The role of urban parks for the sus

The role of urban parks for the sustainable city
Anna Chiesura, , Author Vitae
Department of Leisure, Tourism and Environment, Wageningen University Generaal Foulkseweg 13, Wageningen 6703 BJ, The Netherlands
Received 16 September 2002, Revised 23 June 2003, Accepted 8 August 2003, Available online 7 October 2003
Show moreShow less
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003Get rights and content
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
International efforts to preserve the natural environment are mainly concerned with large, bio-diverse and relatively untouched ecosystems or with individual animal or vegetal species, either endangered or threatened with extinction. Much less attention is being paid to that type of nature close to where people live and work, to small-scale green areas in cities and to their benefits to people. Increasing empirical evidence, however, indicates that the presence of natural areas contributes to the quality of life in many ways. Besides many environmental and ecological services, urban nature provides important social and psychological benefits to human societies, which enrich human life with meanings and emotions. The main concern of this paper is to address the importance of urban nature for citizens’ well being and for the sustainability of the city they inhabit. Some results of a survey conducted among visitors of an urban park in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) are presented and discussed. The issues investigated concern people’s motives for urban nature, the emotional dimension involved in the experience of nature and its importance for people’s general well being. Results confirm that the experience of nature in urban environment is source of positive feelings and beneficial services, which fulfill important immaterial and non-consumptive human needs. Implications for the sustainability of the city will be analyzed and discussed.

Keywords
Urban parks; Quality of life; City sustainability

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction
International efforts to preserve the natural environment are mainly concerned either with large, bio-diverse and relatively untouched ecosystems or with individual animal or vegetal species, endangered or threatened with extinction. Less scientific—and political—attention is being paid, on the other hand, to that type of nature close to where people live and work, to small-scale green areas in cities, and to their benefits to urban dwellers. Cities’ sustainability and regeneration strategies mainly focus on man-made and built components of the urban environment. In comparison, attention to the natural components and the green spaces of the urban structure is still poor. Low appreciation of green spaces is also reflected in the recent cuts in the maintenance of budget of many towns (Tyrvainen and Vaananen, 1998).

It is argued, however, that urban parks and open green spaces are of a strategic importance for the quality of life of our increasingly urbanized society.1 Increasing empirical evidence, in fact, indicates that the presence of natural assets (i.e. urban parks and forests, green belts) and components (i.e. trees, water) in urban contexts contributes to the quality of life in many ways. Besides important environmental services such as air and water purification, wind and noise filtering, or microclimate stabilization, natural areas provide social and psychological services, which are of crucial significance for the livability of modern cities and the well being of urban dwellers. A park experience may reduce stress (Ulrich, 1981), enhance contemplativeness, rejuvenate the city dweller, and provide a sense of peacefulness and tranquility (Kaplan, 1983). The hypothesis about the restorative function of natural environments has been tested in many empirical studies. Ulrich (1984), for example, founded that hospital patients who could look out on trees and nature from their windows recovered more quickly than those whose views where restricted to buildings. Later studies have lead to similar results, strengthening the assumption that natural environments have a positive influence on psychological and mental health. Contemporary research on the use of urban parks and forests, for example, verifies beliefs about stress-reduction benefits and mental health (Hartig et al., 1991 and Conway, 2000). In a survey among park’s visitors a significant relation was found between use of the parks and perceived state of health: those who used local parks frequently were more likely to report good health than those who did not (Godbey et al., 1992). Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce relaxed and less stressful states in observers compared with urban scenes with no vegetation. This ability of natural elements to function as “natural tranquillizers” may be particularly beneficial in urban areas where stress is an all too common aspect of daily living (van den Berg et al., 1998). Beside aesthetic, psychological and health benefits, natural features in cities can have other social benefits. Nature can encourage the use of outdoor spaces, increases social integration and interaction among neighbors (Coley et al., 1997). The presence of trees and grass in outdoors common spaces may promote the development of social ties (Kuo et al., 1998). Kuo et al. (1998) also found out that greenery helps people to relax and renew, reducing aggression. Natural environments can also be seen as a domain of active experience providing a sense of challenge, privacy and intimacy, aesthetic and historical continuity. Beside the social and psychological benefits mentioned above, the functions of urban nature can provide economic benefits for both municipalities and citizens. Air purification by trees, for example, can lead to reduced costs of pollution reduction and prevention measures. Furthermore, aesthetic, historical and recreational values of urban parks increase the attractiveness of the city and promote it as tourist destination, thus generating employment and revenues. Furthermore, natural elements such as trees or water increase property values, and therefore tax revenues as well (Tagtow, 1990 and Luttik, 2000).

