gokulpuri.

respondents rarely visited the UGSs. About 19% of (32.14%) or wanted to meet with friends (17.43%).
respondents visited the UGSs every day. We also Most respondents found their purpose of visit on
asked respondents why they visited UGSs: many the questionnaire whereas with only 2.86% not find­
visitors either sought relaxation and walking ing their desired response. Most of the respondents
154 ANAND AND P. BHATTACHARYA

Table 1. Forest cover and human populations in Delhi’s districts.

S.No. Districts Area (Km2) Forest Cover (% of area) Urban Population Rural Population Population density (x103/Km2)
1 North West Delhi 443 3.96 3442589 213950 8.254
2 North Delhi 61 7.72 870232 17746 14.557
3 North East Delhi 62 6.68 2220097 21527 36.155
4 East Delhi 63 6.10 1705816 3530 27.132
5 New Delhi 35 47.06 142004 None 4.057
6 Central Delhi 21 23.86 582320 None 27.73
7 West Delhi 130 5.27 2536823 6420 19.563
8 South West Delhi 421 12.31 2149282 143676 5.446
9 South Delhi 247 34.27 2719736 12193 11.06
Source: Indian State Forest Report 2021.

Table 2. Selected survey sites.

Districts Survey areas Area (in ha) Number of respondents
Central Delhi Kamla Nehru Ridge, Near Delhi University, North Campus 87.00 40
East Delhi Sanjay Lake Park, Trilokpuri 68.79 40
New Delhi Nehru Park 28.60 50
Lodhi Garden 36.42 50
Buddha Jayanti Smarak Park 32.78 50
North Delhi Coronation Park, Model Town 21.04 30
North East Delhi Temple Park, Gokulpur village 0.03 30
North West Delhi Swarn Jayanti Park, Sector-10, Rohini 68.82 40
Shahdara Maharaja Surajmal Samadhi Park, Vishwas Nagar 6.19 40
South Delhi District Park, Hauz Khas 60.30 40
Garden of five senses 20.50 45
South East Delhi District Park, Sarita Vihar 7.99 40
Millennium Indraprastha Park 70.52 45
South West Delhi District Park, Sector-11, Dwarka 8.30 40
West Delhi Madhav Park, Rajouri Garden 2.43 40

Table 3. Socio-demographic profile of respondents. 4.2. Frequency of UGSs visits

Characteristics Frequency Percentage
The survey collected information about respon­
Gender
Male 280 45.2 dents’ visiting habits (Figure 3(a)). Many of the resi­
Female 340 54.8 dents (32.1%) visited UGSs 1–2 times each week
Age group (years) (this rate was especially prevalent among the 20–
<20 50 8.06
20–30 322 51.94 30 age group). Residents over 60 visited the UGSs
30–40 127 20.48 3–4 times per week or every day. These individuals
40–50 61 9.84
50–60 38 6.13 were normally retired, so they had the time to visit
>60 22 3.55 UGSs frequently. A further 18.7% of respondents
Education visited the UGSs every day, while 25.3% of residents
Illiterate 21 3.4
Primary 41 6.6 rarely visited the UGSs. Those who were engage in
Secondary 69 11.1 private sector jobs visited UGSs least followed by
Sr. Secondary 76 12.3
Graduate 248 40.0
the students (Figure 3(b)). Those who visited the
Postgraduate & above 165 26.6 UGSs every day were often non-working (31.32%),
Occupation government employees (27.63%), or self-employed
Student 178 28.71
Government Organization 76 12.26
(24.39%). Many respondents (36.13%) were within
Private Organization 201 32.42 the 5.0 to 10.0 lakhs income category, followed by
Self-employed 82 13.23 24.19% in the 2.5 to 5.0 lakhs. About a quarter of
Non-working 83 13.39
Household income Indian Rupees (INR)
respondents (22.74%) were in the highest income
up to 2.5 lakhs 105 16.94 category, while 16.94% were in the ‘up to 2.5 lakhs’
2.5–5.0 lakhs 150 24.19 category (Figure 3(c)).
5.0–10.0 lakhs 224 36.13
>10.0 lakhs 141 22.74
Period of resident at current location (years)
Less than 5 years 58 9.35
06–10 71 11.45 4.3. Purpose of visiting UGSs
11–15 42 6.77
16–20 122 19.68 Residents visited UGSs for different reasons
More than 20 years 327 52.74 (Figure 4(a)), though the most common visit purposes
were relaxing and walking (32.14%), followed by meet­
ing friends (17.43%). Few reported visiting for chil­
(52.74%) had lived in Delhi for more than 20 years, dren’s educational activities (2.57%). Others (2.86%)
though 9.35% of respondents had lived in Delhi for did not find their purpose of visit listed on the ques­
less than 5 years. tionnaire. Across all age groups, the most frequently
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 155

