Abstract
In our research we focus on the bicycle accessibility to cultural ecosystem services areas (CES), located in the cross-boundary landscape. As a case study we selected the part of the cross-boundary landscape of Upper Silesia located between Poland and the Czech Republic, Europe. We designed a spatially explicit methodology, which allows us to analyze the accessibility between CES benefitting areas (urban fabric) and CES providing areas (Natura 2000 areas). The results show unequal distribution of CES providing areas in the analyzed landscape. We classified CES benefitting areas according to their accessibility to CES providing areas. We delimitated CES providing areas, which have a potential for better accessibility to CES benefitting areas. To delimitate the missing cross-boundary links between CES providing and benefitting areas, particular attention was given to the aspect of the national boundary. Our findings can inform planning and governance in the analyzed cross-boundary landscape. These findings support delimitation of the missing links between CES providing and benefitting areas. By analyzing the amount of such links, this study can support sustainability of different kinds of landscapes and inhabitants’ well-being.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cyphers LA, Schultz CA (2019) Policy design to support cross-boundary land management: the example of the joint chiefs landscape restoration partnership. Land Use Policy 80:362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.021
Fischer AP, Klooster A, Cirhigiri L (2019) Cross-boundary cooperation for landscape management: collective action and social exchange among individual private forest landowners. Landscape Urban Plann 188(September 2017):151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.004
Gass RJ, Rickenbach M, Schulte LA, Zeuli K (2009) Cross-boundary coordination on forested landscapes: Investigating alternatives for implementation. Environ Manage 43(1):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9195-2
Heesch KC, Sahlqvist S, Garrard J (2012) Gender differences in recreational and transport cycling: a cross-sectional mixed-methods comparison of cycling patterns, motivators, and constraints. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-106
Karpova TS, Kim MJ, Spriet C, Nalley K, Stasevich TJ, Kherrouche Z, … McNally JG (2008) Concurrent fast and slow cycling of a transcriptional activator at an endogenous promoter. Science 319(5862):466–469. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150559
Koenig JG (1980) Indicators of urban accessibility: theory and application. Transportation 9(2):145–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167128
McNeil N (2011) Bikeability and the 20-min neighborhood. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2247(1):53–63. https://doi.org/10.3141/2247-07
Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C (2012) National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: map** ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4(2005):104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.09.001
Sahlqvist SL, Heesch KC (2012) Characteristics of utility cyclists in Queensland, Australia: an examination of the associations between individual, social, and environmental factors and utility cycling. J Phys Act Health 9(6):818–828. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.9.6.818
Schleinitz K, Petzoldt T, Franke-Bartholdt L, Krems J, Gehlert T (2017) The German naturalistic cycling study—comparing cycling speed of riders of different e-bikes and conventional bicycles. Saf Sci 92:290–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.027
Spyra M, Inostroza L, Hamerla A, Bondaruk J (2018) Ecosystem services deficits in cross-boundary landscapes: spatial mismatches between green and grey systems. Urban Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0740-3
Spyra M (2014) The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three Upper Silesian Euroregions. IForest 7(6):396–402. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1248-007
Spyra M, La Rosa D, Zasada I, Sylla M, Shkaruba A (2020) Governance of ecosystem services trade-offs in peri-urban landscapes. Land Use Policy 95:104617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104617
Støren Ø, Ulevåg K, Larsen MH, Støa EM, Helgerud J (2013) Physiological determinants of the cycling time trial. J Strength Conditioning Res 27(9):2366–2373. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31827f5427
Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Ind 21:80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Spyra, M., Hamerla, A. (2021). Bicycle Accessibility to Cultural Ecosystem Services in a Cross-Boundary Landscape. In: La Rosa, D., Privitera, R. (eds) Innovation in Urban and Regional Planning. INPUT 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 146. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68824-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68824-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68823-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68824-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)