Keywords

1 Theoretical Scenario

The recent COVID-19 sanitary and social emergency are a crucial demonstration of the dual effects between the ongoing urbanization phenomena that represent the contemporary cities’ capacity to be a place of economic, social, and cultural opportunities, and—at the same time—a situation of multiple environmental risk factors for Public Health, well-being, and welfare (Capolongo et al. 2020). The fast change in lifestyles in the period of physical and social distancing (lockdown) which has interested several World and European Countries, its emphasizing and making urgent the cities’ transformation into resilient ecosystems, capable to promote healthy lifestyles (Capolongo et al. 2020) and Public Health, and preventing the spread of the infectious diseases, of today and tomorrow (Lee 2020).

In particular, the urbanization phenomena taking place all over the World, with particular reference to the developed countries and emerging economies, imply a series of reflections on population density as a vehicle for social inequalities and Public Health emergencies (Pisano, et al. 2020). In fact, the population living in urban areas today represents 54%, and forecasts indicate that it will increase up to 70% by 2050 (Talukder 2015).

The recent COVID-19 sanitary and social emergency, moreover, have renewed the demands of a social, environmental, and digital needs to those already in development (Azzoppardi-Muscat et al. 2020),the link between the morpho-typological and functional features of the urban contexts, and the Public Health conditions, had risen up the attention to the Urban Public Health scenario (Capolongo et al. 2018), which shifts the focus of the “concept of health” from a medical model, merely focused on the individual care, to a social model, in which health is the result of various socio-economic, cultural, and environmental factors (Moscato and Poscia 2015).

Among the health determinants, environmental and behavioral risk factors, such as sedentary lifestyle or physical inactivity, represent a key role within the global health balance, with key reference to the risk of onset by the non-communicable diseases (NCDs). In other words, health is no longer an aspect of life exclusively rely on the health protection and promotion, but an individual and collective condition, strongly influenced by the environmental context and by the strategies implemented by local Governments.

The main environmental risk factors that affect our cities are urban heat island effect; air, noise, and soil pollution; vehicular traffic; and urban safety and security.

The possible health-related outcomes are non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like cardio-respiratory diseases and sedentary, cause of diabetes; and mental health disorders like stress condition, ansia, sleeping disorders, and cognitive development.

The main urban health strategies to improve and promote Urban Public Health, and to renovate cities according to the urban resilience to climate change are increasing green and blue infrastructures; promoting biodiversity protection; increase the quantity and quality of outdoor public spaces; reducing vehicular traffic; promoting walkable environment; improving social and functional mix of the ground floor of the city, looking for the city of proximity; promoting the accessibility of the city with the universal design approach; realizing free outdoor places to physical activity like playground; and considering the rooftop of the buildings like a common public floor for the communities, and make it livable or greener.

During the spent three/four waves of the COVID-19 sanitary crisis, urban systems were stressed. During this period, the resilience of our cities and population was tested, highlighting the criticalities in both sanitary systems and urban planning. Urban green spaces (UGS) have proved essential role, not only as a safe recreational space but also as an irreplaceable tool to improve Urban, Public, and Mental Health (World Health Organization 2016), due to its formidable restorative capabilities (Capolongo et al. 2015). Unfortunately, the heterogeneous distribution of UGS inside of urban environments (Gianfredi et al. 2021), and the disparity in quality of such spaces, led to some exclusion phenomena, further underlining their relevance in egalitarian and democratic cities (D’Alessandro et al. 2017).

2 Research Purpose and Method

Aim of the research is a quali-quantitative assessment of the UGS in several Italian metropolitan cities, taking Milan, Turin, Florence, and Bologna as preliminary case studies. One of the 1st phases was to draw up dynamic and descriptive GIS-based maps of the relationships between density of population and of urban fabric (Rydin et al. 2012), UGS’ availability and accessibility, and city users’ perception in terms of recreational opportunities and healthy lifestyles’ promotion propensity.

Geographic information systems (GIS) are a computerized information system that allows the acquisition, recording, analysis, display, return, sharing, and presentation of information deriving from geographic data. The benefits obtained from its application and use are the ability to organize and archive a large amount of geographic data (Zhang and Yu 2020) and to conduct operations that are directly useful for decision-making, within a georeferenced environment (Irvine et al. 2012). GIS is usually conceptualized as a collection of georeferenced layers, which can be classified according to two different types of data: raster and vector. The main difference between the two data series is in the number of properties it can collect. While raster data are able to describe only a single property, vector data can collect a large number of information and therefore of attributes (Oppio et al. 2016). GIS-based software therefore offers the possibility of supporting territorial analyzes allowing a dynamic graphical rendering capable of associating data of a different nature with a direct display of the results obtained in the area under consideration assessment.

The methodological scheme developed and subsequently applied to evaluate the availability of UGS in the major Italian metropolitan cities is presented below. The proposed analyzes exploit the potential of GIS through the use and subsequent processing of vector data. The approach was divided into three phases.

The first phase of data collection consists of three steps: Definition of the decision-making context: It allows to identify the limits of the analysis and to identify the territorial context being assessed; Source map: It consists of the collection of georeferenced data using existing databases; Screening phase: The data previously collected is selected in order to process those deemed suitable for the purposes of the evaluation and research.

The second phase of data processing was developed through spatial operations: definition of buffer areas from the geometries selected in the data collection phase.

The third phase of data analysis consists in reading the partial and total results obtained through the spatial elaborations developed in the previous phase and considering the selected data.

The previously described methodological approach made it possible to evaluate the availability of green areas in metropolitan cities, the most affected in the national context by the COVID-19 pandemic currently underway, which made it possible to highlight the existing vulnerabilities and inequalities, as well as accelerate the most radical dynamics of change.

