Wiki source code of 6.2 Perceived quality of urban green, blue and blue-green spaces
Version 1.1 by Emily West on 2022/01/19 10:30
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
1.1 | 1 | = 6.2 Perceived quality of urban green, blue and blue-green spaces = |
| 2 | |||
| 3 | Project Name: CONNECTING Nature | ||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | (% class="table-bordered" %) | ||
| 6 | |=(% style="width: 237px;" %)Pillar of Sustainable Development|=(% style="width: 646px;" %)Societal challenge | ||
| 7 | |(% style="width:237px" %)People|(% style="width:646px" %)6 - Place Regeneration | ||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | (% class="table-bordered" %) | ||
| 10 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 11 | ====== **Description** ====== | ||
| 12 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 13 | Self-reported perceptions of space quality of NBS | ||
| 14 | |||
| 15 | Perceived quality of space is one of the factors to influence the successfulness of public space, especially in terms of engaging users in activities (Fongar et al., 2019). The value of this indicator is seen in the assessment and promotion of social benefits of NBS in general, and as a monitoring tool for specific aspects of individual NBS (e.g., maintenance of the place, attractiveness of place in terms of various senses such as smell, sound, easiness of finding a place, etc.). | ||
| 16 | ))) | ||
| 17 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 18 | ====== **Scale as linked to D2.2 framework** ====== | ||
| 19 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 20 | * National | ||
| 21 | * City | ||
| 22 | * Neighborhood | ||
| 23 | * Street | ||
| 24 | * Household | ||
| 25 | ))) | ||
| 26 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 27 | ====== **Data source [ link to data framework]** ====== | ||
| 28 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 29 | * Survey | ||
| 30 | ))) | ||
| 31 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 32 | ====== **Data needs** ====== | ||
| 33 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 34 | * NBS characteristics for each city/site, more specifically objectives and challenges | ||
| 35 | * Survey assessments of perceived quality | ||
| 36 | ))) | ||
| 37 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 38 | ====== **Expected Outputs** ====== | ||
| 39 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 40 | * Collected before and after NBS implementation | ||
| 41 | * Data collection frequency as a monitoring tool: assessment of the specific aspects of individual NBS that can help maintain, improve NBS (e.g., maintenance of the place, A sense of security in a place, The attractiveness of place in terms of smell, sound and other senses). | ||
| 42 | ))) | ||
| 43 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 44 | ====== **Calculation methods** ====== | ||
| 45 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 46 | * survey | ||
| 47 | * e.g. | ||
| 48 | |||
| 49 | Maintenance of the place: | ||
| 50 | |||
| 51 | * T: Parks and Recreation Questionnaire Results Summary (The City of Ellensburg, 2015). Adapted to purposed of NBS research | ||
| 52 | |||
| 53 | A sense of security in a place: | ||
| 54 | |||
| 55 | * T: Safety concerns issues for park users (Gökçen Firdevs, Y. 2006). Adapted to purposed of NBS research | ||
| 56 | |||
| 57 | Coherence and legibility: | ||
| 58 | |||
| 59 | * T: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. 1989) Adapted to purposed of NBS research | ||
| 60 | |||
| 61 | Place attachment & identity | ||
| 62 | |||
| 63 | * T: The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections (Christopher M. Raymonda, C. M., Brownb,G., Weber, D. 2010) | ||
| 64 | |||
| 65 | Complexity and mystery | ||
| 66 | |||
| 67 | * T: The experience of nature: A psychological perspective (Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. 1989) Adapted to purposed of NBS research | ||
| 68 | ))) | ||
| 69 | |(% style="width:211px" %)((( | ||
| 70 | ====== **Links and references** ====== | ||
| 71 | )))|(% style="width:730px" %)((( | ||
| 72 | * Christopher M. Raymond, C. M., Brown,G., Weber, D. (2010).The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 422-434, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002 | ||
| 73 | * Budruk, M., Thomas, H., Tyrrell, A. (2009). Urban Green Spaces: A Study of Place Attachment and Environmental Attitudes in India. Society and Natural Resources 22(9) pages: 824-839. doi: 10.1080/08941920802628515 | ||
| 74 | * Fongar, C., Aamodt, G., Randrup, T. B., Solfjeld, I. (2019). Does Perceived Green Space Quality Matter? Linking Norwegian Adult Perspectives on Perceived Quality to Motivation and Frequency of Visits, Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2327. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132327 | ||
| 75 | * Gökçen Firdevs, Y. (2006) Safety concerns issues for park users, case study in Zeytýnburnu waterfront park in Istanbul, 1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference Built Environment & Information Technologies, Ankara. https:~/~/www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/06059011047.pdf | ||
| 76 | * Institute of Health Equity (2014). Improving access to green spaces. Local action on health inequalities: health equity evidence reviews 8. Public Health England, University College London. Institute of Health Equity. London | ||
| 77 | * Haas, K., Simson, S., and Stevenson, N. 1998. Older persons and horticulture therapy practice. In: Simson, S. and Strauss, M. (eds.). Horticulture as therapy. Principles and practice. New York, The Food Prod- uct Press. pp. 231-255. | ||
| 78 | * Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambreidge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., S. | ||
| 79 | * Kaplan, and R. Ryan. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press | ||
| 80 | * Lyinch, K., A. (1960). The image of the city. London, The MIT Press | ||
| 81 | * Mackenzie E., Agard, B., Portella, C., Mahangar, D., Barol, J. and Carson, L. 2000. Horticultural therapy in long-term care settings. Journal of American Medical Directors Association 1(2): 69-73. | ||
| 82 | * Memluk, M. Z. (2012). Urban landscape design. In: Ozyavuz, M. (ed.): Landscape planning, pages: 277-289. Rijeka. InTech | ||
| 83 | * The City of Ellensburg (2015). Parks and Recreation Questionnaire Results Summary. https:~/~/www.ci.ellensburg.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/4511 /Online-Survey~-~--Final-Summary?bidId= | ||
| 84 | * Rappe, A. (2005) The influence of a green environment and horticultural activities on the subjective well-being of the elderly living in long-term care. Academic dissertation university of Helsinki department of applied biology | ||
| 85 | * Shahhosseini, Sharif, Maulanour, 2014). Determining sound, smell, and touch attributes in small urban parks using ngt, Faculty of Design & Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia http:~/~/psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/37039/1/144- 536-1-PB.pdf | ||
| 86 | * Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. | ||
| 87 | * Rezaie, H. M, Talebi, M. S. (2019) Security and leisure in urban green spaces (Case Study: Yazd Regional Parks). The Journal of Spatial Planning, 23 (4), pages: 87-121 | ||
| 88 | * Žlender, V. (2017). Accessibility and use of peri-urban green space for inner-city dwellers: A comparative study, Landscape and urban planning, vol. 165, pp 193-205 | ||
| 89 | ))) | ||
| 90 | |||
| 91 | (% class="lead" %) | ||
| 92 | Revisions | ||
| 93 | |||
| 94 | (% class="success" %)|(% style="width:68px" %)**Version**|(% style="width:179px" %)**Name**|(% style="width:112px" %)**Date**|(% style="width:636px" %)**Changes made** | ||
| 95 | (% class="active" %)|(% style="width:68px" %)**0.1**|(% style="width:179px" %)Emily (EcoWise)|(% style="width:112px" %)19/01/2022|(% style="width:636px" %)Factsheet created | ||
| 96 | (% class="active" %)|(% style="width:68px" %) |(% style="width:179px" %) |(% style="width:112px" %) |(% style="width:636px" %) | ||
| 97 | |||
| 98 |
