ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK 2024 64 3 0101661851779 ISSN 1581-6613 A C TA G E O G R A P H IC A S LO V E N IC A • G E O G R A FS K I Z B O R N IK • 64 -3 • 20 24ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 64-3 • 2024 Contents Borut Stojilković, valentina Brečko GruBar Discharge regimes of Slovenian rivers: 1991–2020 7 radomir BodiroGa, tijana Banjanin, dajana vukojević ateljević, Simon kerma The trends in viticulture and winemaking in the context of wine tourism development in Bosnia and Herzegovina 33 anđela vrkić, ante Blaće Land use changes in Southern Croatia (Dalmatia) since the beginning of the 20th century 49 nuri erkin Öçer, dilek küçük matci, uğur avdan Monitoring the impact of the Corona pandemic on nitrogen dioxide emissions at large scales via Google Earth Engine 75 Zala virant, janez oSojnik, andreja koZmuS Environmental responsibility and communication in selected companies in the Podravska statistical region 97 Sai-leung nG, ching-Hua tien Mapping the landscape of recent research on agricultural geography (2013–2022) 111 aleš Smrekar, jernej tiran, katarina Polajnar Horvat Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces: A case study of Ljubljana, Slovenia 135 naslovnica 64-3_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:21 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK 2024 64 3 0101661851779 ISSN 1581-6613 A C TA G E O G R A P H IC A S LO V E N IC A • G E O G R A FS K I Z B O R N IK • 64 -3 • 20 24ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 64-3 • 2024 Contents Borut Stojilković, valentina Brečko GruBar Discharge regimes of Slovenian rivers: 1991–2020 7 radomir BodiroGa, tijana Banjanin, dajana vukojević ateljević, Simon kerma The trends in viticulture and winemaking in the context of wine tourism development in Bosnia and Herzegovina 33 anđela vrkić, ante Blaće Land use changes in Southern Croatia (Dalmatia) since the beginning of the 20th century 49 nuri erkin Öçer, dilek küçük matci, uğur avdan Monitoring the impact of the Corona pandemic on nitrogen dioxide emissions at large scales via Google Earth Engine 75 Zala virant, janez oSojnik, andreja koZmuS Environmental responsibility and communication in selected companies in the Podravska statistical region 97 Sai-leung nG, ching-Hua tien Mapping the landscape of recent research on agricultural geography (2013–2022) 111 aleš Smrekar, jernej tiran, katarina Polajnar Horvat Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces: A case study of Ljubljana, Slovenia 135 naslovnica 64-3_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:21 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 64-3 2024 ISSN: 1581-6613 UDC: 91 2024, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika International editorial board/mednarodni uredniški odbor: Zoltán Bátori (Hungary), David Bole (Slovenia), Marco Bontje (the Netherlands), Mateja Breg Valjavec (Slovenia), Michael Bründl (Switzerland), Rok Ciglič (Slovenia), Špela Čonč (Slovenia), Lóránt Dénes Dávid (Hungary), Mateja Ferk (Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Maruša Goluža (Slovenia), Mauro Hrvatin (Slovenia), Ioan Ianos (Romania), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), Blaž Komac (Slovenia), Jani Kozina (Slovenia), Matej Lipar (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCarthy (United Kingdom), Slobodan B. Marković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Cecilia Pasquinelli (Italy), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Florentina Popescu (Romania), Garri Raagmaa (Estonia), Ivan Radevski (North Macedonia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Vanya Stamenova (Bulgaria), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mateja Šmid Hribar (Slovenia), Jure Tičar (Slovenia), Jernej Tiran (Slovenia), Radislav Tošić (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia), Zbigniew Zwolinski (Poland) Editors-in-Chief/glavna urednika: Rok Ciglič, Blaž Komac (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Chief editors/področni urednik (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia): • physical geography/fizična geografija: Mateja Ferk, Matej Lipar, Matija Zorn • human geography/humana geografija: Jani Kozina, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc • regional geography/regionalna geografija: Matej Gabrovec, Matjaž Geršič, Mauro Hrvatin • regional planning/regionalno planiranje: David Bole, Maruša Goluža, Janez Nared • environmental protection/varstvo okolja: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran Editorial assistants/uredniška pomočnika: Špela Čonč, Jernej Tiran (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Journal editorial system manager/upravnik uredniškega sistema revije: Jure Tičar (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Published by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, p. p. 306, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija; ags@zrc-sazu.si The articles are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) This work is licensed under the/delo je dostopno pod pogoji: Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12 € Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o., Živa Malovrh DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Birografika Bori Print run/naklada: 250 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (B6-7326) and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia core research programme (P6-0101)/Revija izhaja s podporo Javne agencije za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije (B6-7326) in nastaja v okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: Clarivate Web of Science (SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded; JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition), Scopus, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google Scholar, CrossRef, and DOAJ. Design by/Oblikovanje: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: Sveta Gora, a settlement with a franciscan monastery overlooking the Soča valley, renowned as a Marian pilgrimage site, is located near the Slovenia-Italy border, at the intersection of Alpine, Medditerranean and Dinaric landscapes (photograph: Jure Tičar). Fotografija na naslovnici: Sveta Gora, naselje s frančiškanskim samostanom nad dolino Soče, ki je znano po marijanskem romarskem središču, leži na meji Slovenije in Italije ter na stiku alpskih, sredozemskih in dinarskih pokrajin (fotografija: Jure Tičar). 64-3-uvod_uvod49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:22 Page 4 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024, 135–153 UNVEILING THE CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF URBAN GREEN SPACES: A CASE STUDY OF LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat Tivoli, the largest park in Ljubljana, is a popular place to relax. B O JA N E R H A R T IČ 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 135 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.13788 UDC: 911.375:712.256(497.4Ljubljana) Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Aleš Smrekar1, Jernej Tiran1, Katarina Polajnar Horvat1 Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces: A case study of Ljubljana, Slovenia ABSTRACT: This paper analyses the value of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces. A field survey of 900 respondents in Ljubljana, Slovenia, examined cultural ecosystem services in seven types of urban green spaces and compared the results with two types of non-green public spaces (old town, shop- ping mall). Differences between the types were assessed using one-way variance analysis (ANOVA). Results showed statistically significant differences between the types, with sports facilities standing out as valu- able for recreation and education. The old town’s cultural heritage and aesthetics were highly valued, while shopping malls ranked lowest. The study emphasises the importance of urban green spaces for quality of life of residents and informs land use planning decision-making. KEYWORDS: urban green space, recreation, cultural ecosystem services, quality of life, Ljubljana, Slovenia Odkrivanje kulturnih ekosistemskih storitev na mestnih zelenih površinah: študija primera v Ljubljani, Slovenija POVZETEK: Članek analizira vrednost kulturnih ekosistemskih storitev na mestnih zelenih površinah. S terensko raziskavo, v kateri je sodelovalo 900 anketirancev iz Ljubljane, smo vrednotili kulturne eko- sistemske storitve na sedmih tipih mestnih zelenih površin in rezultate primerjali z  dvema tipoma nezelenih javnih površin (staro mestno jedro, nakupovalna središča). Razlike med tipi smo analizirali z enos- merno analizo variance (ANOVA). Rezultati so pokazali statistično pomembne razlike med tipi, pri čemer so športni objekti izstopali kot dragoceni za rekreacijo in izobraževanje. Kulturna dediščina in estetika stare- ga mestnega jedra sta bili visoko ocenjeni, medtem ko so se nakupovalna središča uvrstila na najnižje mesto. Raziskava poudarja pomen mestnih zelenih površin za kakovost življenja prebivalcev, rezultati pa so lahko koristni pri sprejemanju odločitev o prostorskem načrtovanju. KLJUČNE BESEDE: mestne zelene površine, rekreacija, kulturne ekosistemske storitve, kakovost življenja, Ljubljana, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on June 17th, 2024. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 17. junija 2024. 136 1 Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-9174), jernej.tiran@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9839-720X), katarina.polajnar@zrc-sazu.si (https://orcid.org/ 0000-0001-8872-529X) 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 136 1 Introduction Many Europeans are leaving the countryside for urban areas, which has led to a dramatic increase in envi- ronmental pressures, particularly in the second half of the 20th century (Antrop 2004; Urbanc et al. 2023). In this context, ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces, such as air purification, temperature regulation, water management, and mental health benefits, are becoming increasingly vital. These services help mitigate the negative environmental impacts of urbanization and play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of life in cities. Recognizing and understanding the importance of these ecosystem services is essen- tial for fostering more sustainable and resilient urban environments (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013). Citizens are exposed to negative environmental pressures, such as pollution, overcrowding, excessive noise, and information overload (Polajnar Horvat and Smrekar 2017; Smrekar et al. 2019; Tzortzi and Ioannou 2022), also called ecosystem disservices (Lyytimäki and Sipilä 2009). Coping with the challenges of every- day urban life puts a strain on people’s physical and mental health and, combined with an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, has negative health consequences (Collado et al. 2016). There is a wealth of evidence on the health, social, and psychological benefits of spending time in nature, urban green spaces (Joye and Van den Berg 2013). Such spaces were particularly important during the COVID-19 pandemic when movement was restrict- ed and locally limited (Bakir and Sahar 2021; Grasseni 2022). Studies show that various types of recreational environment possess various restorative quality, which is higher in more natural environments (Tyrväinen et al. 2014). However, some studies show that non-green settings, such as shopping malls, have certain recreational dimensions and are not automatically inferior to more natural surroundings (Craig et al. 2018). The diversity of Earth ecosystems has an impact on human well-being (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010). The problem is that ecosystems are increasingly being transformed and have become increasing- ly unrecognizable in recent decades, leading to a loss of biodiversity, disruption of natural processes, and a reduced capacity to provide essential ecosystem services that humans and other species rely on for sur- vival (Ribeiro and Šmid Hribar 2019). These consequences have contributed to a growing awareness of the importance of ecosystems and the need to understand the services they provide to modern society (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Pakfetrat et al. 2020; Suhadolc et al. 2022). The urban green spaces of the highest quality include the spectrum of ecosystem services: supporting, regulating and cul- tural (Wallace 2007; European Environmental Agency 2018). The cultural ecosystem services are directly experienced by people, as their availability depends on the level and type of interactions between people and the natural environment (Plieninger et al. 2013; Gavrilidis et al. 2023). Cultural ecosystem services play a crucial role in enhancing urban life, contributing to mental well- being, social cohesion, and active lifestyles. Despite their importance, they remain under-researched, particularly in the context of urban green spaces. The concept of cultural ecosystem services has already been introduced and recognized in other operational frameworks, such as environmental and conserva- tion policy (Tengberg et al. 2012), while it is still quite unknown in the fields of health-enhancing physical activity, sport, and recreation (Sielaff et al. 2024). The aim of this research is to fill the gap in knowledge regarding cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces. The research focuses on the following key questions: 1) How do users perceive cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces? 2) Are there significant differences in the valuation of cultural ecosystem services and disservices across different types of urban green spaces? 3) Do old town and shopping malls possess lower value compared to urban green spaces? The case study for this research is the city of Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, which has just under 300,000 residents and more than 125,000 daily commuters. Ljubljana presents an interesting case for analysis due to its diverse range of urban (green) spaces (Smrekar and Tiran 2013; Smrekar et al. 2019). Furthermore, Ljubljana has received numerous awards for its sustainability initiatives, including the title of European Green Capital 2016, in part due to its focus on urban greening projects and the development of new recre- ational and sports facilities (Kozina et al. 2019; Poljak Istenič 2019). 2 Theoretical background Human well-being is closely linked to the natural environment (including urban green spaces) and its values (Jabbar et al. 2022). Although this is firmly established, it remains difficult to assess how the Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 137 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 137 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … biophysical characteristics of a given space contribute to the well-being of people associated with that space (Bieling et al. 2014). The concept of natural capital emerged in the early 1970s (Schumacher 1973), emphasising the need for more sustainable utilization of natural resources. This notion sparked a systematic research agenda into ecosystem services. Initially, the primary goal of the ecosystem services concept was to raise awareness of the adverse effects of biodiversity loss on both ecosystem functionality and societal well-being (Gómez- Baggethun et al. 2010). A significant milestone in the development of the ecosystem services concept was the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005, p. V), which underscored society’s fundamental reliance on ecosystem services and helped establish them. According to this document, ecosystem services are defined as »the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems« and are divided into four types of direct benefits: • supporting services: these enable ecosystems to provide services, such as food provisioning, flood reg- ulation, and water purification; • provisioning services: products derived from ecosystems, such as food and fibre; • regulating services: benefits derived from regulating ecosystem processes, e.g., climate regulation and water purification; • cultural services: non-material benefits that people derive from ecosystems through spiritual enrich- ment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience, including, for example, knowledge systems, social relationships, and aesthetic values. Following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), several key initiatives further shaped the field. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – TEEB (Sukhdev et al. 2010) was instrumental in inte- grating biodiversity values into decision-making processes at various levels, emphasising the importance of ecosystem services in policy and economics. Shortly thereafter, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – IPBES was formed in 2015 (Brondizio et al. 2019), strengthening the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services globally. In parallel, the European Union undertook the systematic mapping of ecosystems (Maes et al. 2020), aiming to standardize the evaluation of ecosystem services across different types of ecosystems. This led to a  structured approach for assessing ecosystem states. Building on these foundational works, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services – CICES (European Environmental Agency 2018) further refined the classification of ecosystem services into three broad categories – provisioning, regulating, and cultural ser- vices – accompanied by detailed subcategories that add precision to the assessment and application of ecosystem services (Šmid Hribar et al. 2021). Recently, de Groot et al. (2020) published a work analysing 960 studies on the economic valuation of ecosystem services. The highest value estimates are for air quality management, recreation and tourism. For others, there is relatively limited information (e.g., spiritual experiences and ornamental resources). In a similar way, data on ecosystem service studies published in Slovenia were identified, compared and described (Šmid Hribar et al. 2021). The main findings are that the number of scientific and profession- al articles about ecosystem service in Slovenia is increasing (39 articles in total). The most represented field is forestry, while the most commonly explored individual ecosystem services are cultural, namely recre- ation and ecotourism. The term ecosystem disservice is derived from the ecosystem service approach and is thus conceptu- ally related to it. The term is used rarely in papers that were published before Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). One of the first definitions of ecosystem disservice was published by Lyytimäki and Sipilä (2009, p. 311), where ecosystem disservices were defined as »functions of ecosystems that are per- ceived as negative for human well-being«. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) uses a  general, anthropocentric perspective that builds on a general, universal understanding of human well-being. On a closer look, the general idea of human well-being can be divided into a multitude of categories of human well-being, representing the different values, beliefs and necessities of a multitude of different groups. This subdivision leads to the problem that the identification of ecosystem disservice becomes very dependent on which effects are perceived by individuals and societies as negative in a given context. Very often, noise and waste in the landscape are perceived as ecosystem disservices which are a consequence of human use of ecosystems, not a disservice from the ecosystem itself (Plieninger et al. 2013). For example, a rarely men- tioned adverse service that is clearly linked to ecological structures or functions is the perceived fear of wolves roaming in forests (Agbenyega et al. 2009). The concept of ecosystem disservices has its roots in urban ecosystem research (Lyytimäki and Sipilä 2009; Escobedo et al. 2011; Dobbs et al. 2014; Lyytimäki 138 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 138 2014), particularly in the context of complex human-environment systems characteristic of urban spaces (von Döehren and Haase 2015). They have been used to assess the value of green spaces to urban resi- dents (Lyytimäki et al. 2008; Lyytimäki and Sipilä 2009). Guo et al. (2022) analysed 524 studies of ecosystem disservices. Relevant searches on ecosystem dis- services can be found on various ecosystem types. Among them, there are abundant research cases on ecosystem disservices in urban and agricultural ecosystems. Urban ecosystem disservices were associat- ed with changes of biodiversity. Several studies also advocated for better integration of ecosystem services and disservices in stakeholder decision-making on urban green spaces by assessing trade-offs and syner- gies. Some articles also associated the disservices of urban ecosystems with the public awareness and demand for urban green space. The concept of cultural ecosystem services is previously defined in this chapter in the context of four types of direct benefits. Cultural ecosystem services can involve the use of natural resources directly (e.g., enjoying walking or viewing the scenery) or indirectly (e.g., the cultural heritage and spiritual value of green spaces) (Sen and Guchhait 2021). Unlike other ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration and water or air purification that require scientific knowledge to be recorded, cultural ecosystem services are direct- ly experienced and intuitively understood by people who come into contact with nature and the close connection between citizens, and nature offers a valuable opportunity for increasing awareness of the multi- functionality and interconnectedness of different ecosystem services and their significance for quality of life (IUCN 2015, cited in Sen and Guchhait 2021). In the analysis of valuation of cultural ecosystem services (Matos Márquez et al. 2023), 349 scientific articles were included. The first article was published in 2010. A temporal trend towards an increase in the number of articles has been observed between the years 2010 and 2022. The terrestrial environment and recreational value being the most emphasised among all the analysed articles. The recent themes in the research area are associated with landscape, protected areas, perception, urban green space and social media studies. Recreation is thus one of the most important cultural ecosystem services in the European context and probably the most tangible, as Kenward and Sharp wrote as early as 2008. The majority of people spend their leisure time outdoors (Sievänen et al. 2009). Recreational activities such as walking, jogging, or play- ing outdoors provide them the opportunity to directly experience the benefits of a cultural ecosystem. This is especially true for people living in urban environments where contact with natural ecosystems is often limited (Daniel et al. 2012). Natural ecosystems provide many important benefits such as physical exer- cise, aesthetic experiences, intellectual stimulation, inspiration, and other contributions to physical and psychological well-being (Chan et al. 2011). Numerous studies (Hartig et al. 2003; Karmanov and Hamel 2008; Bowler et al. 2010) have shown that even short stays in green spaces can have positive effects on human health and thus contribute to the economic productivity of society. Urban green spaces can improve envi- ronmental conditions and thus the health and quality of life of citizens. They also support green economy, create job opportunities and enhance biodiversity (Tzortzi and Ioannou 2022). Many studies from different parts of the world report that, compared to urban environments, nat- ural environments improve people’s mood. The general conclusion is that being in a built-up urban environment leads to the perception of an incoherent environment. The results also suggest that large urban parks and large urban forests have a  positive effect on the well-being of urban inhabitants (Tsunetsugu et al. 2013; Tyrväinen et al. 2014). In contrast to most other studies on nature experiences, which at best compare (for example) a walk through a forest with a walk through an urban centre (Tyrväinen et al. 2014), Craig et al. (2018) looked at comparisons with another everyday experience, in their case shopping. The role of shopping in people’s lives goes far beyond the provision of food and other necessary household items and has important symbolic and recreational functions (Falk and Campbell 1997; Miller 1998; Shaw 2010). Although nature experiences have generally been found to be more enjoyable and to evoke more positive memories than shopping experiences, the results are far from clear (Craig et al. 2018). Another form of recreation is so-called recreational shopping, which is usually defined as an activity that consumers enjoy as a leisure activity (Baeckstroem 2006). All these studies indicate that different recreational environments seems to have a significantly different cultural ecosystemic services. Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 139 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 139 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … 3 Methods 3.1 Selection of cultural ecosystem services and disservices Our empirical analysis is based on the concept of cultural ecosystem services. The set of services included is mainly based on the highly cited paper by Bieling et al. (2014), but is also supported by the review paper by Yang and Cao (2022). The list of ecosystem services is the following: • recreation and sports, • education, • aesthetics, • relaxation, • natural heritage, • cultural heritage, • sense of place, • inspiration and • spirituality. A concise list of ecosystem disservices, as identified in various studies, is presented herewith (Lyytimäki et al. 2008; Lyytimäki 2014; von Döhren and Hasse 2015): • unpleasantness, • fear and • noisiness. In addition to the categories that are typically included, we have also incorporated shopping and hos- pitality. A comparison of experiences between nature and shopping, which are relatively uncommon (Craig et al. 2018), provides an interesting insight into how people respond to the natural and built environment. 3.2 Selection of urban green spaces The urban green spaces in the City of Ljubljana were selected based on available public data, our expert opin- ion, and existing typologies of urban green spaces (e.g., Cvejić et al. 2015; Tiran et al. 2018). Most of these spaces are considered to have cultural ecosystem services. The typology consists of seven types of urban green spaces: • large urban park, • small urban park, • neighbourhood green space, • urban forest, • riverbank green, • open sports facility, and • open playground. 140 Table 1: Types and locations of urban green spaces (1–7) and added non-green public spaces (8–9) with numbers of completed surveys. type location (number of completed surveys) 1 large urban park Tivoli Park (100) 2 small urban park Zvezda Park (33), Argentina Park (33), Toscanini Park (34) 3 neighbourhood green space ŠS 6 Neighbourhood (50), Nove Fužine Neighbourhood (50) 4 urban forest Rožnik Hill (100) 5 riverbank green Ljubljanica River (50), Koseze Pond (50) 6 sports facility Kodeljevo Sports park (50), Svoboda Sports park (50) 7 playground Šmartinska Park (50), Kodeljevo Playground (50) 8 old town Town Hall Area (100) 9 shopping mall BTC Shopping Mall (50), Rudnik Shopping Mall (50) Figure 1: Urban public spaces in Ljubljana with a selection of case studies and number of respondents. p p. 141 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 140 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 141 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 141 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … As a contrast to the established forms of recreation on urban green spaces, where we can talk about ecosystem services, recreation, such as walking and recreational shopping, can also take place in non-green public spaces: • old town, • shopping mall. In the next step, we selected 1–2 representative urban green spaces per each type (Jones et al. 2022). They represent spaces where according to our knowledge people spend a lot of their leisure time and recre- ate (Table 1; Figure 1). 3.3 Field survey We chose the field survey method as it provides the most efficient way to systematically assess the resi- dents’ experience of the use of green spaces and non-green public spaces at numerous locations in the city. The survey was conducted from August 7th to October 19th, 2018. We designed the questionnaire where we asked survey respondents how they value selected cultural ecosystem services and disservices on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = Negligible, 2 = Very little, 3 = A little, 4 = Moderately, 5 = Very much, 6 = Exceptionally). In each given unit, we performed quota sampling and tried to find a demographically diverse sample of 100 respondents in each type of space analysed. The requirement for participation was that the respondent had lived in Ljubljana for at least one year before the survey was taken. Each respondent answered to the questions for the specific location, which represents the selected type of space. 100 interviews were carried out in each type of location, resulting in the overall sample of 900 people. 3.4 Statistical analyses To test the differences in cultural ecosystem services across the urban space types, we performed the one- way variance analysis (ANOVA). Because the group sizes were almost equal, we were able to execute the parametric test regardless violating other two basic assumptions (homogeneity of variance, normal dis- tribution) as the evidence show that these assumptions do not have to be met in case of equal group size (Field 2009). We also ran Tukey’s post hoc tests to see if there are statistically significant differences between means of every group against every other group. To interpret the results, the Eta squared (η²) was calcu- lated to measure the effect size. We also calculated the overall score of all cultural ecosystem services and disservices for each type spaces by summing all the scores, with disservices being recoded. All the statis- tical analyses were done by the IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 program. 4 Results and discussion The average and overall scores across space types and cultural ecosystem services and disservices are pre- sented in Figures 2–4. Sport facilities received the highest overall score, indicating that in Ljubljana they are not only sufficiently available and well-designed from a landscape planning perspective, but also func- tion effectively as multifunctional spaces. For all cultural ecosystem services, the differences between the types were small but statistically significant with p < 0.05 (Table 2). If we exclude the old town and shop- ping malls from the analysis, the differences remain significant, except for the sense of place, natural heritage and stimulating inspiration (Table 3). The effect size (η²) is reduced to small (below 0.06) in most cases (see Table 4). Regarding both »other«, non-green types of public spaces, the results suggest that shopping malls have a considerably lower value compared to urban green spaces; as expected, the only exception was shop- ping and hospitality services. The old town even scored the highest in terms of aesthetics and cultural heritage, while it received the second highest overall score among the all types. Recreation and sports is an exceptionally valuable cultural ecosystem service in sport facilities for 60% of respondents (mean score of 5.4). They are followed by urban forests (5.1) – probably due to their size and variety of recreational options they offer. Surprisingly, people do not consider small urban parks to be very valuable spaces for recreation and sports (3.2), which is just nearly higher than the old town (3.1) with statistically insignificant difference. This can be partly ascribed to limited size of these spaces and 142 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 142 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 143 Riverbank green 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Recreation and sport Education Relaxation Natural heritage Cultural heritage Sense of place Stimulating inspiration Spirituality Shopping and hospitality services Large urban park Aesthetics Small urban park Neighbourhood green space Urban forest Sport facility Playground Old town Shopping mall Figure 2: The average value of cultural ecosystem services across types of spaces. lack of sports infrastructure. Shopping malls (2.2) are considered the least attractive from this point of view. There was a significant effect of the urban green type on values of recreation and sports, F (8, 896) = 66.31, p < .001. The effect size, eta squared (η²), was 0.37 (or 0.21 if both non-green types are excluded), indi- cating a large effect, the largest of all groups of cultural ecosystem services. Ljubljana residents consider sports facilities also to have the highest educational value, with 