reported purpose of visit was relaxing and walking 4.4. UGSs classification types based on the
(Figure 4(b)). However, age was often associated with population served
purpose of visit; for example, no respondents older
than 60 visited UGSs for sports and exercise The park classification system organizes parks based
(Figure 4(b)). The 20–30-year-old age group seemed on their size and service capacity. Table 4 lists UGSs by
to enjoy all activities listed in the questionnaire. There their classification (i.e. neighborhood, community, or
were 2.86% of respondents who did not find any pur­ district park). This classification determines park usage
pose listed in the questionnaire. and associated permitted activities. However, other

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
<20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 >60

Rarely 1-2 !mes 3-4 !mes Everyday

a
250

200
26
23
150 55
31

100
68 55
21 20 26
50 15
27 20
56 65 33
19 24
0 9 14 13
Student Private Government Self-employed Non-working

Rarely 1-2 !mes 3-4 !mes Everyday

b
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
upto 2.5 lakhs 2.5-5.0 lakhs 5.0-10.0 lakhs >10.0 lakhs

Rarely 1-2 !mes 3-4 !mes Everyday

c
Figure 3. A) visiting frequency by age groups. b) visiting frequency by occupation. c). Visiting frequency by income group.
156 ANAND AND P. BHATTACHARYA

activities are often permitted on special request, pro­ 4.5. Ecosystem services assessment
vided they do not damage the UGSs.
The 18 ecosystem services identified by the respon­
dents were further categorized using the Millennium
of Ecosystem Services (MEA 2005) and The Economics
Perceived importance of UGSs ecosystem services of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB 2011) classifica­
and disservices provisioning tion systems. We conducted a literature review of
Respondents saw UGSs ecosystem services as signifi­ urban greening guidelines, policy documents, scienti­
cantly more important than ecosystem disservices. fic research articles, and books to identify the ecosys­
UGSs disseminate multiple benefits to citizens living tem services provided by urban green spaces in Delhi.
in urban areas (Figure 5(a)). Most of the respondents We identified five categories of ecosystem services:
knew about these benefits, even if they were illiterate. provisional (2), regulating (7), supporting (2), cultural
About 41% of respondents acknowledged regulating (5), and economic (2).
ecosystem services, followed by cultural ecosystem
services (29%) (Figure 5(b)). The respondents may
have rated regulating ecosystem services highly due 4.6. Perceptions of the UGSs’ ecosystem services
to personal experiences with winter air pollution in Most respondents (79.9%) concluded that UGSs eco­
Delhi. Residents expected UGSs to mitigate air pollu­ system services were either highly important or impor­
tion and associated environmental problems. tant. Respondents had a good understanding of
While residents also acknowledged ecosystem dis­ ecosystem services and reiterated their significance to
services, these were thought to be outweighed by the environmental quality of the city and the asso­
ecosystem services (Figure 6). Some residents men­ ciated benefits for human health. Eighteen different
tioned problems with park management (22.31%) or ecosystem services were identified. The respondents
pests (17.69%). The least acknowledged disservices were especially concerned about the city’s environ­
were infrastructure damage and allergens (10.38% mental quality and the corresponding benefits on resi­
each). Residents mainly complained about manage­ dent health. Therefore, the intangible benefit of
ment issues, which can be regulated by civic bodies. oxygen release received the highest mean score (see

