Skip to main content

Learning from Small Green Spaces: How Findings on Use and Perception Can Improve the Designing of Urban Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mediterranean Architecture and the Green-Digital Transition

Part of the book series: Innovative Renewable Energy ((INREE))

  • 262 Accesses

Abstract

Small Green Spaces (SGS) are an urban feature that planners consider with increasing interest to regenerate neighborhoods and to promote a healthier and more frequent relationship between people and nature in cities. In this contexts, urban studies have devoted less attention to social dynamics taking place in SGS than to those happening in large urban parks.

This research illustrates the results of a study on human perception and use of SGS in Florence, Italy. The research adopted an exploratory approach with a mixed methods strategy (observation sessions, 50 in-depth interviews, and 430 questionnaires). The analysis is framed within a tripartite model of interaction between people and space as spontaneous appropriation of space through the body, senses, and mind.

The analysis of practices in SGS illustrates how continuous use and proximity make SGS persistent scenarios of users’ daily life, differently from large city parks. Sociality and restorative opportunities afforded by natural features define users’ experiences and SGS appreciation, across different user groups.

Discussion of results illustrates several implications of the theoretical constructs of “functional indetermination” and “non-normativity” that were used to explain users’ perception of SGS as open-ended settings. Functional indetermination is related to the range of practices users can perform in SGS and to the ways opportunities for actions are afforded, both by the SGS natural and designed features. Non-normativity is the perceived freedom from external constraints, often contrasted by users with the experience in other kinds of urban spaces. Both constructs explain how SGS are perceived as spared from the extensive compression of publicness and commodification of other public spaces in contemporary cities.

The understanding of these perceptions feeds back into the design, planning, and management of SGS, with implications for the urban experience at large.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Özgüner, H. (2011). Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research, 36(5), 599–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kothencz, G., & Blaschke, T. (2017). Urban parks: Visitors’ perceptions versus spatial indicators. Land Use Policy, 64, 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mak, B. K. L., & Jim, C. Y. (2019). Linking park users’ socio-demographic characteristics and visit-related preferences to improve urban parks. Cities, 92, 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gaikwad, A., & Shinde, K. (2019). Use of parks by older persons and perceived health benefits: A developing country context. Cities, 84, 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Peschardt, K. K., Schipperijn, J., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2012). Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(3), 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Macintyre, V. G., et al. (2019). “I would never come here because I’ve got my own garden”: Older adults’ perceptions of small urban green spaces. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(11), 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rojas-Rueda, D., et al. (2019). Green spaces and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. The Lancet Planetary Health, 3(11), e469–e477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee, K. E., et al. (2015). 40-second green roof views sustain attention: The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kardan, O., et al. (2015). Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific Reports, 5, 11610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15(1), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Piccinno, G., & Lega, E. (2013). Spatial design for new typologies of places: In-between urban spaces. In B. L. Rogers & A. Sugiyama (Eds.), Space and place: Diversity in reality, imagination, and representation (pp. 41–44). Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson, E. C., & Minor, E. S. (2017). Vacant lots: An underexplored resource for ecological and social benefits in cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 21, 146–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearsall, H., & Lucas, S. (2014). Vacant land: The new urban green? Cities, 40, 121–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cranz, G., & Boland, M. (2004). Defining the sustainable park: A fifth model for urban parks. Landscape Journal, 23(2), 102–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiesi, L. (2016). Territoriality as appropriation of space. How “engaging with space” frames sociality. In J. Dessein, E. Battaglini, & L. Horlings (Eds.), Cultural sustainability and regional development: Theories and practices of territorialisation (pp. 146–161). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brady, E., & Prior, J. (2020). Environmental aesthetics: A synthetic review. People and Nature, 2(2), 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Chiesi, L., & Costa, P. (2022). Small green spaces in dense cities: An exploratory study of perception and use in Florence, Italy. Sustainability, 14(7), 4105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Veríssimo, M., Moraes, M., Breda, Z., Guizi, A., & Costa, C. (2020). Overtourism and tourismphobia: A systematic literature review. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal, 68(2), 156–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Oskam, J. A. (2020). Commodification of the ‘local’ in urban tourism: The Airbnb contradiction. In J. A. Oskam (Ed.), The overtourism debate (pp. 151–170). Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonardo Chiesi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chiesi, L., Costa, P. (2023). Learning from Small Green Spaces: How Findings on Use and Perception Can Improve the Designing of Urban Experience. In: Sayigh, A. (eds) Mediterranean Architecture and the Green-Digital Transition. Innovative Renewable Energy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33148-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33148-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33147-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33148-0

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics