Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health
Highlights
- Spatial model assessment with a participatory process were combined in one approach;
- Both ecosystem services and disservices for human health were considered;
- Participant-generated green space designs result in a considerable self-assessed increase in use;
- Model-assessed positive and negative health effects of green space designs are limited;
- The combined approach produces clear outcomes regarding health benefits and use of designs.
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Developing a Novel Approach for Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces
2.1.1. Guiding Principles to Develop the Approach
- Assess a wide spectrum of health effects of urban green spaces
- 2.
- Assess both positive and negative health effects of urban green spaces
- 3.
- Stimulate participants to feel personally connected to the effects of urban green space
- 4.
- Health effects best estimated by expert methods must be estimated by experts, and health effects best estimated by self-assessment must be estimated by participants
- 5.
- Make impacts of user designs tangible for the participants
- 6.
- Allow participants to adapt their design
- 7.
- Make full use of the capabilities of the participants
- 8.
- Involve decision makers throughout the process
2.1.2. Suggested Process Steps of the Approach
2.2. Testing the Developed Approach in Two Neighborhoods of Maastricht
2.2.1. Selecting Neighborhoods, Focus Areas, and Participants
- Socio-economic status
- -
- % Households below the social minimum 1
- -
- % Households with a social assistance benefit (allowance) 1
- -
- % Households that have difficulty getting by (making ends meet, self-assessed) 2
- -
- Average income per resident (value inverted for scoring) 1
- Health
- -
- % At risk of an anxiety disorder 2
- -
- % Good perceived health (self-assessed, value inverted for scoring) 2
- -
- % Socially excluded 2
- -
- % Lonely 2
- -
- % Overweight 2
2.2.2. Implementation of the Developed Approach in Two Neighborhoods of Maastricht
- Step 1:
- choose a set of health effects to assess and decide how to assess each health effect
- Step 2:
- orienting neighborhood walks
- Step 3:
- first design session
- Step 4:
- pre-processing participant urban green space designs for expert assessment
- Step 5:
- expert assessments of both the current urban green space and the urban green space design situation
- Step 6:
- feedback meeting with participants to communicate health-related benefits and burdens and adjust the design
- Step 7:
- determine participant change in urban green space use after redesign
- Step 8:
- discuss the method and results with local decision makers: the spatial planners of the municipality
2.2.3. Development and Application of An Evaluation Framework
3. Results
3.1. Implementation of the Developed Approach in Two Neighborhoods of Maastricht
- Steps 2 and 3:
- orienting neighborhood walk and first design session
- Steps 4 and 5:
- expert assessment of current and redesigned urban green space situation
- Steps 6 and 7:
- feedback meeting with participants and determining change in use of the urban green space by the participants
- Step 8:
- discussing the results with local decision makers
3.2. Evaluation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Developed Approach
3.2.1. Strengths of the Developed Approach
3.2.2. Weaknesses of the Developed Approach
4. Discussion
4.1. Major Strengths and Weaknesses
4.2. Recommendations for Improvement
4.3. Recommendations for Further Research
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fang, X.; Li, J.; Ma, Q. Integrating green infrastructure, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions for urban sustainability: A comprehensive literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 98, 104843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafortezza, R.; Sanesi, G. Nature-based solutions: Settling the issue of sustainable urbanization. Environ. Res. 2019, 172, 394–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nesshöver, C.; Assmuth, T.; Irvine, K.N.; Rusch, G.M.; Waylen, K.A.; Delbaere, B.; Haase, D.; Jones-Walters, L.; Keune, H.; Kovacs, E.; et al. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 1215–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- WHO Regional Office for Europe. Urban Green Spaces and Health: A Review of Evidence. 2016. Available online: www.euro.who.int (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- WHO Regional Office for Europe. Urban Green Space Interventions and Health: A Review of Impacts and Effectiveness. 2017. Available online: www.euro.who.int (accessed on 20 December 2018).