Beside positive effects, parks may play a negative role on people’s perceptions. Some surveys have reported residents’ feelings of insecurity associated with vandalism, and fear of crime in deserted places (Melbourne Parks, 1983, Grahn, 1985 and Bixler and Floyd, 1997). However, far larger is the empirical evidence of the positive functions of green areas; a study by Kuo and Sullivan (2001) even shows that residents living in “greener” surroundings report lower level of fear, fewer incivilities, and less aggressive and violent behavior.

This paper addresses the importance of urban nature for the well being of the citizens and for the sustainability of the city they live in.

At this point, a brief explanation of what a sustainable city is supposed to be seems necessary.

1.1. The sustainable city
There is no accepted definition of a sustainable city, and as it happened with the concept of sustainable development, many interpretations exist of which characteristics a city should present to be considered sustainable, and many are the criteria and indicators developed to assess them. They often include aspects of urban planning and community development (see www.rec.org).

Some cities have been developing their own sustainability indicators, to try and measure quality of life issues in a meaningful way. This has usually been done as a result of Local Agenda 21 consultations or in response to national government guidelines.2 Beside environmental criteria (water and energy saving, waste recycling, transportation, etc.), quality of life issues are central to all the various definitions of a sustainable city. Aspects such as “amount of public green spaces per inhabitant”, “public parks” and “recreation areas” are often mentioned as important factors to make the city liveable, pleasant and attractive for its citizens.

It is strongly believed that developing more sustainable cities is not just about improving the abiotic and biotic aspects of urban life, it is also about the social aspects of city life, that is—among others—about people’s satisfaction, experiences and perceptions of the quality of their everyday environments (see also Beer, 1994). In the context of this study, the relation between urban parks and city sustainability is addressed through the investigation of the value of urban nature as provider of social services essential to the quality of human life, which in turn is a key component of sustainable development (see also Prescott-Allen, 1991). Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual links and relationship assumed between urban park and city sustainability.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

The role of Urban Parks for The Sustainable City.
Anna Chiesura,, Author Vitae
Department of Leisure, Tourism and Environment, Wageningen University Generaal Foulkseweg 13, Wageningen 6703 BJ, The Netherlands.
Received 16 September 2,002th, Revised 23 June two thousand and three, Accepted 8 August 2003,. Available online 7 October the 2003rd
Show less MoreShow
DOI: 10.1016 / J.landurbplan.2003.08.003Get and rights. efforts to preserve the natural environment are mainly concerned with large, bio-diverse and relatively untouched ecosystems or with individual animal or vegetal species, either endangered or threatened with extinction. Much less attention is being paid to that type of nature close to where people live and work, to small-scale green areas in cities and to their benefits to people. Increasing empirical evidence, however, indicates that the presence of natural areas contributes to the quality of life in many ways. Besides many environmental and ecological services, urban nature provides important social and psychological benefits to human societies, which enrich human life with meanings and emotions. The main concern of this paper is to address the importance of urban nature for citizens' well being and for the sustainability of the city they inhabit. Some results of a survey conducted among visitors of an urban park in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) are presented and discussed. The issues investigated concern people's motives for urban nature, the emotional dimension involved in the experience of nature and its importance for people's general well being. Results confirm that the experience of nature in urban environment is source of positive feelings and beneficial services, which fulfill important immaterial and non-consumptive human needs. The Implications of Sustainability for The City Will be analyzed and discussed. Keywords Urban Parks; Quality of life; City Sustainability ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- 1. Introduction International efforts to Preserve The Environment are mainly natural Concerned with either Large, Bio-diverse and relatively untouched or with Individual Animal or vegetal Ecosystems Species, Endangered or threatened with extinction. Less scientific-and political-attention is being paid, on the other hand, to that type of nature close to where people live and work, to small-scale green areas in cities, and to their benefits to urban dwellers. Cities' sustainability and regeneration strategies mainly focus on man-made and built components of the urban environment. In comparison, attention to the natural components and the green spaces of the urban structure is still poor. Low Appreciation of Green Spaces is also Reflected in The recent Cuts in The maintenance of Budget of Many Towns (Tyrvainen and Vaananen, 1,998). It is argued, however, that Urban Parks and Open Green Spaces are of a Strategic importance for The Quality of. life of our increasingly urbanized society.1 Increasing empirical evidence, in fact, indicates that the presence of natural assets (ie urban parks and forests, green belts) and components (ie trees, water) in urban contexts contributes to the quality of life in. many ways. Besides important environmental services such as air and water purification, wind and noise filtering, or microclimate stabilization, natural areas provide social and psychological services, which are of crucial significance for the livability of modern cities and the well being of urban dwellers. A park experience may reduce stress (Ulrich, 1981), enhance contemplativeness, rejuvenate the city dweller, and provide a sense of peacefulness and tranquility (Kaplan, 1983). The hypothesis about the restorative function of natural environments has been tested in many empirical studies. Ulrich (1984), for example, founded that hospital patients who could look out on trees and nature from their windows recovered more quickly than those whose views where restricted to buildings. Later studies have lead to similar results, strengthening the assumption that natural environments have a positive influence on psychological and mental health. Contemporary research on the use of urban parks and forests, for example, verifies beliefs about stress-reduction benefits and mental health (Hartig et al., 1991 and Conway, 2000). In a survey among park's visitors a significant relation was found between use of the parks and perceived state of health: those who used local parks frequently were more likely to report good health than those who did not (Godbey et al., 1992). Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce relaxed and less stressful states in observers compared with urban scenes with no vegetation. This ability of natural elements to function as "natural tranquillizers" may be particularly beneficial in urban areas where stress is an all too common aspect of daily living (van den Berg et al., 1998). Beside aesthetic, psychological and health benefits, natural features in cities can have other social benefits. Nature can encourage the use of outdoor spaces, increases social integration and interaction among neighbors (Coley et al., 1997). The presence of trees and grass in outdoors common spaces may promote the development of social ties (Kuo et al., 1998). Kuo et al. (1998) also found out that greenery helps people to relax and renew, reducing aggression. Natural environments can also be seen as a domain of active experience providing a sense of challenge, privacy and intimacy, aesthetic and historical continuity. Beside the social and psychological benefits mentioned above, the functions of urban nature can provide economic benefits for both municipalities and citizens. Air purification by trees, for example, can lead to reduced costs of pollution reduction and prevention measures. Furthermore, aesthetic, historical and recreational values ​​of urban parks increase the attractiveness of the city and promote it as tourist destination, thus generating employment and revenues. Furthermore, natural or Elements Such As Trees Water Property values ​​increase, and Therefore Well As Tax revenues (Tagtow, 1,990th and Luttik, the 2 thousandth). Beside positive Effects, Parks May Play a negative role on People's Perceptions. Some surveys have reported residents' feelings of insecurity associated with vandalism, and fear of crime in deserted places (Melbourne Parks, 1983, Grahn, 1985 and Bixler and Floyd, 1997). However, far larger is the empirical evidence of the positive functions of green areas; a Study by Kuo and Sullivan (the 2,001th) Even Shows that Residents Living in "Greener" Surroundings Report Lower Level of Fear, fewer Incivilities, and less aggressive and violent behavior. This Paper addresses The importance of Urban Nature for The Well being of The Citizens. and for The Sustainability of The City Live in they. At this Point, a brief explanation of What is supposed to be a Sustainable City seems necessary. 1.1. The Sustainable City There is no Accepted definition of a Sustainable City, and As IT Happened with The Concept of Sustainable Development, Many interpretations exist of which characteristics a City should Present to be considered Sustainable, and Many are The criteria and indicators Developed to Assess them. . They often include aspects of planning and Urban Development Community (See Www.rec.org). Mostly Cities Have been Developing their own Sustainability indicators, to TRY and measure Quality of Life Issues in a meaningful Way. This has usually been done as a result of Local Agenda 21 consultations or in response to national government guidelines.2 Beside environmental criteria (water and energy saving, waste recycling, transportation, etc.), quality of life issues are central to all the various. definitions of a sustainable city. Aspects Such As "amount of public Green Spaces Per inhabitant", "public Parks" and "Recreation areas" are often mentioned As important factors to Make The City Liveable, PLEASANT and attractive for ITS Citizens. It is Strongly believed that Developing more Sustainable Cities. is not just about improving the abiotic and biotic aspects of urban life, it is also about the social aspects of city life, that is-among others-about people's satisfaction, experiences and perceptions of the quality of their everyday environments (see also Beer,. 1994). In the context of this study, the relation between urban parks and city sustainability is addressed through the investigation of the value of urban nature as provider of social services essential to the quality of human life, which in turn is a key component of sustainable development (. see also Prescott-Allen, 1991). Fig. 1 illustrates the conceptual links and relationship assumed between urban park and city sustainability.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