Other 40

Social Gathering 74

Educa!onal Ac!vi!es for Children 36

Enjoying the Nature 194

Spending Time With Family 148

Mee!ng With Friends 244

Relaxing and Walking 450

For Sports & Exercise 214

n=1400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

a
Other
Social Gathering
Educa!onal Ac!vi!es for Children
Enjoying the Nature
Spending Time With Family
Mee!ng With Friends
Relaxing and Walking
For Sports & Exercise

0 50 100 150 200 250

n=1400 >60 50-60 40-50 30-40 20-30 <20

b
Figure 4. a) purpose of visiting UGSs. b) purpose of visiting UGSs by age group.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 157

Table 4. Ugss classifications based on size and population served.

Area Population
UGSs (in ha) UGSs type Served Activities
Temple Park 0.03 Neighborhood 10,000 Common open space, open gym, recreational activities
Park
Madhav Park 2.43 Neighborhood
Park
Coronation Park 21.04 Community 1,00,000 Children’s park, open-air food court, playground, open gym, jogging track.
Park
Maharaja Surajmal 6.19 Community
Samadhi Park Park
Garden of five 20.5 Community
senses Park
District Park, Sarita 7.99 Community
Vihar Park
District Park, 8.3 Community
Dwarka Park
Sanjay Lake Park 68.79 District Park 5,00,000 Recreational club, theme Park, national memorial, children’s park, open-air
Nehru Park 28.6 District Park food court, plant nursery, area for water harvesting, sports activities,
Lodhi Garden 36.42 District Park amenity structures, archeological park, open gym
Buddha Jayanti 32.78 District Park
Smarak Park
Swarn Jayanti Park 68.82 District Park
District Park, Hauz 60.3 District Park
Khas
Millennium 70.52 District Park
Indraprastha
Park
Kamala Nehru 122 Ridge forest Not Sustainable eco-tourism activities, nature walks, recreational activities,
Ridge applicable environmental and educational values.
Developed from primary data and the Master Plan of Delhi (2021).

also (Jim and Chen 2006), where oxygen release got pollution – could spread awareness about environ­
the highest average score). Another intangible benefit, mental quality. The low average mean score for tour­
carbon sequestration, also received a high average ism services reflected the fact that residents rarely
score. Urban green spaces provide few provisioning benefited from tourism.
services (Chang et al. 2017), and this is reflected in
their low resident perceptions (Table 5).
4.7. Perceptions of UGSs disservices
Life in Delhi is fast-paced, with a stressful work
culture. Therefore, respondents ranked UGSs services The survey also included seven UGSs disservices
like improved mental health and reduced stress and (Table 6), though 21.61% of the respondents did
aesthetic beauty highly. Shading and cooling air tem­ not list any negative impacts. Many respondents
perature were also seen as important. These two ser­ (49.26%) did ‘not agree’ with the disservices, and
vices are associated with residents’ comfort in less than 20% chose the strongly agree category.
a tropical city like Delhi, particularly during the sum­ Only the management issues category garnered
mer season. Air pollutant absorption was also rated relatively high agreement (18.71% ‘strongly agree’).
high, suggesting that residents wanted fresh air and The low average scores could be attributed to the
peaceful green spaces within urban built-up areas. The importance of UGSs’ ecosystem services. The least
improvement of wildlife habitat, fresh water, water important disservices were allergens and infrastruc­
flow regulation and runoff mitigation and the collec­ ture damage (8.71%), followed by obstructed views
tion of fuelwood, fruits, honey and medicine were not (9.35%), habitat competition with humans (11.29%),
seen as important by the respondents (perhaps due to and litter problems (12.26%). Infrastructure damage
a lack of direct experience). Many residents wanted to garnered the highest percentage of ‘unclear’
buy a house near UGSs and valued the space they responses (12.58%). Though the respondents
provided for recreational activities. acknowledged some disservices, the ecosystem ser­
The high mean score for economic services indi­ vices provided by UGSs were seen as more
cated an awareness of UGSs benefits and important.
a willingness to pay for such ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services like religious or sacred trees and
5. Discussion
pollination of seeds garnered lower ratings, as these
services were not directly perceived by the respon­ This article assessed residents’ perceptions of the
dents. The possibility of connecting with nature and provision of ecosystem services in Delhi’s UGSs.
environmental learning got moderate ratings, perhaps About 41% of respondents valued regulating eco­
due to the lack of information about the surroundings. system services (e.g. release of oxygen, lowering air
Delhi’s many environmental problems – particularly air temperature, and carbon sequestration) over other
158 ANAND AND P. BHATTACHARYA