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gascon, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Martínez, D.; Dadvand, P.; Rojas-Rueda, D.; Plasència, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Residential green spaces and mortality: A systematic review. A Syst. Rev. Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; De Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- James, P.; Banay, R.F.; Hart, J.E.; Laden, F. A Review of the Health Benefits of Greenness. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep. 2015, 2, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban green space and its impact on human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, R.; Depledge, M.; Maxwell, S. Health and the Natural Environment: A Review of Evidence, Policy, Practice and Opportunities for the Future; University of Exeter: Exeter, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rigolon, A.; Browning, M.H.; Lee, K.; Shin, S. Access to urban green space in cities of the Global South: A systematic literature review. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, M.; Wendel-Vos, W.; Van Poppel, M.; Kemper, H.; Van Mechelen, W.; Maas, J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bosch, M.; Sang, Å.O. Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health—A systematic review of reviews. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being–Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abhijith, K.; Kumar, P.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Baldauf, R.; Pilla, F.; Broderick, B.; Di Sabatino, S.; Pulvirenti, B.; Pulvirenti, B. Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments—A review. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 162, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodnaruk, E.; Kroll, C.; Yang, Y.; Hirabayashi, S.; Nowak, D.; Endreny, T. Where to plant urban trees? A spatially explicit methodology to explore ecosystem service tradeoffs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 457–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehrels, H.; van der Meulen, S.; Schasfoort, F.; Bosch, P.; Brolsma, R.; van Dinther, D.; Geerling, G.; Goossens, M.; Jacobs, C.; de Jong, M. Designing Green and Blue Infrastructure to Support Healthy Urban Living. 2016. Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/384206 (accessed on 12 December 2018).
- Hiemstra, J.A. Groen in de stad: Luchtkwaliteit. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/460539 (accessed on 22 December 2018).
- Brown, G.; Rhodes, J.; Dade, M. An evaluation of participatory mapping methods to assess urban park benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 18–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, J.; Teller, A.; Erhard, M. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services. An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Ispra, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, G.; Fagerholm, N. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassen, N.; Kaufman, P. Examining the role of urban street design in enhancing community engagement: A literature review. Health Place 2016, 41, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Jagt, A.P.; Elands, B.H.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Gerőházi, É.; Møller, M.S.; Buizer, M. Participatory governance of urban green spaces: Trends and practices in the EU. NA 2017, 28, 11–40. [Google Scholar]
- Literat, I. Participatory mapping with urban youth: The visual elicitation of socio-spatial research data. Learn. Media Technol. 2013, 38, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saadallah, D.M. Utilizing participatory mapping and PPGIS to examine the activities of local communities. Alex. Eng. J. 2020, 59, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Li, D.; Larsen, L. Using web-based participatory mapping to investigate children’s perceptions and the spatial distribution of outdoor play places. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 859–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, R.; Gray, S.; Zellner, M.; Glynn, P.D.; Voinov, A.; Hedelin, B.; Sterling, E.J.; Leong, K.; Olabisi, L.S.; Hubacek, K.; et al. Twelve questions for the participatory modeling community. Earth’s Future 2018, 6, 1046–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendoza, G.A.; Prabhu, R. Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria analysis for community-based forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 207, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterling, E.J.; Zellner, M.; Jenni, K.E.; Leong, K.; Glynn, P.D.; BenDor, T.K.; Bommel, P.; Hubacek, K.; Jetter, A.J.; Jordan, R.; et al. Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2019, 7, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vukomanovic, J.; Skrip, M.M.; Meentemeyer, R.K. Making it spatial makes it personal: Engaging stakeholders with geospatial participatory modeling. Land 2019, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oosterbroek, B.; de Kraker, J.; Huynen, M.M.T.E.; Martens, P.; Verhoeven, K. Assessment of green space benefits and burdens for urban health with spatial modeling. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 86, 128023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonzalez-Ollauri, A.; Mickovski, S.B. Providing ecosystem services in a challenging environment by dealing with bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 261–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, L.A.; Conway, T.M.; Eisenman, T.S.; Koeser, A.K.; Barona, C.O.; Locke, D.H.; Jenerette, G.D.; Östberg, J.; Vogt, J. Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry. AMBIO 2021, 50, 615–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravera, F.