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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Özgüner, H. (2011). Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research, 36(5), 599–620.
Kothencz, G., & Blaschke, T. (2017). Urban parks: Visitors’ perceptions versus spatial indicators. Land Use Policy, 64, 233–244.
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.
Gaikwad, A., & Shinde, K. (2019). Use of parks by older persons and perceived health benefits: A developing country context. Cities, 84, 134–142.
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.
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.
Kuo, M. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.
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.
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.
Kardan, O., et al. (2015). Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center. Scientific Reports, 5, 11610.
Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15(1), 9–17.
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.
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.
Pearsall, H., & Lucas, S. (2014). Vacant land: The new urban green? Cities, 40, 121–123.
Cranz, G., & Boland, M. (2004). Defining the sustainable park: A fifth model for urban parks. Landscape Journal, 23(2), 102–120.
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.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Brady, E., & Prior, J. (2020). Environmental aesthetics: A synthetic review. People and Nature, 2(2), 254–266.
Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)