3 Findings

The municipalities of Bologna, Florence, Milan, and Turin were selected in the regional and municipal areas and presented comparable open-source GIS data available. One of the first phases of the research, preliminary to the further assessment phases, was to draw up—referring to the GIS-based software QGIS—dynamic and descriptive maps of the relationships between density of population, density of the urban fabric, UGS (in all its forms) availability and accessibility, and city users’ perception of those UGS and infrastructures existing in the context of Milano city.

Only the significant green areas for the research purposes were identified and selected; therefore, poor-quality green areas and those insignificant have been eliminated, as they are not accessible, private, and not suitable for recreational / sporting activities, or not capable of creating opportunities in terms of healthy lifestyles’ promotion.

Among the green areas previously identified, it was decided to carry out a further selection that allowed to analyze only the areas with a size greater than 15,000 m2, as they were considered the most representative for their relevant size and sufficient for outdoor physical activity promotion.

Subsequently, three buffer zones were defined, respectively, of 250, 500, and 750 m, which allow to evaluate the distance from the green areas (Figs. 90.1, 90.2, 90.3 and 90.4). These distances can be easily reached on foot from 3 to 10 min and are significant for assessing the quality of the available green areas into the neighborhoods.

Fig. 90.1
A G I S-based map presents the buffer zones in Bologna, in order to evaluate the distance from the green areas.

Bologna: buffer for analysis and definition of the distance from UGS with an area greater than 15,000 m2

Full size image
Fig. 90.2
A G I S-based map displaying the buffer zones of Florence. It evaluates the distance from the green areas.

Florence: buffer for analysis and definition of the distance from UGS with an area greater than 15,000 m2

Full size image
Fig. 90.3
A G I S-based map of Milan evaluates the distance between green areas, and also presents the buffer analysis.

Milan: buffer for analysis and definition of the distance from UGS with an area greater than 15,000 m2

Full size image
Fig. 90.4
A G I S-based map of Turin. It presents the buffer analysis for green areas.

Turin: buffer for analysis and definition of the distance from UGS with an area greater than 15,000 m2

Full size image

By combining the elaborations carried out with the information relating to the resident population in the several census sections (ISTAT 2011), it was possible to quantify the population included in the three buffer zones (250, 500, and 750 m) and therefore evaluate the availability of green areas in the cities of Milan, considering the served population VS excluded from the three defined buffer zones.

The graphs show the results obtained from the application of the methodological process developed (Fig. 90.5). For the four metropolitan cities analyzed, it is thus possible to evaluate the percentage of population residing in a radius of distance of 250 m, 500 m, and 750 m from the selected green areas.

Fig. 90.5
Four bar graphs. 1. The highest point for Bologna is (750 meters, 95%). 2. The highest point for Firenze is (750 meters, 92%). 3. The highest point for Milano is (750 meters, 91%). 4. The highest point for Torino is (750 meters, 81%).

Comparison of the quantification of the population included in the three buffer zones

Full size image

From a first analysis, it is evident that about 90% of the population is served by a quality green area within a 750 m buffer area, only for the city of Turin, the percentage is lower (81%). The buffer zone of 500 m corresponds to 83% of the resident population for the city of Bologna, 75% for Florence, 78% for Milan, and 65% for Turin. Further reducing the distance and considering the buffer of 250 m, we note that the city with the highest percentage of population served is Bologna (61%), followed by Milan (49%), Florence (44%), and Turin (37%). Both the elaborated maps and the obtained graphs show how the resident population in urban areas is not equally served by quality green areas, in particular the central areas which appear to be those with a higher population density and high land consumption.

The proximity to UGS positively influences the well-being of people, the livability of the neighborhoods, and the quality of the public space, bringing environmental, social and economic benefits, as well as effects on health. A densely built area with a reduced availability of green areas on the contrary has negative effects on the urban microclimate, on pollution and consequently on all the previously defined dimensions.

Both the elaborated maps and the graphs obtained show how the resident population in urban areas is not equally served by quality green areas, in particular the central areas are those with a higher population density, with a high consumption of land and less availability of UGS.

4 Conclusions and Research Outlooks

The conducted research is the basis for developing further methods, tools, and indicators to design and assess the environmental quality of the public spaces (Capolongo et al. 2020). It is necessary and crucial to evaluate the public space with qualitative and quantitative standard, highlighting the urban context and public spaces features evidence-based oriented to promote healthy lifestyles. Making cities more walkable and cyclable means to improve their physical factors—as network of public spaces, land use mix, street design, etc.—to create a more convenient, safe, comfortable, and attractive places.

About the outcomes, some benefits are known and certain—like the environmental ones—and published lots of time in the scientific journals that investigate topics like climate change, urban resilience, environmental issues, and Public Health. At the same time, research projects that quantify, at the statistical level, the direct health benefits, are missing (Bedimo-Rung and Gustat 2006). Furthermore, in all urban projects, part of the economic investment should be dedicated to post-intervention forecasting researches (Knobel and Dadvand 2020), aimed to define health evidence-based data and direct correlation with population health status.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by United Nations represent the roadmap that we should follow. The number 3 “good health and well-being” is strongly connected with the number 10 “social inequalities reduction” and social inclusion; the number 11 “sustainable cities and communities” and the number 13 “climate actions for climate resilience” and environmental sustainability.

A multidisciplinary approach is needed, putting together different stakeholders, like Designers (Urban Planners and Architects), Policy and Decision Makers, Public Health experts and City Users, Citizen and Associations (Lenzi et al. 2020), to enhance a direct interaction with decision-maker (Gianfredi et al. 2019),economist, that evaluates the project feasibility, with a cost–benefit approach; and finally, environmental monitoring agencies.