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M.; Tarrasón, D. Learning from experiences in adaptive action research: A critical comparison of two case studies applying participatory scenario development and modelling approaches. Environ. Policy Gov. 2011, 21, 433–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Kodmany, K. Bridging the gap between technical and local knowledge: Tools for promoting community-based planning and design. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2001, 18, 110–130. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usón, T.J.; Klonner, C.; Höfle, B. Using participatory geographic approaches for urban flood risk in Santiago de Chile: Insights from a governance analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 66, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dougill, A.J.; Fraser, E.; Holden, J.; Hubacek, K.; Prell, C.; Reed, M.; Stagl, S.; Stringer, L. Learning from doing participatory rural research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 57, 259–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries, S.; van Dillen, S.M.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 94, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honold, J.; Lakes, T.; Beyer, R.; van der Meer, E. Restoration in Urban Spaces: Nature Views from Home, Greenways, and Public Parks. Environ. Behav. 2015, 48, 796–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bancroft, C.; Joshi, S.; Rundle, A.; Hutson, M.; Chong, C.; Weiss, C.C.; Lovasi, G. Association of proximity and density of parks and objectively measured physical activity in the United States: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 138, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warburton, D.E.; Nicol, C.W.; Bredin, S.S. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ 2006, 174, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aram, F.; García, E.H.; Solgi, E.; Mansournia, S. Urban green space cooling effect in cities. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Z.; Yang, G.; Zuo, S.; Jørgensen, G.; Koga, M.; Vejre, H. Critical review on the cooling effect of urban blue-green space: A threshold-size perspective. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, K.V.; Paddon, A.; Jimenez, A. Review of world urban heat islands: Many linked to increased mortality. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2013, 135, 022101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.O.; Thundiyil, J.G.; Stolbach, A. Clearing the air: A review of the effects of particulate matter air pollution on human health. J. Med. Toxicol. 2012, 8, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pelucchi, C.; Negri, E.; Gallus, S.; Boffetta, P.; Tramacere, I.; La Vecchia, C. Long-term particulate matter exposure and mortality: A review of European epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health 2009, 9, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wolf, K.L. Urban trees and traffic safety: Considering the US roadside policy and crash data. Arboric. Urban For. 2006, 32, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gassner, F.; Hansford, K.M.; Medlock, J.M. Greener cities, a wild card for ticks? In Ecology and Prevention of Lyme Borreliosis; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 29–33. [Google Scholar]
- Sprong, H.; Azagi, T.; Hoornstra, D.; Nijhof, A.M.; Knorr, S.; Baarsma, M.E.; Hovius, J.W. Control of Lyme borreliosis and other Ixodes ricinus-borne diseases. Parasites Vectors 2018, 11, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pánek, J.; Pászto, V.; Šimáček, P. Spatial and temporal comparison of safety perception in urban spaces. In Proceedings of the Dynamics in GIscience, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 22–24 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Monteiro, M.V.; Doick, K.J.; Handley, P.; Peace, A. The impact of greenspace size on the extent of local nocturnal air temperature cooling in London. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 16, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theeuwes, N.E.; Steeneveld, G.J.; Ronda, R.J.; Holtslag, A.A. A diagnostic equation for the daily maximum urban heat island effect for cities in northwestern Europe. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N.; van den Bosch, M.; Lafortezza, R. The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly—A systematic review. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CBS. Bevolking; Ontwikkeling in Gemeenten Met 100,000 of Meer Inwoners. 2018. Available online: https://statline.cbs.nl (accessed on 10 January 2019).
- GGD Zuid Limburg. Health Monitor Adults and Elderly 2016. 2018. Available online: https://www.gezondheidsatlaszl.nl (accessed on 10 January 2019).
- Beeldmateriaal Nederland. 2018. Available online: https://www.beeldmateriaal.nl/data (accessed on 1 March 2019).
- Tang, Z.; Liu, T. Evaluating Internet-based public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) in environmental planning and management. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 59, 1073–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bush, J.; Ashley, G.; Foster, B.; Hall, G. Integrating green infrastructure into urban planning: Developing Melbourne’s green factor tool. Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csizmady, A.; Treija, S.; Fáczányi, Z.; Balogh, P.I. Participatory design processes for the development of green areas of large-scale housing: Case studies from Budapest and Riga. Crit. Hous. Anal. 2016, 3, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fors, H.; Molin, J.F.; Murphy, M.A.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. User participation in urban green spaces—For the people or the parks? Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 722–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García de Jalón, S.; Chiabai, A.; Mc Tague, A.; Artaza, N.; de Ayala, A.; Quiroga, S.; Kruize, H.; Suárez, C.; Bell, R.; Taylor, T. Providing Access to Urban Green Spaces: A Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis in Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, L.; Holland, R.A.; Ball, J.; Sykes, T.; Taylor, G.; Ingwall-King, L.; Snaddon, J.L.; Peh, K.S. A place-based participatory mapping approach for assessing cultural ecosystem services in urban green space. People Nat. 2020, 2, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyttä, M.; Broberg, A.; Tzoulas, T.; Snabb, K. Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 113, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menconi, M.E.; Tasso, S.; Santinelli, M.; Grohmann, D. A card game to renew urban parks: Face-to-face and online approach for the inclusive involvement of local community. Eval. Program Plan. 2020, 79, 101741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Møller, M.S.; Olafsson, A.S.; Vierikko, K.; Sehested, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A.; van den Bosch, C.K. Participation through place-based e-tools: A valuable resource for urban green infrastructure governance? Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A.; Czepkiewicz, M.; Kronenberg, J. Eliciting non-monetary values of formal and informal urban green spaces using public participation GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, S.Ö.; Pulatkan, M.; Beyazlı, D.; Özen, B.S. User Evaluation of the Urban Park Design Implementation with Participatory Approach Process. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 216, 306–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaňo, S.; Stahl Olafsson, A.; Mederly, P. Advancing urban green infrastructure through participatory integrated planning: A case from Slovakia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veen, E.J.; Ekkel, E.D.; Hansma, M.R.; de Vrieze, A.G. Designing urban green space (UGS) to enhance health: A methodology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassett, D.R., Jr.; Cureton, A.L.; Ainsworth, B.E. Measurement of daily walking distance-questionnaire versus pedometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000, 32, 1018–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- CBS. Onderzoek verplaatsingen in Nederland (OViN) 2017. In Onderzoeksbeschrijving; Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Dessing, D.; de Vries, S.I.; Hegeman, G.; Verhagen, E.; van Mechelen, W.; Pierik, F.H. Children’s route choice during active transportation to school: Difference between shortest and actual route. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, M.J.; Mummery, W.K. GIS or GPS? A Comparison of Two Methods for Assessing Route Taken During Active Transport. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2007, 33, 51–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Joosten, L. How Urban Spatial Design Affects Transport-Related Cycling: A Neighbourhood Comparison in Maastricht. Master’s Thesis, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Rijksoverheid. Kom veilig Thuis, Snelheid, Risico’s. 2023. Available online: https://www.komveiligthuis.nl (accessed on 1 February 2019).
- Yang, Y.; Diez-Roux, A.V. Walking distance by trip purpose and population subgroups. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2012, 43, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huck, J.J.; Whyatt, J.D.; Coulton, P. Spraycan: A PPGIS for capturing imprecise notions of place. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 55, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagerholm, N.; Eilola, S.; Arki, V. Outdoor recreation and nature’s contribution to well-being in a pandemic situation-Case Turku, Finland. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Kyttä, M. Key issues and priorities in participatory mapping: Toward integration or increased specialization? Appl. Geogr. 2018, 95, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canedoli, C.; Bullock, C.; Collier, M.J.; Joyce, D.; Padoa-Schioppa, E. Public participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services: Citizen perception and park management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy). Sustainability 2017, 9, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Step | Name | Instruction for Facilitator of the Approach | Relates to Guiding Principle |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Choose a set of health effects to assess and decide how to assess each health effect | Choose a wide enough spectrum of health effects. Determine which health effects are best assessed by the participants and which are best assessed by an available expert method. | 1, 2 (and 8) |
2 | Orienting neighborhood walk | Organize a walk through the area of interest and visit all UGSs of significance. | 3 (8) |
3 | First design session | Construct maps by drawing lines around the border of the areas of interest. Indicate—within the areas of interest—where participants can or cannot change the current situation on the map. | 3 (8) |
4 | Pre-processing participant urban green space designs for expert assessment | Process the maps such that they are ready for expert assessment of the health benefits selected during Step 1. Consider generalizing or extrapolating designs to make the effects more clear to participants at Step 6. | 4 (8) |
5 | Expert assessment for both the current UGS and UGS design situation | Perform expert assessment of the initial (participatory) UGS designs. Process the results of the expert assessment such that the difference between the current UGS situation and initial design UGS situation is clearly visible for participants; for example, only display hotspots. | 5 (8) |
