Search

• Urban green spaces are perceived as integrated systems that provide CES. • CES are co-produced by all landscape elements: biotic, abiotic, and human-made. • Trees, birds, mammals, and water are the most important elements of PUGS' landscape. • People perceive the landscape holistically, regardless of the CES they benefit from. • 'Walk and talk' interviews allow observing the process of CES co-production. This paper aims to understand how cultural ecosystem services (CES) are shaped in public urban green spaces. Landscape, understood as a hierarchical complex of abiotic, biotic, and human-made elements, is considered as the basis of CES supply. Since CES are intrinsically linked to the on-site experience, we invited 27 experts to 'walk and talk' about landscape in five distinctive Public Urban Green Spaces (PUGS) in Warsaw. This qualitative approach allowed us to observe the process of co-production of CES by addressing three specific research aims: (1) to identify the relationships between biotic, abiotic, and human-made elements in PUGS; (2) to establish links between different types of CES provided by PUGS; and (3) to explore the links between CES and specific landscape elements within PUGS. The results indicate that CES are co-produced by all landscape elements. Interviewees most frequently mentioned trees, birds, mammals, and water. In terms of CES, experts most often referred to active recreation, aesthetic experience, and passive recreation as benefits provided by urban greenery. Other CES included opportunities for social interactions, education, a sense of place, and tranquillity. The analysis also revealed several notable co-occurrences between ecosystem services and landscape elements as discussed by the interviewees. Active recreation was particularly distinctive here – unlike other CES, it was primarily associated with abiotic elements of the landscape, with landform being the most frequently mentioned. For other CES biotic elements were more important than abiotic. This study's findings suggest that people perceive the landscape holistically, whether they engage in recreational activities, admire the beauty of nature, or seek tranquillity. It has an important implications for future research of CES, by indicating that CES should be studied comprehensively, incorporating different elements of landscape which co-create them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Comparison of the Polish and Ukrainian models of metropolis management • Delimitation of the Warsaw metropolis • Problems of the development of the Warsaw metropolis • Historical difficulties in the development of the Lviv metropolis [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent times, the emergence of coworking spaces (CSs) has changed not only the way workers cooperate, but also how they carry out their activities. This phenomenon, limited mainly to urban areas, has spread heterogeneously across cities. The paper focuses on the location of CSs in Barcelona, Warsaw and Utrecht, three European cities that differ in terms of the typology of creation of these workspaces. In the three analysed cities, CSs are mainly private initiatives, although in Barcelona they are developed by small entrepreneurs, while in Warsaw they are developed by large multinational CS chains. Using K-density (Kd) functions and density maps, we contribute to the empirical literature by identifying how CSs coagglomerate with the service sectors, how CSs are concentrated in core areas of each city and how these factors differ between cities, taking into account the typology of CSs. We found that the CS location and coagglomeration depend on the spatial structure of the city and its development model; therefore, policymakers should take this into account in order to implement appropriate policy measures to attract CSs • CSs agglomerate differently in cities with different levels of urban hierarchy and reveal different CSs location strategies. • The coagglomeration of CSs with Knowledge Intensive Services (KIS) and symbolic knowledge base firms has been confirmed. • Market and high tech KIS with CSs build an urban entrepreneurial ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]