43% rat- ing them as extremely valuable (mean score of 4.7), similar to old town (4.3), probably due to a rich cultural heritage. The respondents assign surprisingly lower educational value to the large city park (3.7), urban forests (3.6) and riverbank greens (3.4), which can be partly ascribed to the fact that this is not their pri- mary function. The educational value is smaller also in small urban parks (2.9) and, understandably non-green shopping malls (1.9), which more than half of respondents (55%) rate as negligible in this respect. The highest aesthetical value has the old town (5.0) which can be attributed to its rich cultural her- itage. This is followed by the admittedly well-maintained green spaces, such as playgrounds (4.9), riverbank green and large urban park (both 4.8), and sport facilities (4.5). The urban forest (4.1) received an unex- pectedly low rating; 13% of respondents even considered it a trivial or invaluable space in this regard. This is not consistent with the findings of Bieling et al. (2014) that more natural spaces are more attractive than anthropogenically transformed spaces. This arouses a question if urban dwellers are increasingly alienat- ed from »untamed« nature even in Ljubljana, which is still relatively very green city compared to larger urban agglomerations. Visitors of shopping malls found them the least aesthetically pleasing (3.2). From the relaxation point of view, most types of spaces performed very well, resulting in the highest average value among all the types (4.9) and mostly statistically insignificant differences between individ- ual types. Respondents can relax best in the urban forest, the large city park, riverbank green spaces, and sports facilities (all 5.3) and playground (5.2). Below the average, we can find the old town, but also with 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 143 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … a very decent score (4.7). Once more, the respondents are least able to relax in shopping malls (3.3). The results are in line with existing research showing the importance of open space for relaxation purposes compared to indoor spaces (Ito et al. 2024). In terms of natural heritage, differences between spaces were very small. If we exclude shopping malls (1.8) from the analysis, they even become statistically insignificant. Value of natural heritage was the high- est in the large city park (4.6), closely followed by riverbank green spaces (4.5). It is surprising that the urban forest (4.4) was not ranked higher than sports facilities (4.4), which also had the highest share of 32% of »extremely valuable« ratings. We can also interpret this as a result of careful design of sports facil- ities, which have a lot of greenery. The results are consistent with a study by Plieninger et al. (2015), which found that residents have less and less contact with natural spaces and therefore feel more comfortable in more urbanised environments. Discomfort in nature is becoming more and more evident especially for urban children (McAllister et al. 2012). Speaking of cultural heritage, Ljubljana residents value the old town the most: 87% of respondents consider it very or extremely valuable (5.2), confirming that it is a hotspot of historical sites with a high cultural value (Tiran 2017). The neighbourhood green space (3.6) is found to have the lowest value among the types of urban green, also with statistically significant difference to some other types. The shopping malls (2.0), on the other hand, is rated the least valuable by respondents, with 53% going so far as to call it insignificant. 144 Table 2: The results of the ANOVA test across types of cultural ecosystem services. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Recreation and sport Between Groups 880.923 8 110.115 66.310 .000 Within Groups 1487.900 896 1.661 Total 2368.822 904 Education Between Groups 578.466 8 72.308 38.095 .000 Within Groups 1691.199 891 1.898 Total 2269.666 899 Aesthetics Between Groups 257.916 8 32.239 22.842 .000 Within Groups 1266.040 897 1.411 Total 1523.956 905 Relaxation Between Groups 358.628 8 44.829 46.425 .000 Within Groups 866.153 897 .966 Total 1224.781 905 Natural heritage Between Groups 587.392 8 73.424 42.479 .000 Within Groups 1543.518 893 1.728 Total 2130.910 901 Cultural heritage Between Groups 567.881 8 70.985 41.188 .000 Within Groups 1530.409 888 1.723 Total 2098.290 896 Sense of place Between Groups 264.135 8 33.017 19.234 .000 Within Groups 1543.230 899 1.717 Total 1807.366 907 Stimulating inspiration Between Groups 150.748 8 18.843 9.994 .000 Within Groups 1689.447 896 1.886 Total 1840.194 904 Spirituality Between Groups 335.667 8 41.958 20.225 .000 Within Groups 1856.756 895 2.075 Total 2192.424 903 Shopping and hospitality services Between Groups 818.237 8 102.280 55.943 .000 Within Groups 1643.617 899 1.828 Total 2461.854 907 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 144 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 145 Table 3: The results of the ANOVA test across types of cultural ecosystem services (shopping malls and the old town excluded). Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Recreation and sport Between Groups 276.219 6 46.037 29.909 .000 Within Groups 1071.311 696 1.539 Total 1347.531 702 Education Between Groups 221.825 6 36.971 18.042 .000 Within Groups 1420.032 693 2.049 Total 1641.857 699 Aesthetics Between Groups 62.459 6 10.410 7.747 .000 Within Groups 935.248 696 1.344 Total 997.707 702 Relaxation Between Groups 15.462 6 2.577 3.845 .001 Within Groups 466.532 696 .670 Total 481.994 702 Natural heritage Between Groups 20.688 6 3.448 1.918 .075 Within Groups 1243.795 692 1.797 Total 1264.484 698 Cultural heritage Between Groups 31.958 6 5.326 2.826 .010 Within Groups 1296.626 688 1.885 Total 1328.584 694 Sense of place Between Groups 17.275 6 2.879 1.721 .113 Within Groups 1167.525 698 1.673 Total 1184.800 704 Stimulating inspiration Between Groups 15.915 6 2.653 1.447 .194 Within Groups 1274.284 695 1.834 Total 1290.199 701 Spirituality Between Groups 46.761 6 7.793 3.433 .002 Within Groups 1577.627 695 2.270 Total 1624.387 701 Shopping and hospitality services Between Groups 185.804 6 30.967 15.609 .000 Within Groups 1384.783 698 1.984 Total 1570.587 704 Table 4: The effect size of the space types across cultural ecosystem services. Eta Squared (η²) all types non-urban green excluded Recreation and sport 0.372 0.205 Education 0.255 0.135 Aesthetics 0.169 0.063 Relaxation 0.293 0.032 Natural heritage 0.276 0.016 Cultural heritage 0.271 0.024 Sense of place 0.146 0.015 Stimulating inspiration 0.082 0.012 Spirituality 0.153 0.029 Shopping and hospitality services 0.332 0.118 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 145 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … 146 In terms of sense of place, indicating to evoke the most emotions (Gottwald 2022), green spaces on the riverbank are rated the highest (4.5). This is in line with several researches so far, as they report a strong sense of place associated with different inland blue space environments (Plieninger et al. 2018; Grace et al. 2023; Grzyb 2024). However, the differences between the types are among the smallest, except for the shopping malls (2.6). If we exclude both non-urban green types from the analysis, the differences are not statistically significant; however, the old town scored very high in this regard. The results are very similar regarding stimulating inspiration. Respondents are most inspired by sports facilities (4.3), where they can practice a variety of sports activities. It is the variety of facilities that attracts visitors in large numbers (Ichsan et al. 2019). Very closely followed by other types, without statistically sig- nificant differences; once more, the least inspiration is found in shopping malls (2.9). Once again, with the exclusion of non-urban green types from the analysis, the effect of space type becomes insignificant. In terms of spirituality, the differences are slightly bigger. Respondents are most attracted to the green spaces along the riverbanks (4.1), which is in line with the several researches, for example, urban residents have reported that walking beside rivers and lakes can provide spiritual healing (Dou et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2021). They