Increase Property Value

Tourism
Improvement of Wildlife Habitat
Provide Shade
Fuel Wood/Fruits/Honey/Medicine
Fresh Water
Provides Space for Recreaon
Ecosytem services

Improves Mental Health/ Reduce Stress

Aesthec Beauty
Environment Learning
Religious/Sacred Trees
Release Oxygen
Pollinaon
Noise Reducon
Lowering Air Temperature
Water Flow Regulaon & Runoff Migaon
Carbon Sequestraon
Absorpon of Air pollutants

0 100 200 300 400 500

Supporng Regulang Provisioning Economic Cultural

Economic
11%

Supporng
12%
Regulang
41%

Provisioning
7%

Cultural
29%
Regulang Cultural Provisioning Supporng Economic

b
Figure 5. a) respondents’ perceptions of ecosystem services. b) perceived ecosystem services by category.

types of ecosystem services. Perceptions about eco­ that respondents most appreciated regulating eco­
system services are influenced by many factors such system services, followed by cultural ecosystem ser­
as education level, age, occupation and economic vices (Drillet et al. 2020). Finally, residents believed
status (Paul and Nagendra 2017; Manzoor et al. that ecosystem services outweighed any ecosystem
2019). Delhi residents’ concerns about mounting disservices (despite some concerns over UGSs man­
environmental problems can be directly linked to agement and the diseases caused by attracting
the importance of regulating ecosystem services. pests).
In second place, about 29% of respondents valued Perceptions about ecosystem services depend on
the cultural ecosystem services provided by UGSs, prior knowledge and information (Lewan and
such as aesthetic beauty and space for recreational Söderqvist 2002). Escalating environmental chal­
activities. Research conducted by Future Cities lenges and public awareness programs in Delhi
Laboratory, Singapore – ETH Centre also found likely resulted in higher preferences for regulating
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 159

Damages on Infrastructure 10.38

Cause Allergies 10.38

Habitat Compe""on with Humans 13.46

Management Issues 22.31

A!ract Insects 17.69

Li!er Problem 14.62

View Blockage 11.15

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00

Figure 6. Perceived ecosystem disservices.

