Main Article Content
This study was conducted to investigate the value perceptions of native tree species in urban landscape by three groups of environmental stakeholders – residents, estate developers and construction companies that reside in Abuja, the Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory. A Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) of landscape scale ecosystem functions and services valuation scenarios were used. A total of one hundred and eighty (180) sets of questionnaire were distributed equally among the three stakeholders (60 each) to ascertain their perceptions on the need to protect native tree species by asking them to rank eight reasons why the protection of native tree species is important in urban/city landscape. The reasons ranked were (i) Aesthetics and beautification of environment, (ii) Microclimatic and cooling effect, (iii) Windbreak, (iv) Erosion control, (v) Conservation of native tree species, (vi) Obstruction of view to enhance privacy (vii) Economic value of the species and, (viii) Any other reason. Results showed that Aesthetics and beautification of environment ranked first by a combination of all stakeholders, and also by Estate Developers alone, while Erosion control and Economic value of the species were ranked first by the Residents and the Construction Companies, respectively. Stakeholders’ mean scores for Aesthetics & beautification of environment, Microclimatic & cooling effect, Conservation of native tree species, and Obstruction of view to enhance privacy, varied significantly (p < 0.05) while there was no significant differences in their mean scores for Windbreak, Erosion control, and Economic value of the species. The differences in the stakeholders’ perception of the value of native trees as revealed by the rankings and significant differences in scores for some of the value criteria to a large extent underscore the values they place on them which in turn will influence their attitude towards the conservation and protection of the species. Therefore, the need for effective environmental education and enlightenment campaigns to sensitise all stakeholders on the overall values and roles of native trees in the city, is emphasized.
Maria S, Maria T, Harini N, Madhusudan K, Thomas E. What is the scope of nature in the city? Current Conservation. 2014;8(1):4-5.
McDonald I, Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, Parnell S, Schewenius M, Sendstad M, Karen CS, Wilkinson C. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities. A Global Assessment and a Part of the Cities and Biodiversity Outlook Project. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London Library of Congress Control Number: 2013950081; 2013.
Barthel S. Sustaining urban ecosystem services with local stewards participation in Stockholm (Sweden). Ecology and Society. 2008;21:305-320.
Daniel TC. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001;54:267–281.
Karjalainen E. The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation– Four case studies in Finland. Doctoral Dissertation. Faculty of Biosciences, Department of Biological and Environ-mental Sciences, The Finnish Society of Forest, Helsinki; 2006.
National Poverty Eradication Programme. Overview of Abuja: Federal Capital Territory; 2003.
Danmole TO. Sustainability and city development: A critique of the implementation of the Abuja Master Plan. Unpublished Paper Presented by Environmental Conservation Research Team, FUT- Akure, Nigeria; 2004.
Office of the Surveyor General of the Federation Republic of Nigeria, OSGOF. Map of Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria Showing Public Parks and Gardens; 2015.
Martinez Alier J, Munda G, O’Neill J. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics. 1998;26(3):277–286.
Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics. 2012;74:8–18.
Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem service assessment. Ecological Indicators; 2013.
Gobster PH. Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the perceived appro-priateness of ecosystem management practices. In: Brunson M. W., Kruger L. E., Tyler C. B., and Schroeder S. A. (Eds.). Workshop on Defining on Social Acceptability Forests and Forestry Practices. General Technical Report PNW-369. Seattle: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 1996;77–98.
Marina G. Aesthetic values of forest landscapes. Master Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Alnarp; 2011.
Ode A. Visual aspects in urban woodland management and planning. Doctoral Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Landscape Planning, Alnarp; 2003.
Evette A, Labonne S, Rey F, Liebault F, Jancke O, Girel J. History of bio-engineering techniques for erosion control in rivers in Western Europe. Environmental Management. 2009;43:972-984.
Preti F, Giadrossich F. Root reinforcement and slope bioengineering stabilization by Spanish Broom (Spartium junceum L.). Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2009;13:1713-1726.
Sofowora A. Medicinal plants and traditional medicines in Africa. 2nd Edition. Spectrum Books: Ibadan, Nigeria; 1982.