are followed by small city parks and playgrounds (3.8 each), while shopping malls unsurprisingly receive the lowest rating (1.8). With non-green categories excluded, eta squared only indicates the small effect (0.03). In terms of shopping and hospitality, shopping malls received the highest score (4.8). They are fol- lowed also by the old town (3.9). The highest score among the urban green spaces was attributed to sport facilities (3.5), which form a homogenous subset from this point of view and also seem to offer some of this services. The other types of urban green spaces considered scored much lower in this category. Research in recreational shopping typically emphasises the emotional worth of shopping and the pleasure realized from the activity. Such consumers of all ages spend more time in shopping malls than anywhere else except home, work and school (Bäckström 2006). On the contrary, some authors argue that shopping tends to be more stressful for consumers oriented towards traditional outdoor recreation (Albrecht et al. 2017). Unpleasantness Fear Noisiness Riverbank green 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Large urban park Small urban park Neighbourhood green space Urban forest Sport facility Playground Old town Shopping mall Figure 3: The average cultural ecosystem disservices’ values across types of areas. 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 146 For all cultural ecosystem disservices (unpleasantness, fear, noisiness), the differences across the types were small (Figure 4) but statistically significant (Table 5). If we limit the analysis to urban green spaces, the differences remain significant and even bigger, except for fear, where they became insignificant (Table 6). In all cases, the effect size is small (Eta Squared below 0.06; Table 7). Respondents generally do not see any of the studied disservices as problematic. From the viewpoint of unpleasantness, the lowest score was given to the large city park (1.3), with as many as 73% rating unpleas- antness as negligible, while neighbourhood green spaces (1.9), small urban park and shopping mall (1.8) received the highest score, but still relatively low. However, a deeper insight to the results of the individual survey spaces show bigger differences within certain types (e.g., ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 for neighbourhood green space), suggesting that these results can be very sensitive to a case study selection. The feeling of fear received similar scores across all types with post hoc tests showing statistically insignif- icant differences between individual types, ranging from 1.2 to 1.5. This confirms the image of Ljubljana as a safe city (Meško et al. 2008) and this does not seem to depend on location. Nevertheless, we specu- late that the levels of fear in the nighttime could be higher and also with a higher differentiation between types. The highest value (1.5) is achieved by the urban forest, which is consistent with the findings of other studies that urban inhabitants are more afraid of »wild« nature (Tzoulas et al. 2007; Hofmann et al. 2012). Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 147 Table 5: The results of the ANOVA test across types of cultural ecosystem disservices. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Unpleasantness Between Groups 27.160 8 3.395 3.856 .000 Within Groups 789.709 897 .880 Total 816.870 905 Fear Between Groups 9.664 8 1.208 2.260 .022 Within Groups 479.510 897 .535 Total 489.174 905 Noisiness Between Groups 47.607 8 5.951 4.532 .000 Within Groups 1177.850 897 1.313 Total 1225.457 905 Table 6: The results of the ANOVA test across types of cultural ecosystem disservices (shopping malls and the old town excluded). Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Unpleasantness Between Groups 22.130 6 3.688 4.490 .000 Within Groups 571.724 696 .821 Total 593.855 702 Fear Between Groups 3.798 6 .633 1.066 .382 Within Groups 413.408 696 .594 Total 417.206 702 Noisiness Between Groups 33.322 6 5.554 4.359 .000 Within Groups 886.672 696 1.274 Total 919.994 702 Table 7: The effect size of the space types across cultural ecosystem disservices. Eta Squared (η²) all types non-urban green excluded Unpleasantness 0.033 0.037 Fear 0.020 0.009 Noisiness 0.029 0.036 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 147 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … Noise, however, is somewhat more problematic with bigger differences between the types. Surprisingly, the lowest noise pollution was given for green spaces in the neighbourhood (1.6), while the highest noise pollution was attributed to shopping malls (2.4). However, even there, a large percent of respondents (36%) rated the noise level as negligible. When interpreting these results, we must be aware that the noise has various sources (traffic, people, industry) and can be very »place-sensitive« (Tiran 2017). Running ANOVA for overall scores (by summing all ecosystem services and disservices; see also Figure 4) show statistically significant differences between the types, also in case of excluding non-green spaces from the analysis (Table 8 and 9). However, in the latter case, the Eta squared indicates that differences are very small (Table 10). 148 Riverbank green 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Large urban park Small urban park Neighbourhood green space Urban forest Sport facility Playground Old town Shopping mall Figure 4: The overall mean scores of cultural ecosystem services and disservices across types of spaces. Table 8: The results of the ANOVA test for overall scores of cultural ecosystem services and disservices. Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Between Groups 22649.923 8 2831.240 34.377 .000 Within Groups 71735.184 871 82.360 Total 94385.108 879 Table 9: The results of the ANOVA test for overall scores of cultural ecosystem services and disservices (shopping malls and the old town excluded). Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Between Groups 2248.990 6 374.832 4.488 .000 Within Groups 56375.609 675 83.519 Total 58624.600 681 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 148 5 Conclusion The purpose of the research, executed in the city of Ljubljana, was to identify how cultural ecosystem ser- vices are valued by urban residents and what are the key differences between selected types of spaces. The results show that the differences between types of urban green spaces in terms of the perceived value of their cultural ecosystem services do exist but they are generally smaller than expected. Overall, sports facilities received the highest mean score (4.6), with majority of respondents rating them excep- tionally valuable for recreation and sports (5.4). Two non-urban green types performed very differently: shopping malls had far the lowest overall score (3.2), while the old town had the second highest one (4.5). Urban forests did not score as well as expected. The results are somewhat surprising because urban forests are a type of space most similar to a natural environment. This fact also contrasts with the find- ings in the literature, which considers urban forests to be the type with the highest number of ecosystem services. A possible explanation could be that people are being increasingly alienated from »untamed« nature and seem to feel more comfortable in more urbanised environments. The fact that shopping malls scored quite poorly on most aspects do not support understanding shop- ping as a recreational activity, even if people sometimes have to walk considerable distances to do so. On the other hand, promoting old towns as spaces for leisure seems to make sense because they possess numer- ous cultural ecosystem services, especially regarding aesthetics and cultural heritage. We should also note some limitations of the research. As this questionnaire was used for the first time and respondents did not think of this topic before, the survey results could have certain measurement error, related to coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys, also known as »satisficing« (Krosnick 1991). This could also explain somehow small differences between the types. Furthermore, the results could be sensitive to the case study selection and microlocation of field surveying. The results presented in this study could contribute to the understanding and recognition of the con- cept of cultural ecosystem services. However, further testing of the methodology is needed, also in other types of cities according to size, population density and quantity and diversity of urban green spaces. As the research was executed before covid-19, it would make sense to repeat the research also in post-pan- demic times to test the presumption of increased importance of urban green spaces (Noszczyk et al. 2022). Future studies should also investigate services and disservices in indoor recreational spaces, such as gyms and fitness centres and analyse the impact of services and disservices on subjective well-being. Our find- ings have important implications for stimulating active and healthy lifestyles and encouraging recreation not only in urban green spaces and natural environments, but also in other urban public spaces. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research was financially supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency: program »Geography of Slovenia« (P6-0101) and project »Isolated People and Communities in Slovenia and Croatia« (J6-4610). 6 References Agbenyega, O., Burgess, P. J., Cook, M., Morris, J. 2009: Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. 2008.08.011 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 149 Table 10: The effect size of the space types for overall scores of cultural ecosystem services and disservices. Eta Squared (η²) all types non-urban green excluded Overall score 0.240 0.038 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 149 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … Albrecht, C-M., Hattula, S., Lehmann, D. R. 2017: The relationship between consumer shopping stress and purchase abandonment in task-oriented and recreation-oriented consumers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0514-5 Antrop, M. 2004: Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 67-1,4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4 Bäckström, K. 2006: Understanding recreational shopping: A new approach. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 16-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960600572167 Bakir, R. A., Sahar A. A. 2021: Changing use of public spaces in Cairo during COVID-19. Urban Research & Practice 14-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2021.2006897 Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., Vogl, C. R. 2014: Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2014.05.013 Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. A., Pullin, A. S. 2010: A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10-1. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H. T. (eds.) 2019: Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Report. IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 Collado, S., Staats, H., Corraliza, J. A., Hartig, T. 2016: Restorative environments and health. In: Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-31416-7_7 Craig, T. P., Fischer A., Lorenzo-Arribas, A. 2018: Shopping versus nature? An exploratory study of every- day experiences. Frontiers in Psychology 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00009 Cvejić, R., Eler, K., Pintar, M., Železnikar, Š., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M. 2015: A typology of urban green spaces, eco-system provisioning services and demands. Report. Green Surge project. Daily, G. 1997: Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R. et al. 2012: Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109-23. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 De Groot, R., Brander, L., Solomonides, S. 2020: Update of global ecosystem service valuation database (ESVD). Report. Foundation for Sustainable Development. Dobbs, C., Kendal, D., Nitschke, C. R. 2014: Multiple ecosystem services and disservices of the urban forest establishing their connections with landscape structure and sociodemographics. Ecological Indicators 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.007 Dou, Y., Zhen, L., de Groot, R., Du, B., Yu, X. 2017: Assessing the importance of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality. Ecosystem Services 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011 Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., Wagner, J. E. 2011: Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution 159-8,9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010 European Environmental Agency 2018. Towards a common international classification of ecosystem services – CICES. Report. European Environment Agency. Falk, P., Campbell, C. 1997: The shopping experience. SAGE Publications. Field, A. 2009: Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications. Gavrilidis, A., Zakerhaghighi, K., Popa, A., Akbarian, S., Z., Onose, D., Grădinaru, S. R., Slave, R. 2023: Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services provision by small public urban green spaces: Perspectives from different cultural backgrounds. Urban Ecosystems 27-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01480-3 Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., Montes, C. 2010: The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007 Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D. N., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P., Andersson, E. et al. 2013: Urban ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation 22-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10531-013-0516-1 Gottwald, S. 2022: Sense of place in spatial planning: Applying instrumental and deliberative approaches at the river Lahn. Landscape Online 97. https://doi.org/10.3097/lo.2022.1100 150 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 150 Grace, M. J., Dickie, J., Bartie, P., Brown, C., Oliver, D. M. 2023: Understanding health outcomes from exposure to blue space resources: Towards a mixed methods framework for analysis. Resources 12-11. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12110135 Grasseni, C. 2022: From branding to solidarity: The COVID-19 impact on marketing Strachítunt cheese from Val Taleggio, Italy. Acta geographica Slovenica 62-2. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.10577 Grzyb, T. 2024: Recreational use of the urban riverscape: What brings people to the river? Moravian Geographical Reports 32-1. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2024-0002 Guo, R. Z., Song, Y. B., Dong, M. 2022: Progress and prospects of ecosystem disservices: An updated literature review. Sustainability 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610396 Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. 2010: The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well- being. In: Ecosystem Ecology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007 Hartig, T., Evans, G., W., Jamner, L., D., Davis, D., S., Gärling, T. 2003: Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272- 4944(02)00109-3 Hofmann, M., Westermann, J., R., Kowarik, I., Van der Meer, E. 2012: Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ufug.2012.04.001 Ichsan, A. M., Harisah, A., Radja, A. M. 2019: The visitors’ perception toward the comfort of social inter- action in public space (A case study in Karebosi field Makasar). EPI International Journal of Engineering 2-2. https://doi.org/10.25042/epi-ije.082019.10 Ito, K., Kang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, F., Biljecki, F. 2024: Understanding urban perception with visual data: A systematic review. Cities 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105169 Jabbar, M., Yusoff, M. M., Shafie, A. 2022: Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: A systematic review. GeoJournal 87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10474-7 Jones, L., Anderson, S., Læssøe, J., Banzhaf, E., Jensen, A., Bird, D. N., Miller, J. et al. 2022: A typology for urban green infrastructure to guide multifunctional planning of nature-based solutions. Nature-Based Solutions 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100041 Joye, J., Van den Berg, A. 2013: Restorative environments. In: Environmental psychology: An introduction. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch7 Karmanov, D., Hamel, R. 2008: Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning 86-2. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.004 Kenward, R., Sharp, R. 2008: Use nationally of wild resources across Europe (UNWIRE). Report. Anatrack Ltd. Kozina, J., Poljak Istenič, S., Komac, B. 2019: Green creative environments: Contribution to sustainable urban and regional development. Acta Geographica Slovenica 59-1. https://doi.org/10.3986/ags.7030 Krosnick, J. A. 1991: Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology 5-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305 Lyytimäki, J. 2014: Bad Nature: Newspaper representations of ecosystem disservices. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 13-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.04.005 Lyytimäki, J., Kjerulf Petersen, L., Normander, B., Bezák, P. 2008: Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environmental Sciences 5-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430802055524 Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M. 2009: Hopping on one leg – the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 8-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003 Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Conde, S., Vallecillo Rodriguez, S., Barredo Cano, J. I., Paracchini, M. et al. 2020: Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An EU ecosystem assessment. https://doi.org/10.2760/757183 Matos Márquez, L. A, Nunes Rezende, E. C., Borges Machado, K., Martins do Nascimento, E. L., Bardella Castro, J. D., Nabout, J. C. 2023: Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review. Ecosystem Services 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101572 McAllister, C., Lewis, J., Murphy, S. 2012: The green grass grew all around: Rethinking urban natural spaces with children in mind. Children, Youth and Environments 22-2. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi. 22.2.0164 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 151 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 151 Aleš Smrekar, Jernej Tiran, Katarina Polajnar Horvat, Unveiling the cultural ecosystem services of urban green spaces … Meško, G., Fallshore, M., Muratbegović, E., Fields, C. 2008: Fear of crime in two post-socialist capital cities – Ljubljana, Slovenia and Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Criminal Justice 36-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.09.008 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005: Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Report. Miller, D. 1998: A theory of shopping. Cornell University Press. Noszczyk, T., Gorzelany, J., Kukulska-Kozieł, A., Hernik, J. 2022: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the importance of urban green spaces to the public. Land use policy 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2021.105925 Pakfetrat, A., Taghvaei, M., Zarrabi, A. 2020: A comprehensive approach in green space site planning: An application of a three-stage multi-criteria decision support system. Urban Research & Practice 13-1. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1495757 Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measure- ments. Landscape and Urban Planning 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.014 Plieninger, T., Áargarð av Rana, H., Fagerholm, N., Ellingsgaard, G. F., Magnussen, E., Raymond, C. M., Olafsson, A. S., Verbrugge, L. N. H. 2018: Identifying and assessing the potential for conflict between landscape values and development preferences on the Faroe Islands. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.006 Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Byg, A., Hartel, T., Hurley. P., López-Santiago, C. A. et al. 2015: The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.02.006 Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros Rozas, E., Bieling, C. 2013: Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2012.12.013 Polajnar Horvat, K., Smrekar, A. 2017: From words to action: Improving drinking water behaviour in the urban environment. Geographia Polonica 90-3. https://doi.org/10.7163/gpol.0094 Poljak Istenič, S. 2019: Participatory urbanism: Creative interventions for sustainable development. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. https://doi.org/10.3986/ags.5142 Ribeiro, D., Šmid Hribar, M. 2019: Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenian rural landscapes. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-2. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.6636 Schumacher, E. F. 1973: Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. New York. Sen, S., Guchhait, S. 2021: Urban green space in India: Perception of cultural ecosystem services and psychology of situatedness and connectedness. Ecological Indicators 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolind.2021.107338 Shaw, J. 2010: Shopping. Polity Press. Sielaff, H., Bundschuh, L., Moritz, L., Taubmann, C., Badack, J., Weinhold, K., Hübscher, M. 2024: COVID- 19 pandemic and urban green spaces: Shifting usage behaviours and perceptions in Leipzig (Germany)? Moravian geographical reports 32-1. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2024-0003 Sievänen, T., Arnberger, A., Dehez, J., Jensen, F. 2009: Monitoring of forest recreation demand. In: European Forest Recreation and Tourism. Taylor and Francis. Šmid Hribar, M., Japelj, A., Vurunić, S. 2021: Systematic mapping of studies on ecosystem services in Slovenia. Geografski vestnik 93-1. https://doi.org/10.3986/gv93101 Smith, N., Georgiou, M., King, A. C., Tieges, Z., Webb, S., Chastin, S. 2021: Urban blue spaces and human health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. Cities 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2021.103413 Smrekar, A., Breg Valjavec, M., Polajnar Horvat, K., Tiran, J. 2019: The geography of urban environmen- tal protection in Slovenia: The case of Ljubljana. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-3. https://doi.org/10.3986/ ags.7638 Smrekar, A., Tiran, J. 2013: Pomen zelenih površin za kakovost bivanja v mestih: razvoj misli skozi čas. Geografski vestnik 85-2. Suhadolc, M., Govednik, A., Turniški, R., Grčman, H. 2022: Od kakovosti tal do ekosistemskih storitev tal. Geografski vestnik 94-2. https://doi.org/10.3986/gv94205 Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Nesshöver, C., Bishop, J., Brink, P., Gundimeda, H. et al. 2010: The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A syn- thesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Report. 152 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 152 Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., Wetterberg, O. 2012: Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem Services 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006 Tiran, J. 2017: Kakovost bivalnega okolja v Ljubljani. Georitem 28. Založba ZRC. https://doi.org/10.3986/ 9789612549671 Tiran, J., Ciglič, R., Smrekar, A. 2018: Sprosti se na prostem. Web atlas. Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Tsunetsugu, Y., Lee, J., Park, B., Tyrväinen, L., Kagawa, T., Miyazaki Y. 2013: Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y, Kagawa, T. 2014: The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005 Tzortzi (Julia Georgi) N., Ioannou, D. 2022: Greenways in Athens, Greece: Enhancing connectivity through a greenway network in a contemporary European metropolis. Urban Research & Practice 15-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2020.1831049 Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P. 2007: Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 Urbanc, M., Hori, K., Šmid Hribar, M. 2023: Commons, collective actions and landscapes: A short intro- duction. Acta geographica Slovenica 63-3. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.13206 von Döhren, P., Haase D. 2015: Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027 Wallace, K. J. 2007: Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139-3,4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015 Yang, L., Cao, K. 2022: Cultural ecosystem services research progress and future prospects: A review. Sustainability 14-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911845 Acta geographica Slovenica, 64-3, 2024 153 64-3_acta49-1.qxd 25.11.2024 7:23 Page 153