Table 5. The perceived importance of ecosystem services in Delhi’s urban green spaces.
Respondents Rating1 Average Score
Ecosystem Services High Medium Low Not Sure Mean2 Standard Deviation Rank3
Provisioning
Fuel Wood/Fruits/Honey/Medicine 31.29 24.19 21.94 22.58 1.6419 1.1443 18
Fresh water 38.06 30.00 16.77 15.16 1.9097 1.0717 16
Regulating
Lowering air temperature 61.94 26.77 6.77 4.52 2.4613 0.8099 5
Release oxygen 72.90 20.97 4.84 1.29 2.6548 0.6331 1
Carbon sequestration 56.13 28.06 5.48 10.32 2.3000 0.9698 9
Absorption of air pollutants 62.26 25.48 6.77 5.48 2.4452 0.8442 6
Pollination of seed 45.81 29.35 8.39 16.45 2.0452 1.0954 13
Noise reduction 39.35 34.84 17.42 8.39 2.0516 0.9497 12
Provide shade 63.87 28.39 5.16 2.58 2.5355 0.7125 4
Water flow regulation & runoff mitigation 38.06 30.97 11.94 19.03 1.8806 1.1176 17
Supporting
Improvement of wildlife habitat and biodiversity 44.19 23.55 16.13 16.13 1.9581 1.1174 15
Cultural
Provide space for recreation 55.48 28.39 9.68 6.45 2.3290 0.8959 8
Improve mental health/reduce stress 72.26 21.29 4.84 1.61 2.6419 0.6512 2
Aesthetic beauty 64.52 29.03 4.84 1.61 2.5645 0.6634 3
Environment learning 45.16 34.19 18.06 2.58 2.2194 0.8297 10
Religious/sacred trees 35.48 33.23 27.10 4.19 2.0000 0.8915 14
Economic
Eco-tourism 43.55 31.29 18.06 7.10 2.1129 0.9427 11
Increase property value 58.39 28.71 6.77 6.13 2.3935 0.8620 7
1scores allotted to respondents rating: High = 3; Medium = 2; Low = 1; Not sure = 0.
2inferences of the average score: >2.0 = very high; 2.0–1.5 = high; 1.5–1.0 = medium; <1.0 = low.
3mean scores were considered to rank 18 ecosystem services, where 1 is highest and 18 is lowest.

Table 6. Perceptions of ecosystem disservices in Delhi’s urban green spaces.

Respondents rating2 Average score
1 3
Negative/disservices aspects Strongly agree Agree Not agree Unclear Mean Standard deviation
View Blockage 9.35 18.06 60.65 11.94 1.2484 0.7833
Litter problem 12.26 35.81 43.55 8.39 1.5194 0.8146
Attract pests 14.84 48.39 32.58 4.19 1.7387 0.7580
Management issues 18.71 37.42 37.42 6.45 1.6839 0.8489
Habitat competition with humans 11.29 22.26 54.19 12.26 1.3258 0.8317
Cause allergies 8.71 24.52 57.74 9.03 1.3290 0.7593
Damage on infrastructure 8.71 20.00 58.71 12.58 1.2484 0.7833
121.61% of the respondents did not report any negative impacts.
2scores allotted to respondents’ ratings: strongly agree = 3; agree = 2; not agree = 1; unclear = 0.
3inferences of mean score: >2.0 = very high; 2.0–1.5 = high; 1.5–1.0 = medium; <1.0 = low.

ecosystem services. Additional public education and take a practical and modern approach to landscape
publicity initiatives, via official and informal chan­ management; they emphasized health and comfort
nels, should promote UGSs ecosystem services advantages over less evident cultural ecosystem
awareness. Our results indicated that Delhi residents services. This aligns with previous studies which
160 ANAND AND P. BHATTACHARYA