6 | Feedback meeting with participants | Present the digitized initial UGS designs and explain the health effects. Finally, give the participants the opportunity to make adjustments to their UGS design after being informed about the expert-based health benefits and burdens (‘adjusted UGS design’). | 5, 6 (8) |
7 | Determine participant self-assessed score on a selection of health effects | Conduct surveys, interviews, or other methods to determine UGS usage scores for both the current UGS situation and the adjusted UGS design that includes possible adjustments made by the participants. | 7, 4 (8) |
- | Possibility for iteration of steps 4 to 7 | Optional re-assessment of the adjusted UGS designs by expert and participants by repeating Steps 4 to 7. | 6 (8) |
8 | Report results to local decision makers | Assessment of the final UGS designs by experts. Process the results of the expert assessment such that the difference between the current situation and the adjusted design is understandable for local decision makers. Facilitate an interactive session with the local government. | 8 |
Neighborhood of Most Participants * | Group | Number of Participants | Average Age (Year) |
---|---|---|---|
Pottenberg | Elementary school | 9 | 11 |
Pottenberg | Scouts | 10 | 7 |
Pottenberg | Seniors social meeting group | 12 | 80 |
Wittevrouwenveld | Elementary school | 6 | 11 |
Wittevrouwenveld | Seniors social meeting group | 5 | 55 |
Urban Green Space Benefit | Indicator | Type of Assessment |
---|---|---|
Meeting opportunity increases | Area visiting frequency score 1–5 (never–daily) for use as meeting place | Resident self-assessment |
Stress reduction opportunity increases | Area visiting frequency score 1–5 (never–daily) for use to relax | Resident self-assessment |
Leisure-based physical activity increases | Area visiting frequency score 1–5 (never–daily) for use to sport, play or go for a stroll | Resident self-assessment |
Unattractive view decreases | Unattractive views score (decrease) | Computer modeled |
Heat stress decreases | Temperature (decrease) | Computer modeled |
Air pollution decreases | Air pollutant concentration (decrease) | Computer modeled |
Active transport increases | Walking distance (increase) | Computer modeled |
Urban Green Space Burden | ||
Air pollution increases | Air pollutant concentration (increase) | Computer modeled |
Perceived unsafety increases | Perceived social unsafety score (increase) | Computer modeled |
Tick bite increases | Tick bite chance (increase) | Computer modeled |
Traffic accident increases | Pedestrian invisibility (increase) | Computer modeled |
Group | Current Use | Self-Assessed Expected Use after Design | Summary of Designed Elements |
---|---|---|---|
Elderly (n = 17) | A few times per month | A few times per week | Flowers, solitary trees, street trees, extra dog-walking areas, benches added. Bushes on roundabouts pruned for traffic safety. |
Children (n = 28) | A few times per year | A few times per month to a few times per week | Climbing trees and play trees, paths, flowers, shielding shrubs, play bushes, hills, flowers, fallen trees, stepping stones added. A few trees removed (because of soccer fields, social safety, tick habitat) |
Benefits of UGS (Intended *) | Indicator Value of Current Green Space 2 | Indicator Value after Design 2 |
---|---|---|
Meeting, stress reduction, and physical activity | Used a few times per month 1 | Used a few times per week 1 |
Benefits of green space (additional *) | ||
Unattractive views decrease | 87% | 88% |
Heat stress decreases | 14% (or 0.3 °C) 3 | 19% (or 0.4 °C) 3 |
Air pollution decreases | 0% | 0% |
Active transport increases | 2% (10 m) 4 | 4% (30 m) 4 |
Burdens of green space (additional *) | ||
Air pollution increases | 0% | 0% |
Perceived unsafety increases | 3% | 7% |
Tick bites increase | - | - |
Traffic unsafety increases | 22% | 22% |
Benefits of UGS (Intended *) | Indicator Value of Current Green Space 2 | Indicator Value after Design 2 |
---|---|---|
Meeting, stress reduction, and physical activity | Used a few times per month 1 | Used a few times per month to a few times per week 1 |
Benefits of green space (additional *) | ||
Unattractive views decrease | 94% | 96% |
Heat stress decreases | - | - |
Air pollution decreases | - | - |
Active transport increases | 3% (20 m) 4 | 7% (50 m) 4 |
Burdens of green space (additional *) | ||
Air pollution increases | - | - |
Perceived unsafety increases | 30% | 38% |
Tick bites increase | 100% 5 | 100% (no extra areas) 5 |
Traffic unsafety increases | 78% | 78% |
Criteria Category | Strengths | Weaknesses |
---|---|---|
Data quality for participants |
| - |
Data quality by participants |
|
|
User friendliness |
|
|
Feasibility |
|
|
Usefulness for decision (maker) support |
|
|
Usefulness for participants (residents) |
|
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oosterbroek, B.; de Kraker, J.; Akkermans, S.; Esser, P.; Martens, P. Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health. Land 2024, 13, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010088
Oosterbroek B, de Kraker J, Akkermans S, Esser P, Martens P. Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health. Land. 2024; 13(1):88. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010088
Chicago/Turabian StyleOosterbroek, Bram, Joop de Kraker, Sandra Akkermans, Paola Esser, and Pim Martens. 2024. "Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health" Land 13, no. 1: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010088
APA StyleOosterbroek, B., de Kraker, J., Akkermans, S., Esser, P., & Martens, P. (2024). Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health. Land, 13(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13010088