The role of urban parks for the sustainable city
Anna Chiesura, Author Vitae
Department of Leisure Tourism and Environment,,, Wageningen University Generaal Foulkseweg 13 Wageningen BJ The, 6703, Netherlands
Received 16 September 2002 Revised 23, June 2003 Accepted 8 August 2003 Available,,, Online 7 October 2003
Show moreShow less
DOI: 10.1016 / j.landurbplan.2003.08.003Get rights and content
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


International Abstract efforts to preserve. The natural environment are mainly concerned, with large bio-diverse and relatively untouched ecosystems or with individual. Animal or, vegetal species either endangered or threatened with extinction.Much less attention is being paid to that type of nature close to where people live, and work to small-scale green areas. In cities and to their benefits to people. Increasing, empirical evidence however indicates that, the presence of natural. Areas contributes to the quality of life in many ways. Besides many environmental and, ecological servicesUrban nature provides important social and psychological benefits to human societies which enrich, human life with meanings. And emotions. The main concern of this paper is to address the importance of urban nature for citizens well being and for. ' The sustainability of the city they inhabit.Some results of a survey conducted among visitors of an urban park in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) are presented and, discussed. The issues investigated concern people 's motives for, urban nature the emotional dimension involved in the experience of. Nature and its importance for people 's general well being.Results confirm that the experience of nature in urban environment is source of positive feelings and, beneficial services. Which fulfill important immaterial and non-consumptive human needs. Implications for the sustainability of the city will. Be analyzed and discussed.


Urban Keywords parks; Quality of life; City sustainability

.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

, 1. Introduction
International efforts to preserve the natural environment are mainly concerned either, with large bio-diverse. And relatively untouched ecosystems or with individual animal or vegetal species endangered or, threatened with extinction.? Less scientific - - and political attention is, being paidOn the other hand to that, type of nature close to where people live and work to small-scale, green areas, in cities and. To their benefits to urban dwellers. Cities' sustainability and regeneration strategies mainly focus on man-made and built. Components of the urban environment. In comparison attention to, the natural components and the green spaces of the urban. Structure is still poor.Low appreciation of green spaces is also reflected in the recent cuts in the maintenance of budget of many towns (Tyrvainen. And, Vaananen 1998).