found that respondents valued regulating ecosys­ University School of Environment Management (USEM),
tem services over cultural ecosystem services (Jim Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, for providing
and Chen 2006; Drillet et al. 2020). For example, research facilities.
Hongkongers were willing to pay more for UGSs
that enhanced air quality (regulating ecosystem ser­ Disclosure statement
vices) than cultural ecosystem services (Lo and Jim
2010). However, residents in European cities like No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Bilbao, Spain seemed to most value UGSs cultural
ecosystem services (Casado-Arzuaga et al. 2013).
Funding
Delhi residents experience bad air quality through­
out the year, so it is not surprising that they expect The first author received a National Fellowship for Scheduled
UGSs to improve air quality (see also (Jim and Chen Caste (NFSC) from the University Grants Commission,
2006)). Like residents in Guangzhou, China, respon­ Government of India for doctoral studies under fellowship
ID [201718-RGNF-2017-18-SC- DEL-48200] funded by
dents ranked the release of oxygen as the top
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government
ecosystem service; residents in both cities valued of India.
regulating ecosystem services over other types of
ecosystem services. This supports the finding that
resident expectations are directly associated with References
the current state of environmental conditions, pre­ Anand A, Bhattacharya P. 2023. Urbanites’ perceptions of
ferences, and practical needs (AYH and Jim 2012). green spaces and their roles in effective management:
a survey-based study from Delhi, India. J Environ Stud
Sci. 13(1):31–42. doi: 10.1007/s13412-022-00799-1.
6. Conclusion Aronson MFJ, Lepczyk CA, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB,
MacIvor JS, Nilon CH, Vargo T. 2017. Biodiversity in the city:
This article assessed residents’ perceptions of ecosys­ key challenges for urban green space management. Front
tem services and disservices provided by urban green Ecol Environ. 15(4):189–196. doi: 10.1002/fee.1480.
spaces in Delhi. The data was based on a questionnaire AYH L, Jim CY. 2012. Citizen attitude and expectation towards
greenspace provision in compact urban milieu. Land Use
study conducted in the city’s UGSs. Citizens perceived
Policy. 29(3):577–586. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.011.
social and recreational benefits and direct and indirect Campagne CS, Roche PK, Salles JM. 2018. Looking into
environmental benefits. This study demonstrated Delhi Pandora’s box: ecosystem disservices assessment and cor­
residents’ positive attitudes toward ecosystem ser­ relations with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv.
vices. It also recommends that urban green space plan­ 30:126–136. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.005.
ning and development should focus on all aspects of Cariñanos P, Casares-Porcel M. 2011. Urban green zones and
related pollen allergy: a review. Some guidelines for design­
ecosystem services.
ing spaces with low allergy impact. Landsc Urban Plan. 101
Ecosystem services in urban green spaces in Delhi (3):205–214. doi: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2011.03.006.
were not universally appreciated or acknowledged. Casado-Arzuaga I, Madariaga I, Onaindia M. 2013. Perception,
Delhi residents who were most likely to prioritize the demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in
importance of UGSs ecosystem services were aged 20 to the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J Environ Manage. 129.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059.
40, had a college degree, visited UGSs at least 1–2 times
Census of India. 2011. Census of India 2011 META DATA.
each week, and earned more than 2.5 lakhs per annum India: Office of the Registrar General and Census
(gender did not matter). The most commonly recog­ Commissioner, India. Government of India.
nized benefits were those linked with resident health Chang J, Qu Z, Xu R, Pan K, Xu B, Min Y, Ren Y, Yang G, Ge Y.
and comfort. The use of urban green spaces to improve 2017. Assessing the ecosystem services provided by urban
mental health or reduce stress also received high rat­ green spaces along urban center-edge gradients. Sci Rep.
7(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11559-5.
ings. In contrast, indirect or intangible environmental
Costanza R, Mitsch WJ, Day JW. 2006. A new vision for New
and landscape benefits received relatively low ratings. Orleans and the Mississippi delta: applying ecological eco­
nomics and ecological engineering. Front Ecol Environ. 4
(9):465–472. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[465:ANVFNO]2.
Acknowledgments 0.CO;2.
Dobbs C, Escobedo FJ, Zipperer WC. 2011. A framework for
We, authors, like to thank everyone who helped and developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods
participate in this research. First author also like to indicators. Landsc Urban Plan. 99(3–4):196–206. doi: 10.
thank fellow researchers, Ms Chindu Chandran, Ms Ishita 1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.004.
Mathur, and Mr Prabhakar for initial development of Dou Y, Zhen L, De Groot R, Du B, Yu X. 2017. Assessing the
questionnaire. The first author is grateful to UGC, importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas
Government of India for providing a doctoral fellowship of Beijing municipality. Ecosyst Serv. 24:79–90. doi:10.
for research work. The authors also thank the dean, 1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 161