It, is argued however that urban, parks and open green spaces are of a strategic importance for the. Quality of life of our increasingly urbanized society.1 Increasing empirical evidence in fact, indicates that, the presence. Of natural assets (i.e.Urban parks and forests green belts), and components (i.e. Trees water), in urban contexts contributes to the quality. Of life in many ways. Besides important environmental services such as air and water purification wind and noise filtering,,, Or microclimate stabilization natural areas, provide social and, psychological servicesWhich are of crucial significance for the livability of modern cities and the well being of urban dwellers. A park experience. May reduce, stress (Ulrich 1981), enhance contemplativeness rejuvenate the, city dweller and provide, a sense of peacefulness. And, tranquility (Kaplan 1983). The hypothesis about the restorative function of natural environments has been tested in. Many empirical studies.Ulrich (1984), for example founded that, hospital patients who could look out on trees and nature from their windows recovered. More quickly than those whose views where restricted to buildings. Later studies have lead to, similar results strengthening. The assumption that natural environments have a positive influence on psychological and mental health.Contemporary research on the use of urban parks and forests for example, verifies beliefs, about stress-reduction benefits. And mental health (Hartig et al, 1991, and Conway 2000). In a survey among Park 's visitors a significant relation was found. Between use of the parks and perceived state of health:Those who used local parks frequently were more likely to report good health than those who did not (Godbey et al, 1992).? Schroeder (1991) has shown that natural environments with vegetation and water induce relaxed and less stressful states. In observers compared with urban scenes with no vegetation.This ability of natural elements to function as "natural tranquillizers." may be particularly beneficial in urban areas. Where stress is an all too common aspect of daily living (van den Berg et al, 1998). Beside aesthetic psychological and,, Health benefits natural features, in cities can have other social benefits. Nature can encourage the use of, outdoor spacesIncreases social integration and interaction among neighbors (Coley et al, 1997). The presence of trees and grass in. Outdoors common spaces may promote the development of social ties (Kuo et al, 1998). Kuo et al. (1998) also found out that. Greenery helps people to relax, and renew reducing aggression.Natural environments can also be seen as a domain of active experience providing a sense of challenge privacy and intimacy,,, Aesthetic and historical continuity. Beside the social and psychological benefits, mentioned above the functions of urban. Nature can provide economic benefits for both municipalities and citizens. Air purification by trees for example,,Can lead to reduced costs of pollution reduction and prevention measures. Furthermore aesthetic historical and recreational,,, Values of urban parks increase the attractiveness of the city and promote it as, tourist destination thus generating employment. And revenues. Furthermore natural elements, such as trees or water increase property values and therefore, tax revenues. As, well (Tagtow1990, and Luttik 2000).

Beside positive effects parks may, play a negative role on people 's perceptions. Some surveys. Have reported residents' feelings of insecurity associated with vandalism and fear, of crime in deserted places (Melbourne. ,,, Parks 1983 Grahn 1985 and Bixler, and Floyd 1997). However far larger, is the empirical evidence of the positive functions. Of green areas;A study by Kuo and Sullivan (2001) even shows that residents living in "greener." surroundings report lower level, of fear. Fewer incivilities and less, aggressive and violent behavior.

This paper addresses the importance of urban nature for the. Well being of the citizens and for the sustainability of the city they live in.

At, this pointA brief explanation of what a sustainable city is supposed to be seems necessary.

1.1. The sustainable city
There is. No accepted definition of a, sustainable city and as it happened with the concept of sustainable development many interpretations,, Exist of which characteristics a city should present to be considered sustainable and many, are the criteria and indicators. Developed to assess them.They often include aspects of urban planning and community development (see www.rec.org).

Some cities have been developing. Their own, sustainability indicators to try and measure quality of life issues in a meaningful way. This has usually been. Done as a result of Local Agenda 21 consultations or in response to national government guidelines.2 Beside environmental criteria (water and energy saving waste recycling transportation etc,,,.), quality of life issues. Are central to all the various definitions of a sustainable city. Aspects such as "amount of public green spaces per inhabitant",. "Public parks." and "recreation areas." are often mentioned as important factors to make the, city liveablePleasant and attractive for its citizens.

It is strongly believed that developing more sustainable cities is not just. About improving the abiotic and biotic aspects of urban life it is, also about the social aspects of, city life that is - among. Others - about people ', s satisfaction experiences and perceptions of the quality of their everyday environments (see also. Beer, the 1994).In the context of this study the relation, between urban parks and city sustainability is addressed through the investigation. Of the value of urban nature as provider of social services essential to the quality of, human life which in turn is a key. Component of sustainable development (see, also Prescott-Allen 1991). Fig.1 illustrates the conceptual links and relationship assumed between urban park and city sustainability.

.