Drillet Z, Fung TK, Leong RAT, Sachidhanandam U, Manzoor SA, Malik A, Zubair M, Griffiths G, Lukac M. 2019.
Edwards P, Richards D. 2020. Urban vegetation types are Linking social perception and provision of ecosystem ser­
not perceived equally in providing ecosystem services and vices in a sprawling urban landscape: a case study of
disservices. Sustain. 12(5):2076. doi: 10.3390/su12052076. Multan, Pakistan. Sustain. 11(3):654. doi: 10.3390/
Dunn RR. 2010. Global mapping of ecosystem disservices: the su11030654.
unspoken reality that nature sometimes kills us. Biotropica. Matos P, Vieira J, Rocha B, Branquinho C, Pinho P. 2019.
42(5):555–557. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00698.x. Modeling the provision of air-quality regulation ecosystem
Dutta D, Rahman A, Paul SK, Kundu A. 2019. Changing pat­ service provided by urban green spaces using lichens as
tern of urban landscape and its effect on land surface ecological indicators. Sci Total Environ. 665. doi: 10.1016/j.
temperature in and around Delhi. Environ Monit Assess. scitotenv.2019.02.023.
191(9). doi: 10.1007/s10661-019-7645-3. MEA. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems
Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE. 2011. Urban forests and and human well-being: desertification synthesis.
pollution mitigation: analyzing ecosystem services and Washington (DC): Island Press. World Resour Inst.
disservices. Environ Pollut. 159(8–9):2078–2087. doi: 10. Nesbitt L, Hotte N, Barron S, Cowan J, Sheppard SRJ. 2017.
1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010. The social and economic value of cultural ecosystem ser­
European Environment Agency. 2011. Green infrastructure vices provided by urban forests in North America: a review
and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastruc­ and suggestions for future research. Urban For Urban
ture and its integration into policies using monitoring Green. 25:103–111. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.005.
systems. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the Ngulani T, Shackleton CM. 2019. Use of public urban green
European Union. spaces for spiritual services in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.
Forest Survey of India. 2021. The state of India’s forests 2021. Urban For Urban Green. 38:97–104. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.
Dehradun, India: Forest Survey of India. 2018.11.009.
Fowler FJ, Cosenza C. 2009. The sage handbook of applied Nowak DJ, Hirabayashi S, Doyle M, McGovern M, Pasher J.
social research methods: design and evaluation of survey 2018. Air pollution removal by urban forests in Canada
questions. place unknown. and its effect on air quality and human health. Urban For
Fuchs S, Kuhlicke C, Meyer V. 2011. Editorial for the special Urban Green. 29:40–48. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.019.
issue: vulnerability to natural hazards—the challenge of
Paul S, Nagendra H. 2017. Factors influencing perceptions
integration. Nat Hazard. 58(2):609–619. doi: 10.1007/
and use of urban nature: surveys of park visitors in Delhi.
s11069-011-9825-5.
Land. 6(2):27. doi: 10.3390/land6020027.
Gunawardena KR, Wells MJ, Kershaw T. 2017. Utilising green
Selmi W, Weber C, Rivière E, Blond N, Mehdi L, Nowak D.
and bluespace to mitigate urban heat island intensity. Sci
2016. Air pollution removal by trees in public green spaces
Total Environ. 584-585:1040–1055. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.
in Strasbourg city, France. Urban For Urban Green.
2017.01.158.
17:192–201. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.04.010.
Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young MB. 2018. Revision of the
Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sinasson Sanni GK, Bennett S, De
common international classification for ecosystem ser­
Lacy P, Modipa R, Mtati N, Sachikonye M, Thondhlana G.
vices (CICES V5.1): a policy brief. One Ecosyst. 3:e27108.
2016. Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and cate­
doi:10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108.
gorising ecosystem disservices for environmental man­
Jim CY, Chen WY. 2006. Perception and attitude of residents
toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ agement and human wellbeing. Ecosystems. 19(4). doi:
Manage. 38(3):338–349. doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0166-6. 10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z.
Ko H, Son Y. 2018. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services Taleghani M. 2018. Outdoor thermal comfort by different heat
in urban green spaces: a case study in Gwacheon, Republic mitigation strategies- a review. Renewable Sustainable
of Korea. Ecol Indic. 91. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006. Energy Rev. 81:2011–2018. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.010.
Lewan L, Söderqvist T. 2002. Knowledge and recognition of Tandogan O, Ilhan BS. 2016. Fear of crime in public spaces:
ecosystem services among the general public in from the view of women living in cities. Procedia Eng.
a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecol Econ. 161:2011–2018. place unknown. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.
42(3):459–467. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00127-1. 2016.08.795.
Li S, Colson V, Lejeune P, Vanwambeke SO. 2016. On the TEEB. 2011. The Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity:
distance travelled for woodland leisure via different trans­ ecological and economic foundations, edited by Pushpam
port modes in Wallonia, south Belgium. Urban For Urban Kumar, 2010, London and Washington: Earthscan. Environ
Green. 15:123–132. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.007. Dev Econ. 16(2):40.
Lo AY, Jim CY. 2010. Willingness of residents to pay and Tian Y, Wu H, Zhang G, Wang L, Zheng D, Li S. 2020. Perceptions
motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the of ecosystem services, disservices and willingness-to-pay for
compact city of Hong Kong. Urban For Urban Green. 9 urban green space conservation. J Environ Manage. 260:260.
(2):113–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.001. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110140.
Lonsdorf EV, Nootenboom C, Janke B, Horgan BP. 2021. Town and Country Planning Organization. 2014. Urban green­
Assessing urban ecosystem services provided by green ing guidelines. Ministry of urban development, government
infrastructure: golf courses in the Minneapolis-St. Paul of India. New Delhi [accessed 2022 Nov 14]. https://mohua.
metro area. Landsc Urban Plan. 208:104022. doi:10.1016/ gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/G%20G%202014(2).pdf
J.LANDURBPLAN.2020.104022. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kaźmierczak A,
Lyytimäki J, Sipilä M. 2009. Hopping on one leg – the chal­ Niemela J, James P. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and
lenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green manage­ human health in urban areas using green infrastructure:
ment. Urban For Urban Green. 8(4):309–315. doi: 10.1016/ a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan. 81(3):167–178. doi:
j.ufug.2009.09.003. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.
162 ANAND AND P. BHATTACHARYA

UN. 2015. Goals 11: make cities and human settlements Wu S, Li BV, Li S. 2021. Classifying ecosystem disservices and
inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. [accessed 2022 valuating their effects - a case study of Beijing, China. Ecol
Dec 10]. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11. Indic. 129:129. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107977.
UNDESA. 2018. The World’s cities in 2018. World Urban Wu Z, Zhang Y. 2018. Spatial variation of urban thermal
Prospect 2018 Revis. environment and its relation to green space patterns:
Vidal DG, Fernandes CO, Viterbo LMF, Vilaça H, Barros N, implication to sustainable landscape planning. Sustain.
Maia RL. 2021. Combining an evaluation grid applica­ 10(7):2249. doi: 10.3390/su10072249.
tion to assess ecosystem services of urban green Zhang S, Muñoz Ramírez F. 2019. Assessing and mapping
spaces and a socioeconomic spatial analysis. ecosystem services to support urban green infrastructure:
Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 28(4):291–302. doi: 10. the case of Barcelona, Spain. Cities. 92. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.
1080/13504509.2020.1808108. 2019.03.016.